Meter surge suppression

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:01:42 -0400 RB <***@nospam> wrote:

| I have a question about surge arresting. Seems like I
| read somewhere in the past that induction (electric
| motors) units could not be surge suppressed with normal
| suppressors. My electric company is offering a surge
| unit to go in my meter outside. I already have surge
| protection on all my electronic items such as computers
| stereo etc. Is there any way the adding the outside
| supressor to cover the entire house would do any good
| (or harm ) to the Frig, Freeze and Air Cond. Compressor?

The typical home has these appliances. If they were to regularly cause
problems to these surge protectors, it would be impractical to use them.

| ----------offer by my electric provider
| Outside at meter for $6.oo a month.
| A surge arrester installed behind your electric meter gives
| you around-the-clock protection for home appliances like
| your washer, dryer, refrigerator and microwave oven.

How well this will work depends on all other electricals (phone, cable TV,
TV antenna, etc) coming into your house. Everything needs to be grounded
together for maximum protection. Not doing so can actually make a few
cases of possible strikes worse. But if you have everything grounded the
right way, including the meter base protector, then it should be an overall
advantage to add it. Do not get rid of the individual plug-in protectors,
because they still provide additional protection. Be sure the electric
company installs it correctly with its ground going to a common set of
grounding electrodes where everything else is connected. If they don't
do that, and just depend on the ground going through the breaker panel or
the service drop, then it becomes a minimal level of protection.

That said, I'm distrustful of the electric company surge protector because
of the uncertainty of knowing that it is working. A consumer purchased
would have the incentive to be sure you know when the protection has failed
(if not going so far as to give even a false indication of failure) since
they don't make money on dead protectors. But in the case of renting from
the power company, and being one you can only do a minimal inspection of
for yourself, where is the incentive for the power company to make sure it
is working? They've got you on the hook for $6 extra a month. If you have
damage, they can claim it came in by a means other than the power lines (and
in most cases this would be true), and not honor any replacement guarantees.
And if that surge protector gets "surged out", how quickly are they going to
replace it?

My preference is for a homeowner owned whole-house protector, such as the
ones that fit into a breaker panel in the empty spaces for 2 or 4 breakers.
If your home has the space for a completely separate box to host the surge
protector, that might even be better.

If you are thinking that a whole house protector will let you give up having
all those power strip based plug-in surge protectors, then you are on the
wrong course.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

2008-09-02 23:15:57 UTC

I do have "all" mentioned items grounded with the
exception of cable TV, I can see no evidence any
ground on it (as far as going to my house ground
cable and rods). It is just a coax coming into the
house and straight thru the splitter manifold.
You mentioned some very interesting concepts
and things to think about in the purchase of a
meter rented whole house protector. Some make
me somewhat skeptical that it is worth the money.
But it would appear that a conversation I had
with an electronic group long ago is not readily
seen as an issue by readers this time around.
(the induction motor surge protection issue thing)
I remember him telling me that he knew of no
surge suppressors available retail that would
protect such items. And that under certain
circumstances standard available surge suppressors
could actually make the situation worse for induction
loads.
In any case I appreciate your input, I will have to
think awhile about the Power Company offer.

w_tom

2008-09-03 01:49:05 UTC

Will you spend $25 or $150 per appliance for protection? What is
the appliance most critical during a thunderstorm. Smoke detector?
Fire alarm system? Where is the protector for those? Only from the
'whole house' protector that costs about $1 per protected appliance.

One 'whole house' protector costs also provides effective
protection ... the so ciritical 'less than 10 foot' connection to
earth. That wire length is why a power strip protector is grounded
(for human safety ) but is too far from earth ground for surges
(transistor safety).

Summarized is a simplified version of an elelctrical engineering
concept called impedance. Every incoming wire must connect short to
earth either via a protector (telephone, AC electric) or directly
(cable TV, satellite dish, overhead TV antenna). If your cable is not
earthed, then your cable also violates post 1990 National Electrical
Code requirements. Earthing must exceed those human safety
requirements to provide surge protection (ie. less than 10 feet, no
sharp bends, no splices, not inside any metallic material, separated
from all non-earthing wires, connected to a single point earth ground,
etc).

Inductive loads should be very surge tolerant. However, if powered
by a plug-in UPS, well, these UPSes typically are most destructive to
samll inductive loads when the UPS is in battery backup mode. Many
install these UPSes for surge protection - a myth. Some most
destructive electricity to inductive devices (ie small electric
motors) is the dirty electricity from UPSes when in battery backup
mode.

Why are these UPSes (also called computer grade UPSes) so acceptable
to computers? Computers are so robust as to make these UPS generated
spikes irrelevant.

2008-09-03 10:17:34 UTC

Thanks for some reverse arguments to the meter protection.
I still thinking about it. And you gave some real insight into
induction loads.
I not sure the cable isn't grounded. I just cannot see any
evidence of it at the manifold entrance. Maybe the coax
is ground within it's own system at the street pole or possibly
from inside the Cable Box plug in to a ground outlet, although
this would be a distance issue it would appear ?
I have survived for 28 yrs at this same location without any
"noticeable" surge damage. But granted I have had strip protection
on many inside items, of which by the way the power company
still advises (and sells) even if I purchase the meter protection.
You guys have definitely gave me the insight I asked for.
Now I have to make a decision.

w_tom

2008-09-03 13:07:48 UTC

Post by RB
I not sure the cable isn't grounded. I just cannot see any
evidence of it at the manifold entrance. Maybe the coax
is ground within it's own system at the street pole or possibly
from inside the Cable Box plug in to a ground outlet, although
this would be a distance issue it would appear ?

Earthing at the street would be part of your surge protection
system; but another part. Your earthing is secondary protection.
Earthing at the pole is another completely different protection layer;
primary protection.

Grounding from the cable to single point earth ground should be
obvious. When completely removing cable from older (less responsible)
cable companies (upgrading to RG-6), new cable companies routinely
installed an earth ground. Some make that short connection to earth
from a splitter. Some use a ground block (sold for about $2 in Lowes,
Home Depet, etc) to connect to earth. Some put that earthing
connection inside a gray box that protects those connections from the
weather. But a properly installed cable must have that connection
to earth as required by human safety standards - the National
Electrical Code. And then that ground must have no splices, no
sharp bends, separated from other non-earthing wires, etc to make that
earthing better - for transistor safety.

Yes, also inspect your primary protection system. Both cable and AC
electric must make these connections::
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Your secondary protection system should be obvious if it exists.
The ground electrode used by telephone and AC electric is the only
earth ground also used by cable TV. Trace back every wire from that
only earthing electrode. If properly earthed, each utility should
make a 'less than 10 foot connection', etc to that electrode.

Sometimes single point earthing is not installed. One utility shows
how that ground is best installed and how to upgrade a defective
earthing system:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-03 15:57:48 UTC

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 06:17:34 -0400 RB <***@nospam> wrote:

| Thanks for some reverse arguments to the meter protection.

His was not a reverse argument. Whole house protection is, and always has
been, a good thing. The issue I raise is whether that protection is installed
correctly, and conveniently. I suggest that doing such whole house protection
as a base unit that plugs into the meter base, and has the meter plug into it,
is not the best way to achieve whole house protection. The issues with it
include the inability to manage it yourself (you are not allowed to remove
devices in the meter base), and possibly the inability to even know if it is
still performing properly. There can also be the issue of whether or not it
is grounded correctly.

Go look at your meter base and see if it has a ground wire going to earth.
If your breaker panel is installed correctly, it will have one or two ground
wires. These are connected to the neutral at that panel (if done right).
But the ground path for most meter bases is the neutral wire itself, going
through the panel and back out. This could be a short path and not too bad
if the meter and panel are back to back at the same spot on the wall. But
if there is any distance from the meter to the panel, that degrades the
effectiveness of the meter are a grounding location.

It may be the case that the utility will add ground wires from the meter to
run separately to ground. The correct installation would involve these new
ground wires being bonded properly to the existing ground wires that come from
the panel. And if there are two of them from the panel there must be two of
them from the meter.

When comparing one type of whole house protection at the meter, to another
type of whole house protection at the panel, the panel based protection is
preferred in almost all cases. The reasons include a more direct path to
ground (common mode surges must be shunted to ground to be able to reduce
them effectively), and the convenience of "being in control" to replace the
protector more readily (some types have a plug in unit that can be unplugged
when the protector has been "shot"). And even if it is not that convenient,
and requires opening the panel, at least an electrician of your choice can
do this for you.

| I not sure the cable isn't grounded. I just cannot see any
| evidence of it at the manifold entrance. Maybe the coax
| is ground within it's own system at the street pole or possibly
| from inside the Cable Box plug in to a ground outlet, although
| this would be a distance issue it would appear ?

It needs to be grounded at your house regardless of the street pole/pedestal
grounding. Grounding coax cable is typically done by means of a rather small
connector block that has 2 ports for coax to be connected, and a terminal to
attach a ground wire. These can be smaller than an inch in size. This will
directly connect the shield of the coax to ground. Internally it will have
a spark gap and/or other means to let a high voltage on the center wire jump
over to ground at that point.

| I have survived for 28 yrs at this same location without any
| "noticeable" surge damage. But granted I have had strip protection
| on many inside items, of which by the way the power company
| still advises (and sells) even if I purchase the meter protection.

Has your house burned down recently, or at any time in the past 28 years?
If not, why do you need fire insurance?

| You guys have definitely gave me the insight I asked for.
| Now I have to make a decision.

Please don't make that decision based on incomplete information. And do not
assume that any one means of protection alone ever gives you 100% protection.
Even when you have every known means suitable for the best known protection
in place, it's still not 100% (but it gets higher that way). There is no
such thing as perfect protection. Part of the decision process is economics.

w_tom

2008-08-31 06:55:39 UTC

Just because it is called a surge protector means it is surge
protection? Nonsense. Those existing protectors - where is the
manufacturer spec that lists each type of surge and protection from
those surges. If a typical product from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, or
Monster Cable - it only protects from a type of surge that is
typically not destructive.

All appliances contain protection. But the typically destructive
surge overwhelms that protection to obtain earth ground. Effective
protection for white appliances and all electronics means the surge
must be earthed before entering a building. Once permitted inside,
there are too many conductive paths for a surge to find earth ground
destructively.

Your telco connects to overhead wires all over town. Do they use
plug-in protectors? Of course not. Telcos need protector that
actually works. Telcos use protectors where each wire enters the
building AND that makes a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
single point earth ground. How do they make that protection even
better? Protectors are located distant from electronics - up to 50
meters separated from electronics.

Protection is about diverting surge energy. Surge energy not
absobed by earth may then be dissipated destructively in household
appliances. Surges permitted inside a building can overwhelm
protection already inside all appliances.

One 'whole house' protector is massive protection tens or 100 times
less money. But again, why is that meter protector so effective? Why
do plug-in protectors not even list protection in their spec sheets?
How many feet from each incoming AC electric wire, through the
protector, to earth ground? Less than 10 feet? Does the telephone
'whole house' protector also connect short to that same earth ground?
If not, then surge protection is compromised. Does cable TV use a
wire to connect short to that same earthing electrode? Then all cable
TV appliances have protection.

Utility will provide the protector. But you are reponsible for
providing the protection - that single point earth ground. Your
earthing must meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements. What
defines better earthing? See the 4 Jul 2007 post in comp.sys.mac.comm
entitled "DSL speed" at
http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef

Above discusses secondary protection - the 'whole house' protector.
Also inspect your primary surge protection 'system':
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-03 16:25:29 UTC

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:55:39 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:

| Just because it is called a surge protector means it is surge
| protection? Nonsense. Those existing protectors - where is the
| manufacturer spec that lists each type of surge and protection from
| those surges. If a typical product from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, or
| Monster Cable - it only protects from a type of surge that is
| typically not destructive.

Most surges are non-destructive. But these are not of any concern. It
is the destructive surges we need to protect from. And this protection
is generally going to just reduce them to a non-destructive level.

| All appliances contain protection. But the typically destructive
| surge overwhelms that protection to obtain earth ground. Effective
| protection for white appliances and all electronics means the surge
| must be earthed before entering a building. Once permitted inside,
| there are too many conductive paths for a surge to find earth ground
| destructively.

That depends on the type of surge. A common mode surge will be more of
an issue here than a differential mode surge. It is also possible to
have a combination surge.

| Your telco connects to overhead wires all over town. Do they use
| plug-in protectors? Of course not. Telcos need protector that
| actually works. Telcos use protectors where each wire enters the
| building AND that makes a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
| single point earth ground. How do they make that protection even
| better? Protectors are located distant from electronics - up to 50
| meters separated from electronics.

Telcos need to protect in a different way than and end appliance. They
do have the advantage of more convenient ground access. And they need
to use ground more because of the spread out nature of the phone wires.

This does NOT mean that plug-in protectors are ineffective for the purpose
they are intended. They in fact ARE effective ... in a certain way to do
certain kinds of protection. But they are definitely not 100% effective.

If you define "effective protection" as 100%, then you most certainly are
very naive.

| Protection is about diverting surge energy. Surge energy not
| absobed by earth may then be dissipated destructively in household
| appliances. Surges permitted inside a building can overwhelm
| protection already inside all appliances.

This is not completely true. Protection has multiple aspects, of which
diverting surge energy to a non-destructive, or in-consequential, point
is just one aspect. Differential mode is another aspect that is not so
easy to divert. But it can be dealt with to some degree by having the
surge muted by crossing the surge over with its opposite polarity on the
other wire.

Surge rise time is also another aspect, and both differential and common
mode surges have this aspect issue. Common mode fast rise times usually
dimish fairly effectively on their own over some distance of wire. But
differential mode does not dimish as effectively. A combination of a
diversion of ONE WIRE to ground (the ground bond itself at the panel),
which diverts half of the surge to ground, ends up with a combination
mode remaining surge. Then the branch circuit wiring further dimishes
the surge by induction applicable to the common mode portion of that
surge. The plug-in protector then then quenches the differential surge.
The common mode would have very little fast-rise impulse.

Still, many surges can get all the way through.

Just understand that plug-in protectors do half the job, and are effective
if designed, manufactured, and installed correctly ... for the purpose they
are intended for (which is not for 100% of surges).

| One 'whole house' protector is massive protection tens or 100 times
| less money. But again, why is that meter protector so effective? Why
| do plug-in protectors not even list protection in their spec sheets?
| How many feet from each incoming AC electric wire, through the
| protector, to earth ground? Less than 10 feet? Does the telephone
| 'whole house' protector also connect short to that same earth ground?
| If not, then surge protection is compromised. Does cable TV use a
| wire to connect short to that same earthing electrode? Then all cable
| TV appliances have protection.

The meter protector will not protect from all types of surges, either. It
can be effective for differential surges even if not grounded, depending on
its design. It can have protection from common mode surges if grounded in
a proper way (and grounding THROUGH the metal conduit to the panel, and from
there through the metal panel, and then to the ground wires, is a POOR path
to ground for a surge. Protection needs to be installed where it has its
OWN short, straight, minimally inductive path to ground.

| Utility will provide the protector. But you are reponsible for
| providing the protection - that single point earth ground. Your
| earthing must meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements. What
| defines better earthing? See the 4 Jul 2007 post in comp.sys.mac.comm
| entitled "DSL speed" at
| http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef
|
| Above discusses secondary protection - the 'whole house' protector.
| Also inspect your primary surge protection 'system':
| http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Effective protection is a SYSTEM. Effectiveness is meeting economic goals.

w_tom

2008-09-04 13:20:39 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
If you define "effective protection" as 100%, then you most certainly are
very naive.

One 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance as

One 'whole house' protector is for both differential mode and common
mode transients. At $25 or $150 per appliance, that plug-in protector
is only for differential mode surges - the typically not destructive
surge. Differential mode surges are trivial; made further irrelevant
by protection designed inside all appliances. For example, computer
power supplies must withstand over 1000 volt surges without damage.
But a massive surge (many times higher voltage - the typically
destructive surge) means using a protector that protects from all
types of surges. A plug-in protector only protects from a typically
non-destructive surge. A 'whole house' protector protects from all
surges.

Yes, if spending another $3000 to add an irrelevant tenth percents,
then by all means spend that money. But telcos direct less money into
what does more - effective solutions. Overhead wires all over town
means a telco suffers about 100 surges during every thunderstorm. A
homeowner typically suffers one such surge every seven years. And
still the telco does not waste money on plug-in protectors.
Effective is one protector (about $1 per protected appliance) that is
well over 99% protection. A plug-in protector for $25 or $150 per
appliance that does not protect from the typically destructive surge?
That is not effective. That is money wasted.

Surges that damage household appliances are same surges that a telco
must confront. But the telco will suffer maybe 100 surges during
every thunderstorm. A home will suffer maybe one surge every seven
years. Still the telco does not waste money on plug-in protectors.
Why? Telcos also need effective protection. That means getting
closer to 100% while spending less money.

All appliances need this protection. Do we spend $25 or $150 per
appliance and leave many critical appliances (dishwasher, GFCI, smoke
detector, furnace) completely unprotected? Or do we direct that money
into better earthing so that a less expensive solution is well over
99% protection? Nobody said protection is 100%. The word effective
was obvious. IEEE even provides numbers: 99.5% protection.

If a plug-in protector is necessary, then plug-in protectors are
absolutely necessary for every appliance - especially the furnace,
smoke detectors, and dishwasher. Why spend tens or 100 times more
money for protectors that only add another 0.1%- for near zero
protection? Spending less money on better earthing means better
protection for everything - including dishwasher, smoke detectors,
etc. One destructive surge every seven years made irrelevant only by
a 'whole house' protector and better earthing. Obviusly that was not
defined as 100% protection. But earthing a whole house' protector is
effective protection - and from all types of surges.

At $8 per month, a utility is reaping massive profits. Since a
'whole house' Cutler Hammer protector sell for even less than $50 in
Lowes, well, an even more expensive 'whole house' protector divided by
84 months (seven years) is only $1 per month. Of course, a properly
sized 'whole house' protector should be undamaged even ten years
later.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-04 20:55:57 UTC

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 06:20:39 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 3, 12:25 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> If you define "effective protection" as 100%, then you most certainly are
|> very naive.
|
| One 'whole house' protector for about $1 per protected appliance as
| described by numbers from IEEE Green Book:
|> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
|> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
|> not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
|> providing only 99.5-99.9% protection.
|
| One 'whole house' protector is for both differential mode and common
| mode transients. At $25 or $150 per appliance, that plug-in protector
| is only for differential mode surges - the typically not destructive
| surge. Differential mode surges are trivial; made further irrelevant
| by protection designed inside all appliances. For example, computer
| power supplies must withstand over 1000 volt surges without damage.
| But a massive surge (many times higher voltage - the typically
| destructive surge) means using a protector that protects from all
| types of surges. A plug-in protector only protects from a typically
| non-destructive surge. A 'whole house' protector protects from all
| surges.

Wrong.

Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and also
protect common mode by potential balancing.

They are not 100% effective at either type. No protection is 100%.

Where common mode surges have longer rise times, potential balancing
can avoid the destruction from a common mode surge. This is because
the various components of the appliance will "see" the same voltage
at the same time, or nearly so. When a slower/longer rise time, the
differences due to reactive components can be below the threshhold
of damage.

Short rise time common mode surges can be destructive because they do
impart a higher potential difference between components inside the
appliance.

Short rise time common mode surges are protected against by filtering.
For power connections, this is easy to filter because all frequencies
above 60 Hz can be removed without an impact on the service. This is
a little more difficult for phone wires, and much more difficult for
cable TV or an antenna wire (because you want the VHF/UHF frequencies).

| Yes, if spending another $3000 to add an irrelevant tenth percents,
| then by all means spend that money. But telcos direct less money into
| what does more - effective solutions. Overhead wires all over town
| means a telco suffers about 100 surges during every thunderstorm. A
| homeowner typically suffers one such surge every seven years. And
| still the telco does not waste money on plug-in protectors.
| Effective is one protector (about $1 per protected appliance) that is
| well over 99% protection. A plug-in protector for $25 or $150 per
| appliance that does not protect from the typically destructive surge?
| That is not effective. That is money wasted.

You seem to continue to assume that the type of protection appropriate
for utility networks is appropriate for everything. This is not true.
Telco (and cable and power utility) protection is based on the fact that
grounding is available rather uniformly along the network. Grounding is
usually inappropriate at the end usage appliance. So a different kind
of protection is used there. Entrance protection does involve grounding
for its most effective form.

| Surges that damage household appliances are same surges that a telco
| must confront. But the telco will suffer maybe 100 surges during
| every thunderstorm. A home will suffer maybe one surge every seven
| years. Still the telco does not waste money on plug-in protectors.
| Why? Telcos also need effective protection. That means getting
| closer to 100% while spending less money.

Here is another case of w_tom using a truthful statement in a way that
is inappropriate. While it is true that utility networks face the same
kinds of surges as a homeowner (there are two basic kind, differential
mode and common mode, where almost all surges are a mix of both types),
it is NOT true that the same type of protection is to be used.

Where grounding is available and is safe to use, grounding based
protection is appropriate.

Where grounding is unavailable or is unsafe to use, which is the case
for almost all end point usages of appliances, then a different kind
of protection is appropriate. Grounding is usually unsafe at the end
appliance because it opens the wiring up to ground differential surges
(a kind of surge flowing through the ground).

Utility networks also face the ground surge issues, but balance out
these issues with careful wiring. A large ring ground around a home
would be an example of a homeowner that deals with this in a way that
allows him to use grounding protection at many end usage appliances.
This is also an example of a homeowner who is out a few tens of thousands
of dollars for a little bit more protection. His money would be better
spent in most cases by stocking a redundance supply of appliances.

BTW, stocking replacements *IS* a valid form of "protection" where the
goal is to be able to re-establish operability within a reasonable time
frame. For low cost appliances, this can be effective. For example I
really do stock a 2nd backup wireless router for my internet connection.
Not only is it stocked, but it is also configured and tested. I can
readily switch between them at any time. If a surge blows out my 1st
router (it is NOT attached to a plug-in protector), I can simply put in
the 2nd router, then go online and order a 3rd router to replenish my
stock. I have determined that in the financial sense, this is the most
effective way to protect against destructive surges.

FYI, my computers access the internet wirelessly via a wireless bridge
on the LAN. Every computer (5 computers plus the bridge) are connected
to power via a _filtered_ plug-in surge protector (quenches differential
mode, and mitigates fast rise times of common mode).

| All appliances need this protection. Do we spend $25 or $150 per
| appliance and leave many critical appliances (dishwasher, GFCI, smoke
| detector, furnace) completely unprotected? Or do we direct that money
| into better earthing so that a less expensive solution is well over
| 99% protection? Nobody said protection is 100%. The word effective
| was obvious. IEEE even provides numbers: 99.5% protection.
|
| If a plug-in protector is necessary, then plug-in protectors are
| absolutely necessary for every appliance - especially the furnace,
| smoke detectors, and dishwasher. Why spend tens or 100 times more
| money for protectors that only add another 0.1%- for near zero
| protection? Spending less money on better earthing means better
| protection for everything - including dishwasher, smoke detectors,
| etc. One destructive surge every seven years made irrelevant only by
| a 'whole house' protector and better earthing. Obviusly that was not
| defined as 100% protection. But earthing a whole house' protector is
| effective protection - and from all types of surges.

No protection is necessary. Many people have had little or no trouble from
surges without any surge protection in place at all. While most homes do
have grounding, some do not even have this.

Some appliances are more sensitive. That is, they can be damaged with a
smaller weaker surge than others can be. Computers are an example of an
appliance that is not only especially sensitive, but is often more expensive
to replace, more critical for some people, and is more exposed due to being
connected directly to telephone or cable wiring (e.g. has multiple connections).

While a dishwasher or refrigerator can be expensive, they tend to be much less
sensitive. That is changing as these devices have small computers in them
more and more these days. Hopefully there is some _internal_ surge protection
for the sensitive control module.

| At $8 per month, a utility is reaping massive profits. Since a
| 'whole house' Cutler Hammer protector sell for even less than $50 in
| Lowes, well, an even more expensive 'whole house' protector divided by
| 84 months (seven years) is only $1 per month. Of course, a properly
| sized 'whole house' protector should be undamaged even ten years
| later.

Mr. w_tom likes to promote whole house entrance protection. I do, too.
The difference between us is that Mr. w_tom generally claims that plug-in
protectors are ineffective. He then goes on to describe ONE aspect of a
surge that they are least effective against as the basis for his argument.
He fails to describe that these devices are effective to a certain degree
on aspects of surges that can still get past a whole house protector, or
that arrive in a way that does not involve the whole house protector.

I promote finding the best _combination_ of protection for each individual's
particular circumstances. That is not always the same answer for each. But
the big problem is, determining the correct system of protection requires an
understanding of _all_ aspects of surges that is beyond Mr. w_tom's level of
understanding.

w_tom

2008-09-05 12:46:52 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and also
protect common mode by potential balancing.

Then apply the numbers. That differential mode transient is
typically so small as to not damage anything. A 'whole house'
protector for common mode surges ALSO 'quenches' differential mode
surges. A tiny differential mode transient is made even smaller by
one 'whole house' protector.

Yes, if money has no value, then by all means spend an additional
$3000 for plug-in protectors on everything. If they are so necessary,
then such protectors are especially critical on smoke detectors - the
most important household appliance during surges. Spend that $3000
for the additional tenth percent protection. Let's see. Surges
typically average once every seven years. As the IEEE Standard notes,
one properly earthed 'whole house' protector is 99.5% to 99.9%
protection. That protector is about $1 per protected appliance. Now
we should spend another $25 or $150 per appliance for the extra 0.1%?
Damning numbers.

Meanwhile, we had previously traced surge damage directly to plug-in
protectors connected (and too close) to powered off networked
computers. Those plug-in protectors gave the surge alternative paths
(around the computer's power supply and into its motherboard). That
surge found earth ground from AC electric, through some powered off
computers, through the network and to earth via a third computer's
modem. A destructive surge path that would not exist with no plug-in
protectors AND if using a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
One may also conclude that damage would not happen if using both a
'whole house' protector and plug-in protector. Still, the much more
expensive plug-in protector did nothing useful in every scenario AND
contributed to damage of powered off computers. Damage because an
earthed 'whole house' protector did not exist.

If the plug-in protector provided supplemental protection, then why
did it earth a surge destructively through that network of powered off
computers? Why do telcos also not waste money on plug-in protectors?

A plug-in protector is only for differential mode surges as Phil
notes. It does not even claim to protect from the typically
destructive common mode surge - as Phil confirms. What makes those
trivial differential mode surges irrelevant? Computers are designed
to withstand 1000+ volts - well beyond what differential surges
typically are. And then the 'whole house' protector also 'quenches'
differential mode surges.

Telcos, radio stations, etc all suffer these same surges - just more
often. Same surge protection that was standard in those facilities 50
years ago is required in other buildings where transistors are now
also routine - such as homes. It is the same common mode surge
entering a building to find earth ground - in homes or in utility
buildings - or in radio stations - or munitions lockers. Same surge
always means diverting energy into earth before that energy can enter
the building. Where protection must work, the one solution that must
always be installed is a 'whole house' protector AND (even more
important) better earthing.

Spend a $hundred for well over 99% of the protection. If that is
not good enough, spend $thousands for the trivial tenth percent
protection - plug-in protectors. Once we apply the numbers, then
obvious is why even telcos (whose equipment must never fail) also do
not spend money on ineffective plug-in protectors. Money is better
spent upgrading what provides protection - earthing.

Numbers are damning. Differential mode transients are typically so
small as to not overwhelm protection inside every appliance. Again,
every appliance contains protection. If earthing is sufficient, then
the 'whole house' protector alone provides more than sufficient
protection for homes. If more is needed, then upgrade the earthing.
If one still 'feels' more is needed, then by all means, spend $3000 on
plug-in protectors for that trivial improvement. We even traced surge
damage though equipment because plug-in protectors were used and an
earthed 'whole house' protector was not installed. Effective is the
well proven solution that costs about $1 per protected appliance AND
protects everything. If plug-in protectors are necessary, then one is
absolutely necessary on the furnace, every bathroom GFCI, and smoke
detectors, All are life critical appliances that either need that
protection OR have sufficient protection with only one properly
earthed 'whole house' protector.

TWayne

2008-09-05 22:10:19 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and also
protect common mode by potential balancing.

Then apply the numbers. That differential mode transient is
typically so small as to not damage anything. A 'whole house'
protector for common mode surges ALSO 'quenches' differential mode
surges. A tiny differential mode transient is made even smaller by
one 'whole house' protector.
Yes, if money has no value, then by all means spend an additional
$3000 for plug-in protectors on everything. If they are so necessary,
then such protectors are especially critical on smoke detectors - the
most important household appliance during surges. Spend that $3000
for the additional tenth percent protection. Let's see. Surges
typically average once every seven years. As the IEEE Standard notes,
one properly earthed 'whole house' protector is 99.5% to 99.9%
protection. That protector is about $1 per protected appliance. Now
we should spend another $25 or $150 per appliance for the extra 0.1%?
Damning numbers.
Meanwhile, we had previously traced surge damage directly to plug-in
protectors connected (and too close) to powered off networked
computers. Those plug-in protectors gave the surge alternative paths
(around the computer's power supply and into its motherboard). That
surge found earth ground from AC electric, through some powered off
computers, through the network and to earth via a third computer's
modem. A destructive surge path that would not exist with no plug-in
protectors AND if using a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
One may also conclude that damage would not happen if using both a
'whole house' protector and plug-in protector. Still, the much more
expensive plug-in protector did nothing useful in every scenario AND
contributed to damage of powered off computers. Damage because an
earthed 'whole house' protector did not exist.
If the plug-in protector provided supplemental protection, then why
did it earth a surge destructively through that network of powered off
computers? Why do telcos also not waste money on plug-in protectors?
A plug-in protector is only for differential mode surges as Phil
notes. It does not even claim to protect from the typically
destructive common mode surge - as Phil confirms. What makes those
trivial differential mode surges irrelevant? Computers are designed
to withstand 1000+ volts - well beyond what differential surges
typically are. And then the 'whole house' protector also 'quenches'
differential mode surges.
Telcos, radio stations, etc all suffer these same surges - just more
often. Same surge protection that was standard in those facilities 50
years ago is required in other buildings where transistors are now
also routine - such as homes. It is the same common mode surge
entering a building to find earth ground - in homes or in utility
buildings - or in radio stations - or munitions lockers. Same surge
always means diverting energy into earth before that energy can enter
the building. Where protection must work, the one solution that must
always be installed is a 'whole house' protector AND (even more
important) better earthing.
Spend a $hundred for well over 99% of the protection. If that is
not good enough, spend $thousands for the trivial tenth percent
protection - plug-in protectors. Once we apply the numbers, then
obvious is why even telcos (whose equipment must never fail) also do
not spend money on ineffective plug-in protectors. Money is better
spent upgrading what provides protection - earthing.
Numbers are damning. Differential mode transients are typically so
small as to not overwhelm protection inside every appliance. Again,
every appliance contains protection. If earthing is sufficient, then
the 'whole house' protector alone provides more than sufficient
protection for homes. If more is needed, then upgrade the earthing.
If one still 'feels' more is needed, then by all means, spend $3000 on
plug-in protectors for that trivial improvement. We even traced surge
damage though equipment because plug-in protectors were used and an
earthed 'whole house' protector was not installed. Effective is the
well proven solution that costs about $1 per protected appliance AND
protects everything. If plug-in protectors are necessary, then one is
absolutely necessary on the furnace, every bathroom GFCI, and smoke
detectors, All are life critical appliances that either need that
protection OR have sufficient protection with only one properly
earthed 'whole house' protector.

Wow. This is my first visit to this stie, but ... your missive,
although technically correct in nearly all areas, is rife with omissions
that destroy the credibility of the entire writing. The only actual
inaccuracy I noted, but I didn't read it more than once, was your
statement about common mode surges and by reference longitudinal surges
but perhaps I misinterpreted. While you obviously have some footing in
the subject, you have neglected a host of variables that create the
exact opposite situation you conjecture here.

Since I'm new to this group and don't know you from a troller or wanna
be troller, I'll leave it at that so we don't start any long diatribes
back and forth. Suffice it to say we are at opposing views because I
also don't intend to respond again to you. I wouldn't have bothered
with this response even except that I abhor misinformation of any kind
and I consider the omission of relevant details to be serious
misinformation. 'nuff said.

Twayne

w_tom

2008-09-05 23:53:47 UTC

Post by TWayne
Wow. This is my first visit to this stie, but ... your missive,
although technically correct in nearly all areas, is rife with omissions
that destroy the credibility of the entire writing. The only actual
inaccuracy I noted, but I didn't read it more than once, was your
statement about common mode surges and by reference longitudinal surges
but perhaps I misinterpreted.

IOW you know what the technical problems are? Since those facts are
government secrets, then we are not allowed to know them? But we
should trust you? Only you are permitted to know these secrets? Come
on. This is a technical discussion. If something was omitted, then
you posted the 'whys'. No 'whys' that explain those omissions means
omissions really do not exist; that nothing really was wrong.

No, this is not a personal challenge or outright denial. This is a
statement about those who would play politics (do not know so just
make blanket declarations) verses those who are responsible (always
include reasons 'why' and with numbers to provide perspective). That
most current post provides nothing useful other than knowledge of the
word 'longitudinal'. If those omissions are not listed, then no
omissions exist. Please provide those omissions and other supporting
facts so that all know you actually have technical knowledge - are not
just another myth purveyor.

TWayne

2008-09-13 03:08:40 UTC

Post by TWayne
Wow. This is my first visit to this stie, but ... your missive,
although technically correct in nearly all areas, is rife with
omissions that destroy the credibility of the entire writing. The
only actual inaccuracy I noted, but I didn't read it more than once,
was your statement about common mode surges and by reference
longitudinal surges but perhaps I misinterpreted.

IOW you know what the technical problems are? Since those facts are
government secrets, then we are not allowed to know them? But we
should trust you? Only you are permitted to know these secrets? Come
on. This is a technical discussion. If something was omitted, then
you posted the 'whys'. No 'whys' that explain those omissions means
omissions really do not exist; that nothing really was wrong.
No, this is not a personal challenge or outright denial. This is a
statement about those who would play politics (do not know so just
make blanket declarations) verses those who are responsible (always
include reasons 'why' and with numbers to provide perspective). That
most current post provides nothing useful other than knowledge of the
word 'longitudinal'. If those omissions are not listed, then no
omissions exist. Please provide those omissions and other supporting
facts so that all know you actually have technical knowledge - are not
just another myth purveyor.

Sorry; I don't feel trolls or troll wanna-bes. Anyone with an inkling
knows what I'm talking about. If you don't, then you've no business
posting here. It's not rocket science, after all. Oh, wait! Some of
it is!

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-13 06:10:29 UTC

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:10:19 -0400 TWayne <***@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

|> On Sep 4, 4:55 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|>> Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and also
|>> protect common mode by potential balancing.

First of all, since you are new here, I need to point out that your style
of quoting other people's postings will create perpetual confusion. That
is because you are not including a correct attribution of the person whose
posting you have quoted.

Most Usenet/News clients include that automatically before enter your
editor. Maybe you are removing that? Or maybe you have a bad client
that fails to put it in?

Please be sure you correctly credit (or discredit as the case may be)
whose post you quote.

[all of tom_w's unattributed post quoting snipped here]

| Wow. This is my first visit to this stie, but ... your missive,
| although technically correct in nearly all areas, is rife with omissions
| that destroy the credibility of the entire writing. The only actual
| inaccuracy I noted, but I didn't read it more than once, was your
| statement about common mode surges and by reference longitudinal surges
| but perhaps I misinterpreted. While you obviously have some footing in
| the subject, you have neglected a host of variables that create the
| exact opposite situation you conjecture here.

One of the problem here is a number of people who know enough to be dangerous.
They know facts and can state them. And they are correct. But too often they
don't apply to the situation where they use them. It's almost like they just
memorize a bunch of facts and quote them when they see like terms in someone
else's post, but are lacking just enough to not be able to correctly think
about the subject and deduce their own answers.

| Since I'm new to this group and don't know you from a troller or wanna
| be troller, I'll leave it at that so we don't start any long diatribes
| back and forth. Suffice it to say we are at opposing views because I
| also don't intend to respond again to you. I wouldn't have bothered
| with this response even except that I abhor misinformation of any kind
| and I consider the omission of relevant details to be serious
| misinformation. 'nuff said.

I don't think he's really trolling. I believe (fear) he actually believes
what he says. And he knows enough to make it believable.

Watch out for the real trolls here. Those are the ones that make personal
attacks on people, or at minimum just say that other people are wrong, without
actually pointing out anything specific that is wrong. We have those types,
too, unfortunately.

TWayne

2008-09-15 02:35:21 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and also
protect common mode by potential balancing.

First of all, since you are new here, I need to point out that your style
of quoting other people's postings will create perpetual confusion.
That
is because you are not including a correct attribution of the person
whose posting you have quoted.

Well, Phil, I think you're probably well meaning and I respect that, but
in most cases, this thread in particular, would only point fingers to
have specifically pointed out who made the post, in addition to the
source being mostly negligible anyway. If that poster couldn't tell it
was meant for him, he's got a lot more problems than I posited. For any
others reading, it wasn't my personal intention to do much more than
discredit the INFORMATION, not the poster; he'll succed in doing a great
job of that on his own if that's typical of his postings.
It's a simple task to follow back to see who said what to whom should
anyone really feel the need to know that badly.

Post by p***@ipal.net
Most Usenet/News clients include that automatically before enter your
editor. Maybe you are removing that? Or maybe you have a bad client
that fails to put it in?
Please be sure you correctly credit (or discredit as the case may be)
whose post you quote.

Likewise, it's easy for you to know who/what client i'm using, same as I
know you're User-Agent: tin/1.5.16-20030125 ("Bubbles") (UNIX) and a
bunch of other things that are just as unimortant. IMO newsgroups
arean't about WHO, they're about CONTENT and that content should be
accurate.
...

Post by p***@ipal.net
One of the problem here is a number of people who know enough to be
dangerous. They know facts and can state them. And they are correct.
But too often they don't apply to the situation where they use them.
It's almost like they just memorize a bunch of facts and quote them
when they see like terms in someone else's post, but are lacking just
enough to not be able to correctly think about the subject and deduce
their own answers.

No, as in many groups, it goes beyond that and is more closely related
to a feeling of loss of power in their lives, ego problems and even some
narcistic tendencies thrown in. There are of course those who do guess
and hope to get it right and maybe get a kudos for their efforts, but in
general it does deeper than that when they make such posts and don't
know or don't care about missing data or even holes in their own
knowledge. Those kind are OK with me until/unless they come up with
MISINFORMATION whether it be by statment or by omissions. God knows I
make a LOT of mistakes and am as guilty of oversight as the next guy,
but it's at least never intentional nor for lack of caring on my part.
Those "others" I mention usuall don't care, and and do so intentionally
sometimes, just because they have too much time, no one to talk to,
and/or are simply not the kind of person who should be giving advice
period.

Post by TWayne
Since I'm new to this group and don't know you from a troller or wanna
be troller, I'll leave it at that so we don't start any long
diatribes
back and forth. Suffice it to say we are at opposing views because I
also don't intend to respond again to you. I wouldn't have bothered
with this response even except that I abhor misinformation of any kind
and I consider the omission of relevant details to be serious
misinformation. 'nuff said.

I don't think he's really trolling. I believe (fear) he actually
believes what he says. And he knows enough to make it believable.

I don't think I made the statement that he WAS trolling. I have no
knowledge of him/her and in general don't keep close attention to who
says what on a newsgroup. This is the first group in a long time that I
noted some of the names of the worst offenders, but even so I still
don't base many opinions on a first impression that might just have been
a bad day at work for the poor soul.

IMO that's not important. It's more important that information be
accurate and inclusive of at least the context of the conversation. If
it isn't it needs to be pointed out. I noted that he didn't come back
ranting or screaming so I assume that he either dismissed my post or
found something acceptable in it. But like I siad, I don't thinki t's
as important to attack or otherwise malign him; I do think it's
important to point out that the post included misinformation in some
way. I'll have a civil converstaion with anyone, regardless of who it
is, as long as they can accept that I speak my mind, mean what I say,
and say what I mean. If it de-escalates from that, then for me the
convo is over. I feel a need to communicate but not to display me ego;
I want accuracy and at this point in my short life I am trying to give
back to the world some of the good it has provided to me and to my
family. I have no need of having my ego fed, nor do I particularly let
anyone's negative comments bother me.

Post by p***@ipal.net
Watch out for the real trolls here. Those are the ones that make
personal attacks on people, or at minimum just say that other people
are wrong, without actually pointing out anything specific that is
wrong. We have those types, too, unfortunately.

Trollers are occasionally entertaining but have no other value in life
as far as a ng goes. If participants have half a brain, trolls are
manageable. If not, well, it's the participants fault for letting it
happen and knowingly feeding them. "No one says that to me" is the
mantra of a huge ego at the very least and a poor excuse for use of gray
matter.

Post by TWayne
WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to
ignorance | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is
blocked. If you post to | Usenet from these places, find
another Usenet provider ASAP. |
Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at
ipal.net) |

Cheers,

Twayne

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-15 06:45:35 UTC

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:35:21 -0400 TWayne <***@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
|> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:10:19 -0400 TWayne <***@devnull.spamcop.net>
|> wrote:
|>
|>>> On Sep 4, 4:55 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|>>>> Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and also
|>>>> protect common mode by potential balancing.
|>
|> First of all, since you are new here, I need to point out that your
|> style
|> of quoting other people's postings will create perpetual confusion.
|> That
|> is because you are not including a correct attribution of the person
|> whose posting you have quoted.
|
| Well, Phil, I think you're probably well meaning and I respect that, but
| in most cases, this thread in particular, would only point fingers to
| have specifically pointed out who made the post, in addition to the
| source being mostly negligible anyway. If that poster couldn't tell it
| was meant for him, he's got a lot more problems than I posited. For any
| others reading, it wasn't my personal intention to do much more than
| discredit the INFORMATION, not the poster; he'll succed in doing a great
| job of that on his own if that's typical of his postings.
| It's a simple task to follow back to see who said what to whom should
| anyone really feel the need to know that badly.

Proper quoting is not about just making sure the poster knows it was for
him. Nor is it to simply identify who the previous poster was. Doing the
quoting properly is to ensure that further quoting by yet others will have
a clear track of who said what.

A lot of misdirected accusations have happened as a result of errors in
quoting. When there are multiple levels, one level being left out will
shift the attributions for everyone off by one in later posts that quote
the one in error.

The proper quoting attribution method has been in use on Usenet for over
20 years.

|> Most Usenet/News clients include that automatically before enter your
|> editor. Maybe you are removing that? Or maybe you have a bad client
|> that fails to put it in?
|>
|> Please be sure you correctly credit (or discredit as the case may be)
|> whose post you quote.
|
| Likewise, it's easy for you to know who/what client i'm using, same as I
| know you're User-Agent: tin/1.5.16-20030125 ("Bubbles") (UNIX) and a
| bunch of other things that are just as unimortant. IMO newsgroups
| arean't about WHO, they're about CONTENT and that content should be
| accurate.

But if the quoting is off by one, then it creates inaccuracy. It really
does get to be about WHO when there is disagreement over the accuracy or
correctness of the content. If such attribution inaccuracy gives the
appearance that one person contradicted themselves, when they did not,
whether their posts are right or wrong, it creates difficulties.

|> One of the problem here is a number of people who know enough to be
|> dangerous. They know facts and can state them. And they are correct.
|> But too often they don't apply to the situation where they use them.
|> It's almost like they just memorize a bunch of facts and quote them
|> when they see like terms in someone else's post, but are lacking just
|> enough to not be able to correctly think about the subject and deduce
|> their own answers.
|
| No, as in many groups, it goes beyond that and is more closely related
| to a feeling of loss of power in their lives, ego problems and even some
| narcistic tendencies thrown in. There are of course those who do guess
| and hope to get it right and maybe get a kudos for their efforts, but in
| general it does deeper than that when they make such posts and don't
| know or don't care about missing data or even holes in their own
| knowledge. Those kind are OK with me until/unless they come up with
| MISINFORMATION whether it be by statment or by omissions. God knows I
| make a LOT of mistakes and am as guilty of oversight as the next guy,
| but it's at least never intentional nor for lack of caring on my part.
| Those "others" I mention usuall don't care, and and do so intentionally
| sometimes, just because they have too much time, no one to talk to,
| and/or are simply not the kind of person who should be giving advice
| period.

Your observations are correct, too. We get all kinds here and in many
other groups.

|>> Since I'm new to this group and don't know you from a troller or
|>> wanna
|>> be troller, I'll leave it at that so we don't start any long
|>> diatribes
|>> back and forth. Suffice it to say we are at opposing views because I
|>> also don't intend to respond again to you. I wouldn't have bothered
|>> with this response even except that I abhor misinformation of any
|>> kind
|>> and I consider the omission of relevant details to be serious
|>> misinformation. 'nuff said.
|>
|> I don't think he's really trolling. I believe (fear) he actually
|> believes what he says. And he knows enough to make it believable.
|
| I don't think I made the statement that he WAS trolling. I have no
| knowledge of him/her and in general don't keep close attention to who
| says what on a newsgroup. This is the first group in a long time that I
| noted some of the names of the worst offenders, but even so I still
| don't base many opinions on a first impression that might just have been
| a bad day at work for the poor soul.

Indeed, you should not judge someone by one post or one day's worth of
posts. But do keep track of who says what over time. You can find the
patterns.

| IMO that's not important. It's more important that information be
| accurate and inclusive of at least the context of the conversation. If
| it isn't it needs to be pointed out. I noted that he didn't come back
| ranting or screaming so I assume that he either dismissed my post or
| found something acceptable in it. But like I siad, I don't thinki t's
| as important to attack or otherwise malign him; I do think it's
| important to point out that the post included misinformation in some
| way. I'll have a civil converstaion with anyone, regardless of who it
| is, as long as they can accept that I speak my mind, mean what I say,
| and say what I mean. If it de-escalates from that, then for me the
| convo is over. I feel a need to communicate but not to display me ego;
| I want accuracy and at this point in my short life I am trying to give
| back to the world some of the good it has provided to me and to my
| family. I have no need of having my ego fed, nor do I particularly let
| anyone's negative comments bother me.

Or maybe he hasn't been online, yet, since your response to him. Do not
assume silence is consent, here. Many reasons could keep someone away.

I've already seen the patterns in posts by certain individuals here,
especially on the issue of electrical surges. Give it time, and you
will see it, too. I've seen it for years.

TWayne

2008-09-16 17:41:29 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:35:21 -0400 TWayne

Post by p***@ipal.net
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 18:10:19 -0400 TWayne

Post by p***@ipal.net
Plug-in protectors protect differential mode by quenching, and
also protect common mode by potential balancing.

Well, Phil, I think you're probably well meaning and I respect that, but
in most cases, this thread in particular, would only point fingers to
have specifically pointed out who made the post, in addition to the
source being mostly negligible anyway. If that poster couldn't tell it
was meant for him, he's got a lot more problems than I posited. For
any others reading, it wasn't my personal intention to do much more
than discredit the INFORMATION, not the poster; he'll succed in
doing a great
job of that on his own if that's typical of his postings.
It's a simple task to follow back to see who said what to whom
should anyone really feel the need to know that badly.

Proper quoting is not about just making sure the poster knows it was
for him. Nor is it to simply identify who the previous poster was.
Doing the quoting properly is to ensure that further quoting by yet
others will have
a clear track of who said what.
A lot of misdirected accusations have happened as a result of errors
in quoting. When there are multiple levels, one level being left out
will shift the attributions for everyone off by one in later posts
that quote
the one in error.
The proper quoting attribution method has been in use on Usenet for
over 20 years.

Post by p***@ipal.net
Most Usenet/News clients include that automatically before enter
your editor. Maybe you are removing that? Or maybe you have a bad
client that fails to put it in?
Please be sure you correctly credit (or discredit as the case may
be) whose post you quote.

Likewise, it's easy for you to know who/what client i'm using, same
as I know you're User-Agent: tin/1.5.16-20030125 ("Bubbles") (UNIX)
and a
bunch of other things that are just as unimortant. IMO newsgroups
arean't about WHO, they're about CONTENT and that content should be
accurate.

But if the quoting is off by one, then it creates inaccuracy. It
really does get to be about WHO when there is disagreement over the
accuracy or correctness of the content. If such attribution
inaccuracy gives the appearance that one person contradicted
themselves, when they did not, whether their posts are right or
wrong, it creates difficulties.

Post by p***@ipal.net
One of the problem here is a number of people who know enough to be
dangerous. They know facts and can state them. And they are
correct. But too often they don't apply to the situation where they
use them. It's almost like they just memorize a bunch of facts and
quote them when they see like terms in someone else's post, but are
lacking just enough to not be able to correctly think about the
subject and deduce their own answers.

No, as in many groups, it goes beyond that and is more closely related
to a feeling of loss of power in their lives, ego problems and even
some narcistic tendencies thrown in. There are of course those who
do guess
and hope to get it right and maybe get a kudos for their efforts,
but in general it does deeper than that when they make such posts
and don't
know or don't care about missing data or even holes in their own
knowledge. Those kind are OK with me until/unless they come up with
MISINFORMATION whether it be by statment or by omissions. God knows I
make a LOT of mistakes and am as guilty of oversight as the next guy,
but it's at least never intentional nor for lack of caring on my part.
Those "others" I mention usuall don't care, and and do so
intentionally sometimes, just because they have too much time, no
one to talk to,
and/or are simply not the kind of person who should be giving advice
period.

Your observations are correct, too. We get all kinds here and in many
other groups.

Post by TWayne
Since I'm new to this group and don't know you from a troller or wanna
be troller, I'll leave it at that so we don't start any long diatribes
back and forth. Suffice it to say we are at opposing views
because I also don't intend to respond again to you. I wouldn't
have bothered with this response even except that I abhor
misinformation of any kind
and I consider the omission of relevant details to be serious
misinformation. 'nuff said.

I don't think he's really trolling. I believe (fear) he actually
believes what he says. And he knows enough to make it believable.

Indeed, you should not judge someone by one post or one day's worth of
posts. But do keep track of who says what over time. You can find
the patterns.

Post by TWayne
IMO that's not important. It's more important that information be
accurate and inclusive of at least the context of the conversation.
If
it isn't it needs to be pointed out. I noted that he didn't come
back ranting or screaming so I assume that he either dismissed my
post or
found something acceptable in it. But like I siad, I don't thinki t's
as important to attack or otherwise malign him; I do think it's
important to point out that the post included misinformation in some
way. I'll have a civil converstaion with anyone, regardless of who it
is, as long as they can accept that I speak my mind, mean what I say,
and say what I mean. If it de-escalates from that, then for me the
convo is over. I feel a need to communicate but not to display me ego;
I want accuracy and at this point in my short life I am trying to give
back to the world some of the good it has provided to me and to my
family. I have no need of having my ego fed, nor do I particularly
let anyone's negative comments bother me.

Or maybe he hasn't been online, yet, since your response to him. Do
not assume silence is consent, here. Many reasons could keep someone
away.
I've already seen the patterns in posts by certain individuals here,
especially on the issue of electrical surges. Give it time, and you
will see it, too. I've seen it for years.

Phil,

NO arguement, really, with the minor exception (IMO) that "taking names"
isn't useful unless a pattern becomes obvious. If I see a particular
poster giving a lot of great answers, yeah, I'll sure note who it is;
don't get me wrong. Likewise with the other types, but ... for me, if a
person's name isn't in the "good" pile, they're not in any pile until a
pattern does emerge. So perhaps I've been over/understating myself all
at the same time.
I think where we parted company was probably my own fault because I
was being specific about one post, which I should not have allowed
myself to be drawn into, and you took it to be a modus operandi. There
weren't any other responses to it and I felt compelled to say something.
The fact that I didn't cite chapter & verse in that case was more the
amount of work it would have taken and my condition at the time, but ...
in general I felt, and still feel, that the omissions would be obvious
to those with the proper knowledge, but not so for others who might be
reading it. I knew that at best someone would make some points on the
matter and at worst, I'd get chewed out for being vague. Such is life,
I guess. Not a problem and I can take a chewing with the best of them
when it's deserved, which it probably was; I've no issues with that.

Let's let it all get back to the business at hand and see how things
shake out, OK? I also have a distaste for OT posts when they run this
long, don't you?

Regards,

Twayne

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-04 20:25:10 UTC

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 23:55:39 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Aug 30, 9:01?am, "RB" <***@NoSpam> wrote:
|> I have a question aboutsurgearresting. Seems like I
|> read somewhere in the past that induction (electric
|> motors) units could not besurgesuppressed with normal
|> suppressors. My electric company is offering asurge
|> unit to go in my meter outside. I already havesurge
|> protectionon all my electronic items such as computers
|> stereo etc.
|
| Just because it is called a surge protector means it is surge
| protection? Nonsense. Those existing protectors - where is the
| manufacturer spec that lists each type of surge and protection from
| those surges. If a typical product from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, or
| Monster Cable - it only protects from a type of surge that is
| typically not destructive.

Most surges of all types are not destructive. Because a few surges
are desctructive, we need the surge protector. Plug-in surge protectors
only protect from certain kinds of surges, of which a few are descructive.

The difference between an unprotected setup, and one protected only by
plug-in surge protectors, is that the latter will have less damage.

| All appliances contain protection. But the typically destructive
| surge overwhelms that protection to obtain earth ground. Effective
| protection for white appliances and all electronics means the surge
| must be earthed before entering a building. Once permitted inside,
| there are too many conductive paths for a surge to find earth ground
| destructively.

Not all appliances contain protection. Some do. Some contain poor
protection. Some contain nothing. The numbers of the later are
increasing because there is an expectation that people use plug-in
surge protectors.

Built-in surge protection on appliances that interconnect to each other
(TVs, VCRs, DVD players, stereos, computers, modems, etc) tend to be
ineffective because of the issue of differential voltage. This is
protected better by having all the interconnected devices plugged in
to the same power strip that has built-in surge protection, or has
the surge protection going to it. Those appliances connected to the
outside metallically (cable to TV, phone to modem) have that same issue
with that external connection. Connecting them to the _same_ protector
balances it all out and maintains the same voltage level.

The above is NOT 100% protection.

For surges that are differential mode, the MOVs short between the
opposite polarities and effectively neutralize the surge.

For surges that are common mode, the MOVs do nothing (they do not see
a voltage difference). But at least all things being plugged in at
the same place (including coax, phone line), the surge is distributed
evenly, minimizing the voltage _difference_ between appliances.

The common mode (that gets past the plug-in protector) can still be
destructive based on fast rise times and reactive comonents inside the
appliance. Filtering can help reduce this effect. The branch circuit
wiring does provide substantial inductance to common mode surges.

The differential mode surge will be dimished by the capacitance in
the branch circuit.

Common mode surges arriving via cable coax or phone line (instead of
power line) can be substantially diverted to the ground wire of the
power connection.

Real surges that take place are usually a mixture of common mode and
differential mode. Some may be more of one, and others may be more
of the other.

| Your telco connects to overhead wires all over town. Do they use
| plug-in protectors? Of course not. Telcos need protector that
| actually works. Telcos use protectors where each wire enters the
| building AND that makes a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
| single point earth ground. How do they make that protection even
| better? Protectors are located distant from electronics - up to 50
| meters separated from electronics.

You are misinforming people by suggesting that a kind of protection that
is appropriate in one place is not used in other places where it really
isn't appropriate, anyway.

The reasoning for telcos not using plug-in protectors is because that
is not an appropriate form factor. Telcos use a different kind of
surge protection. The protection telcos use is a "network protection"
type that is similar to "entrance protection". The "end usage protection"
is inappropriate for phone, cable, or power, out on the poles. But that
does NOT mean that "end usage protection" is inappropriate everywhere.

| Protection is about diverting surge energy. Surge energy not
| absobed by earth may then be dissipated destructively in household
| appliances. Surges permitted inside a building can overwhelm
| protection already inside all appliances.

That is an incomplete description. Network protections is definitely
about diverting a surge energy. End usage protection is not. Entrance
protection is a type of network protection.

There us a myth that surges seek ground. That is true only of a direct
lightning strike. In that case, there is a differential between the
surge and ground itself. Common mode surges can also see differential
relative to ground, so it can be effective to divert common mode to
ground.

| One 'whole house' protector is massive protection tens or 100 times
| less money. But again, why is that meter protector so effective? Why
| do plug-in protectors not even list protection in their spec sheets?
| How many feet from each incoming AC electric wire, through the
| protector, to earth ground? Less than 10 feet? Does the telephone
| 'whole house' protector also connect short to that same earth ground?
| If not, then surge protection is compromised. Does cable TV use a
| wire to connect short to that same earthing electrode? Then all cable
| TV appliances have protection.

Whole house protection (done correctly at the entrance) is not 100% effective.
No protection is 100% effective. But having the whole house protection is
better than not having it, regardless of whether end usage protection is
present or not.

Entrance/network protection attempts to divert as much surge energy as it
can to a safe place, almost always ground. Network protection also tries
to keep surge potentials equalized to avoid destruction of passive parts
(e.g. wires). Network protection as used on phone lines and other places
is a system of protection at multiple places.

Entrance protection is the last chance to be effective at diverting a surge
to ground. But it is not effective 100%.

A pure differential mode surge will NOT divert to ground. However, because
one wire is grounded and one wire is not, at the entrance panel, such a
surge can be converted partially to a common mode surge just based on the
fact that the neutral is bonded to ground. No MOVs needed to do this.

Surge protection BEFORE the ground bonding can do two things:

1. It can quench differential mode. If the surge is pure differential
(rare) then it will be almost gone at this point.

2. It can divert common mode. This requires the ground connection. Most
meter base protectors do not have ground.

Surge protection AFTER the ground bonding has the benefit of getting much
of the common mode converted to differential mode. At this point an MOV can
quench that surge

| Utility will provide the protector. But you are reponsible for
| providing the protection - that single point earth ground. Your
| earthing must meet and exceed post 1990 NEC requirements. What
| defines better earthing? See the 4 Jul 2007 post in comp.sys.mac.comm
| entitled "DSL speed" at
| http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef

The installer of the meter base protector MUST do the grounding installation
if it is to be done at all. It is entirely inappropriate for the homeowner
to attempt to attach ground wires dangling loose from the meter base, to a
grounding electrode. It is entirely inappropriate (and very hazardous, and
usually illegal) for the homeowner to access inside the meter base to attach
any ground wires. If the installer does not attch them for you, DO NOT TRY
TO DO IT YOURSELF.

Meter base protection, especially ungrounded meter base protection, does not
avoid the benefits of whole house entrance protections. Meter base protection
is only a partial component of whole house entrance protection.

The correct place to put differential mode quench protection is AFTER the point
where the ground is bonded to the neutral. An ungrounded meter base protector
is just a differential mode quench protection, and it being BEFORE the point
of bonding, is therefore less effective. Still, having meter base protection
does help, compared to having no protection at all.

IMHO, a meter base protector is LESS effective than a whole house protector
installed in an entrance panel. Using BOTH protectors is more effective than
using either one of them alone (but the cost is higher, and the benefit may
not outweigh the cost),

Regardless of the meter base and/or panel based entrance protection, and
regardless of any network protection performed by the utility involved, the
use of plug-in "end usage protection" adds a level of protection.

And all of this so far is about surge arriving on utility wires. Surges can
also be induced into your own wiring by a nearby lightning strike. Entrance
protectors and meter base protectors and utility network protectors all have
no effect on this surge. Those protectors might protect the utility from the
surge that originates at your house, but they will not protect your house from
such a surge because they are not involved in the surge path at all. Plug-in
protectors are your last stand against surges.

Surge protection is a complicated science that involves a large number of
complex issues. It is not something that can be oversimplified as w_tom is
trying to make of it. While many of his statements are correct in their face,
they are too often misapplied. For example his statement that utilities do
not use plug-in protectors, implying that they are not effective as the reason,
is a misapplication. The correct statement is that plug-in protectors are
inappropriate on utility networks.

w_tom

2008-09-05 12:18:00 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Not all appliances contain protection. Some do. Some contain poor
protection. Some contain nothing. The numbers of the later are
increasing because there is an expectation that people use plug-in
surge protectors.

If looking for the magic component that provides surge protection,
then all appliances have no surge protection. But industry standards
even 35 years ago required electronics to contain surge protection.
Current standards even define interface semiconductors that can
withstand 2000 or 15,000 volts without damage. Same semiconductors
improperly handled can be damaged by less than 100 volts. But once
those semiconductors are integrated in a system, then those
semiconductors have surge protection rated at 15,000 volts. Again,
semiconductors not damaged by 15,000 volts without using surge
protecton components. How can this be? Welcome to designs that mean
all electronics devices contain surge protection. Current industray
standards for many digial input ports now require electronics to
withstand 15,000 volts without damage.

How many times a day do you replace every dimmer switch due to
surges created by the furnace, washing machine, or vacuum cleaner?
Never? Even a most simple electronic device - a dimmer switch -
contains surge protection integrated in its design. All electonic
devices must have surge protectoin so as to not fail daily.
Protection that makes a power strip protector redundant (UK) or
irreleveant (US).

So that protection found in all appliances is not overwhelmed, we
install and properly earth one 'whole house' protector. How good is
that 'whole house' protector? How good is its earth ground? A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which is why
telcos can suffer 100 surges during every thunderstorm without damage.

Each protection layer is defined by what provides that protection.
Primary protection is typically located (earthed) at utility poles.
Secondary protection is located where utility wires enter a building -
the service entrance earthing. Both are necessary so that protection
inside all appliances is not ovewhelmed by direct lightning strikes.
The protector is only as effective as its earthing - as phil-news...
has described in previous posts. The typically destructive surge is
earthed before it can enter a building OR find earth ground
destructively via household appliances. Plug-in protectors have even
contributed to damage of a network of powered off computers. No earth
ground explained the not effective protection.

bud--

2008-09-07 14:46:25 UTC

.
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
.

Post by w_tom
Just because it is called a surge protector means it is surge
protection? Nonsense. Those existing protectors - where is the
manufacturer spec that lists each type of surge and protection from
those surges. If a typical product from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, or
Monster Cable - it only protects from a type of surge that is
typically not destructive.

.
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. w_ has never
produced a source that says that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Neither guide makes a distinction between "types" of surges. Plug-in, as
well as service panel suppressors, are effective for both common mode
and differential mode surges.

Note that when you use a plug-in suppressor all interconnected equipment
needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting
wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like
phone, also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring
through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and
signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in both guides.

According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

The most vulnerable equipment is electronics that connect to both power
and phone/cable. Motors are not likely to be damaged by surges.
Electronic control boards in furnaces and driers are more vulnerable.

-----------------
Not having the cable entry connected to the common earthing system is a
code violation (if the US NEC is enforced for cable wiring). It is also
a *major* protection problem. The cable and phone entry protectors
should not only be connected to the 'ground' at the power service, there
should be a *short* connecting wire. You want to prevent high voltages
between power and cable/phone wires. The IEEE guide has an example of a
wire that is too long starting pdf page 40. Not connecting at all is an
even bigger problem. Common earthing connection was also covered by phil.

------------------
Service panel suppressors are covered in both guides. Meter base
suppressors are in the IEEE guide and maybe NIST guide. I agree with
phil's comments. The distance from the suppressor to the neutral-ground
bond and system earthing connection is important. The earthing
connection to the power service should be at the same enclosure as the
neutral-ground bond. That is usually in the power service panel. (In
some systems it could be in the meter base with the neutral and ground
separate in the service panel.)

I would rather use a service panel suppressor for the reasons phil gave.
(If system earthing was through the meter base that might change.)

--
bud--

TWayne

2008-09-13 03:13:05 UTC

...

Post by bud--
<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE
guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is
the major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

EXCELlent links! I'd forgottan all about the mikeholt site in fact.
Thanks.

Regards,

Twayne

w_tom

2008-09-15 15:22:16 UTC

Post by TWayne
EXCELlent links! I'd forgottan all about the mikeholt site in fact.
Thanks.

Grasp what both citations say. The IEEE guide shows how plug-in
protectors can earth surge energy. Located inside the house, it
earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud
calls that 8000 volt damage TV acceptable. Bud calls that
protection. His citation does not. Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8 is an
example of what happens when a plug-in protector is too close to
appliances, too far from earth ground. AND installed where no 'whole
house' protectors was implemented. We (engineers) had previously
traced damage made easier because a plug-in protector was used.

The NIST citation is even blunter about that same fact. From the

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

Being too far from earth ground (and spliced wires, wires with sharp
bends, wires bundled with other non-grounding wires etc), the plug-in
protector cannot earth surges. So what did the plug-in protector do?
It earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV
(page 42 figure 8).

The NIST then states the problem bluntly again on page 17 (Adobe

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

Why do plug-in protectors not even claim to provide protection in
manufacturer specs? Just two more reasons why as provide by Bud's
IEEE and NIST guides. Most every IEEE Standard (IEEE makes
recommendations in Standards) state that earthing is what provides
protection. A protector only connects surges to earth OR the
protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Even
Martzloff makes the same point in his IEEE paper about plug-in (point
of connection) protectors:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Upsdown%20surging.pdf

Post by TWayne
1. Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down House
clearly show objectionable differences in reference
voltages- These occur even when or perhaps because
surge protective devices are present at the point of
connection of appliances.

Just another source that describes why plug-in protectors can even
contribute to appliance damage. BTW, Martzloff also demonstrates why
all protectors must make a short connection to the same (common) earth
ground. Just another reason why telcos use earthed 'whole house'
protectors and do not use plug-in protectors.

Again, which poster supports facts with numerous technical sources
and numbers? Even Bud’s citations show why plug-in protectors are
ineffective AND can contribute to adjacent appliance damage.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-15 23:18:08 UTC

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:22:16 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:

| On Sep 12, 11:13 pm, "TWayne" <***@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
|> EXCELlent links! I'd forgottan all about the mikeholt site in fact.
|> Thanks.
|
| Grasp what both citations say. The IEEE guide shows how plug-in
| protectors can earth surge energy. Located inside the house, it
| earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud
| calls that 8000 volt damage TV acceptable. Bud calls that
| protection. His citation does not. Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8 is an
| example of what happens when a plug-in protector is too close to
| appliances, too far from earth ground. AND installed where no 'whole
| house' protectors was implemented. We (engineers) had previously
| traced damage made easier because a plug-in protector was used.

Plug-in protectors are NOT intended for diverting point-of-use surges
to earth. Thet function is fulfilled by the entrance protection.
A properly designed combination of protective devices provides the
maximum level of protection available. No one proective device can
do so alone.

A differential mode surge will be effectively suppressed by a plug-in
protector by clamping the opposing polarities of that surge together.
It may be destroyed for stronger surges. But it is doing the job it
is expected to do. This kind of surge is not "seeking" ground.

A common mode surge would pass a plug-in protector unaffected. But
this is the kind of surge that would be substantially reduced already
by the inductance of wiring it arrives on, even if that is coaxial
cable.

Real surges consist of both modes to some degree. The protector will
be quenching the differential mode while the wiring inductance will
be quenching the common mode.

One other role the plug-in surge protector performs is equalization.
This function keeps all devices plugged in to the protector at the
same voltage. As long as the voltage rise is not too fast, all the
devices will be at nearly the same voltage, which means that little
or no current will flow between their interconnections. Without
equalization, a surge entering one device would flow through that
device to other devices connected to it, greatly increasing the risk
of damage to the device with the passing current due to the higher
differential voltage within the device.

| The NIST citation is even blunter about that same fact. From the
| NIST on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):
|> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
|> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
|> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
|> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
|
| Being too far from earth ground (and spliced wires, wires with sharp
| bends, wires bundled with other non-grounding wires etc), the plug-in
| protector cannot earth surges. So what did the plug-in protector do?
| It earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV
| (page 42 figure 8).

The plug-in protector is not intended for that role. It is intended
for other surge protection roles. A situation where a TV provides a
path to ground for a surge arriving by other means is a situation that
is not properly wired.

Proper wiring is the most important component of surge protection.

| The NIST then states the problem bluntly again on page 17 (Adobe
| page 19 of 24):
|> A very important point to keep in mind is that your
|> surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
|> ground. The best surge protection in the world can
|> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
|
| Why do plug-in protectors not even claim to provide protection in
| manufacturer specs? Just two more reasons why as provide by Bud's
| IEEE and NIST guides. Most every IEEE Standard (IEEE makes
| recommendations in Standards) state that earthing is what provides
| protection. A protector only connects surges to earth OR the
| protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Even

Most manufacturers don't provide complete or even accurate specifications
for most devices. They recognize that most consumers do not understand
the specifications. I've found a great many LCD computer monitors that
fail to even specify the number of native pixels. The field of surge
protection is much less meaningful because consumers have no idea just
how much energy any given surge involved, and how much protection is
even needed. All they can do is relative comparison between devices,
and that doesn't even matter in cases where the wiring is done wrong.

Proper wiring is the most important component of surge protection.

| Martzloff makes the same point in his IEEE paper about plug-in (point
| of connection) protectors:
| http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Upsdown%20surging.pdf
|> 1. Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down House
|> clearly show objectionable differences in reference
|> voltages- These occur even when or perhaps because
|> surge protective devices are present at the point of
|> connection of appliances.
|
| Just another source that describes why plug-in protectors can even
| contribute to appliance damage. BTW, Martzloff also demonstrates why
| all protectors must make a short connection to the same (common) earth
| ground. Just another reason why telcos use earthed 'whole house'
| protectors and do not use plug-in protectors.

This paper describes scenarios where the wiring of the house is incorrect.
In such cases, every SPD attached does little more than shift the risk
around. You could be lucky and shift the risk to devices which have less
of an impact if damaged or destroyed, or are less sensitive to surges (an
electric heater compared to a computer). Or you could be unlucky and shift
thr risk the wrong way.

If you want to cite meaningful application of surge protective devices, then
please cite documents that describe correct wiring and how those SPDs work
in those situations.

Proper wiring is the most important component of surge protection. This will
include placing the proper types of SPDs at the correct points in the system.
And this does include point-of-use unearthed protectors.

w_tom

2008-09-16 15:18:15 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Plug-in protectors are NOT intended for diverting point-of-use surges
to earth. Thet function is fulfilled by the entrance protection.
A properly designed combination of protective devices provides the
maximum level of protection available. No one proective device can
do so alone.

Correctly noted: plug-in protectors do not protect from the
typically destructive surge. That function requires "entrance
protection" also called a 'whole house' protector. A 'whole house'
protector protects from all type of surges including differential
mode. That one ‘whole house’ protector does what would otherwise
require maybe 100 plug-in protectors.

Differential mode surge means everything is damaged - especially
appliances that have least internal protection such as dimmer
switches. But the surge made irrelevant by one 'whole house'
protector is more selective - is more destructive to specific devices
such as TVs, computers, modems, and answering machines. According to
Phil, the only protector for that type of surge is "entrance
protection" - the 'whole house' protector.

Did the computer or answering machine get fried but dimmer switches,
bathroom GFCIs, and clock radio still work? Then that is the
typically destructive surge that no plug-in protector even claims to
protect from. As Phil notes, plug-in protectors only protect from a
type of surge that first destroys every dimmer switch, electronic
timer switch, and smoke detector.

As Phil notes, a plug-in protector does not protect from common mode
surges. The 'whole house' protector protects from both common and
differential mode surges. Any surge that gets past that point is
typically made redundant (irrelevant) by protection inside every
appliance. We install but one ‘whole house’ protector - for all types
of surges - so that protection inside all appliances is not
overwhelmed.

Another reason for one 'whole house' protector? A 'whole house'
protector is needed so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
adjacent appliance damage. Posted above is a Martzloff paper that

Post by p***@ipal.net
1. Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down House
clearly show objectionable differences in reference
voltages- These occur even when or perhaps because
surge protective devices are present at the point of
connection of appliances.

Why objectionable voltages that can even contribute to appliance
damage? Without one ‘whole house’ protector, a 'point of
connection' (plug-in) protector may even earth surges destructively
through an adjacent appliance. Same was shown in the IEEE guide: 8000
volts earthed destructively through the adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure
8.

Did Phil mention the plug-in protector does not claim to protect
from common mode surges - the surge that typically does surge damage?
Only protector that earths common mode surges is one ‘whole house’
protector. And that 'whole house' protector also protects from
differential mode surges.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-16 19:39:35 UTC

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:18:15 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 15, 7:18 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> Plug-in protectors are NOT intended for diverting point-of-use surges
|> to earth. Thet function is fulfilled by the entrance protection.
|> A properly designed combination of protective devices provides the
|> maximum level of protection available. No one proective device can
|> do so alone.
|
| Correctly noted: plug-in protectors do not protect from the
| typically destructive surge. That function requires "entrance
| protection" also called a 'whole house' protector. A 'whole house'
| protector protects from all type of surges including differential
| mode. That one ?whole house? protector does what would otherwise
| require maybe 100 plug-in protectors.

The differential surge can be quenched by the whole house protector if
that surge is arriving at the entrance as a differential surge. However,
if the arriving surge is a common mode, any SPD located at that point
will not completely quench it. One big reason is the circuit imbalance
involved due to one conductor being grounded. The end result, not of
the SPD itself, but of the way we wire our electrical system, is that
the common mode is partially diverted to ground, and partially converted
to a differential mode surge that proceeds to the branch circuits.

There are also surges that do not come in through the entrance. There
are usually induced, but sometimes may be direct. Mostly they are common
mode, but some differential component is usually also present. The whole
house protector does nothing for these surges other than preventing most
of it that would propogate outward via the entrance point from doing so.

Ironically, the 120V circuits will be more vulnerable because they are
unbalanced circuits, than the 240V (only) circuits (in North America)
because they are balanced. The 120V circuits will get more differential
mode surge energy while the 240V circuits will get more common mode
energy.

| Differential mode surge means everything is damaged - especially
| appliances that have least internal protection such as dimmer
| switches. But the surge made irrelevant by one 'whole house'
| protector is more selective - is more destructive to specific devices
| such as TVs, computers, modems, and answering machines. According to
| Phil, the only protector for that type of surge is "entrance
| protection" - the 'whole house' protector.

The entrance protector does not eliminate 100% of any surge. I have
never advocated for a single type of protection all by itself. What I
advocate for is to start from correct wiring, and apply all available
methods of protection. So your last sentence above is incorrect about
what I suggest for protection.

| Did the computer or answering machine get fried but dimmer switches,
| bathroom GFCIs, and clock radio still work? Then that is the
| typically destructive surge that no plug-in protector even claims to
| protect from. As Phil notes, plug-in protectors only protect from a
| type of surge that first destroys every dimmer switch, electronic
| timer switch, and smoke detector.

I did not note any such thing.

It is true that when a destructive level surge enters a building, then
it can affect lots of circuits. It's not always uniform. Shorter
circuits will get more common mode and longer circuits will get more
differential mode, due to inductance. And of course longer circuits
get less, overall. But other factors also influence how much each
circuit gets, such as bends in the wiring. These primarily effect
outward mode

| As Phil notes, a plug-in protector does not protect from common mode
| surges. The 'whole house' protector protects from both common and
| differential mode surges. Any surge that gets past that point is
| typically made redundant (irrelevant) by protection inside every
| appliance. We install but one ?whole house? protector - for all types
| of surges - so that protection inside all appliances is not
| overwhelmed.

It is not the case that "every appliance" has protection inside. Most do
not have any.

It is true the whole house protector will reduce surges. But that in no
way suggests it should be used as the only form of protection. I still
advocate for "correct and complete protection", which consists of good
grounding, correct wiring, singular entrance protection, and point of
use protection. This is what makes the complete picture of most effective
protection.

| Another reason for one 'whole house' protector? A 'whole house'
| protector is needed so that plug-in protectors do not contribute to
| adjacent appliance damage. Posted above is a Martzloff paper that
| says:
|> 1. Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down House
|> clearly show objectionable differences in reference
|> voltages- These occur even when or perhaps because
|> surge protective devices are present at the point of
|> connection of appliances.
| Why objectionable voltages that can even contribute to appliance
| damage? Without one ?whole house? protector, a 'point of
| connection' (plug-in) protector may even earth surges destructively
| through an adjacent appliance. Same was shown in the IEEE guide: 8000
| volts earthed destructively through the adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure
| 8.

Martzloff's example is a miswired house. There is one and ONLY ONE first
step that should be done in such a situation: rewire it correctly

Both point of use protectors and whole house protectors in a miswired house
are better than nothing at all IN MOST CASES. Depending on how the miswiring
is done, however, either can make certain situations WORSE. Reread the
paragraph just above this one.

In any case, no one should judge either type of protection based on how it
works in a MIS-application. Using either type in a miswired house, really is
a MIS-application.

| Did Phil mention the plug-in protector does not claim to protect
| from common mode surges - the surge that typically does surge damage?
| Only protector that earths common mode surges is one ?whole house?
| protector. And that 'whole house' protector also protects from
| differential mode surges.

The point of use protector DOES do protection from common mode surges. Some
do more than others. The TWO means by which this protection works are:

1. Interconnected devices are equalized so that the common mode voltage rise
is not readily converted to a differential mode. For slow rise surges,
which are most common, this works well.

2. Point of use protectors that include filtering further inhibit the common
mode surge, reducing its power with an emphasis on the faster rising surges
that are more readily converted to differential by reactive components in
the appliance.

w_tom

2008-09-16 22:18:03 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
The differential surge can be quenched by the whole house protector if
that surge is arriving at the entrance as a differential surge. However,
if the arriving surge is a common mode, any SPD located at that point
will not completely quench it.

If the surge is differential, then one 'whole house' protector makes
it irrelevant. If the surge is common mode, again the 'whole house'
protector diverts that energy to where tens of thousands of joules
(and more) are harmlessly dissipated. Either way, the 'whole house'
protector is for all types of surges.

If surges are created inside, then one 'whole house protector also
protects from them. How often are dimmer switches, clock radios, and
smoke detectors destroyed by internally generated surges? Never?
Why? They don't have surge protectors? Where are these internally
created surges (created daily) that routinely destroy unprotected
appliances? Internally generated surges are made irrelevant by
protection inside all appliances. And then we install one 'whole
house' protector to make those surges even less relevant.

What are the typically destructive surges? Common mode. Lightning
is simply the most typical example of such surges. Even if the common
mode surge creates some differential mode energy, again, the 'whole
house' protector also shunts that energy. How must energy in a common
mode surge gets converted to differential mode? Near zero. Yes it
happens. Then we provide the numbers. A massive common mode surge
may also create a differential mode transient on some appliances. A
transient so small as to be typically made irrelevant by protection
inside all appliances AND made further irrelevant by the 'whole house'
protector.

Which circuits will get more surges? Is that surge a voltage or a
current surge? What makes the common mode surge so destructive?
Surge current will flow no matter what. Voltage will increase, as
necessary, so that surge current will flow. What happens when one
installs a protector to stop or block that surge? Then voltage
increases, as necessary, so that surge current flows. Just another
reason why plug-in protectors cannot block or absorb surges.

. Yes, longer wires (greater separation between a protector and the
surge source) means better surge protection, if ... If that surge
current is diverted to earth at the service entrance, then voltage
need not rise AND a longer wire complements protection. But if that
protector is adjacent to an appliance, then surge current will still
flow down that longer wire. Voltage will increase as necessary to
make that current flow.

Why do telcos want their surge protector up to 50 meters separate
from the computer? If a protector is close to earth and protector is
far from the computer, then protection is even better. Just another
reason why telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors - why telcos
use the 'whole house' protector.

If a protector is adjacent to the appliance, then the 50 foot wire
(from circuit breaker box to receptacle) provides no protection AND
the protector may earth that surge destructively through nearby
appliances. But again, Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8 in that IEEE guide.
Why does a surge at the plug-in protector get earthed 8000 volts
destructively through a TV? Ineffective protector was too close to
appliances and too far from earth ground.

All appliances have internal protection. It was required by
standards even in the 1970s. Intel ATX specs require it to be even
better inside computers. However if one is using assumptions to find
MOVs inside an appliance, well, there is no such protector component.
In fact, manufacturers stopped putting MOVs inside appliances because
those five cent parts did nothing for protection.

MOV protectors were installed inside the Apple II. Apple Computer
no longer installed MOVs for same reasons that MOVs inside a power
strip also provided ineffective protection. All appliances must
withstand surges without damage - a standard defined by numbers.
Computers must be even more robust according to Intel ATX specs.

Recently computer ICs must now meet new standards. Interface ICs
are now constructed to withstand 2000 or 15000 volts. Again, nothing
new. For example, a datasheet for the USB interface IC provides
15,000 volts protection. Why does the datasheet define protection
with numbers and Phil denies this protection exists?
http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX3349EA.pdf

But again, the person promoting a minority opinion is also the only
one posting and quoting technical sources. View the data sheet that
lists 15,000 volts. Or view that manufacturer spec on power strip
protectors that claim to provide protection. Oh. No power strip spec
ever cites that protection. How curious. Defined by numerous sources
are reasons why the power strip protectors are not effective. Even
the manufacturer will not spec that protection. But we should know
power strip protectors are worth the tens or 100 times more money we
pay for them?

Why does Monster Cable take a $3 power strip, add some fancy paint,
and some ten cent parts, AND sell that protector for $150? Is it for
protection ... or for profits?

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-17 03:31:53 UTC

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:18:03 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:

| On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> The differential surge can be quenched by the whole house protector if
|> that surge is arriving at the entrance as a differential surge. However,
|> if the arriving surge is a common mode, any SPD located at that point
|> will not completely quench it.
|
| If the surge is differential, then one 'whole house' protector makes
| it irrelevant. If the surge is common mode, again the 'whole house'
| protector diverts that energy to where tens of thousands of joules
| (and more) are harmlessly dissipated. Either way, the 'whole house'
| protector is for all types of surges.

Why do you think this is so?

It is NOT so. No ONE protector completely eliminates any surge.

The whole house protector connected at the entrance point and grounded
does NOT divert all energy to ground. It only diverts part of it to
ground. The only way it could divert all energy to ground is to have
NO OTHER CONNECTION except ground (and the source of energy).

| If surges are created inside, then one 'whole house protector also
| protects from them. How often are dimmer switches, clock radios, and
| smoke detectors destroyed by internally generated surges? Never?
| Why? They don't have surge protectors? Where are these internally
| created surges (created daily) that routinely destroy unprotected
| appliances? Internally generated surges are made irrelevant by
| protection inside all appliances. And then we install one 'whole
| house' protector to make those surges even less relevant.

The susceptibility to a surge varies by device/appliance. Some are
more (or less) sensitive than others. So assuming that a class of
surge that would propogate to some device such as a dimmer switch
does not exist because over a span of years the dimmer switch has not
failed is just absurdity. The dimmer switch can be less susceptible
to a surge that might otherwise damage a VCR by a mere tiny amount,
causing its CPU to operate incorrectly and fail to function as intended.

| What are the typically destructive surges? Common mode. Lightning
| is simply the most typical example of such surges. Even if the common
| mode surge creates some differential mode energy, again, the 'whole
| house' protector also shunts that energy. How must energy in a common
| mode surge gets converted to differential mode? Near zero. Yes it
| happens. Then we provide the numbers. A massive common mode surge
| may also create a differential mode transient on some appliances. A
| transient so small as to be typically made irrelevant by protection
| inside all appliances AND made further irrelevant by the 'whole house'
| protector.

Induced surges do generally start out as common mode. Direct strike
contact surges can vary, but for close wires, common mode is also the
most common incident.

Common mode gets readily converted to differential mode as an effect
of the way we wire our power and communications systems. Power has
a conductor grounded at the transformer and again at the service
entrance. A surge that begins as a common mode surge near the power
transformer will be shunted to ground in part at the transformer,
and again at the entrance point. But only the grounded conductor has
this. The ungrounded conductors do not. So what starts out as for
example +8000V on each of the 3 wires becomes +8000V on the ungrounded
conductors and +2000V on the ungrounded conductor. The whole house
surge protector can then reduce these at the entrance, typically at
least in half. So with +4000V and +1000V, you have a difference of
3000V. The whole house protector reduces the surge, but does not
eliminate it. Most of the time this reduction is sufficient, if even
the surge itself was at the damage level.

| Which circuits will get more surges? Is that surge a voltage or a
| current surge? What makes the common mode surge so destructive?
| Surge current will flow no matter what. Voltage will increase, as
| necessary, so that surge current will flow. What happens when one
| installs a protector to stop or block that surge? Then voltage
| increases, as necessary, so that surge current flows. Just another
| reason why plug-in protectors cannot block or absorb surges.

The circuit that gets more surges is the one wired for it. That is,
the shorter, straighter circuit, with the closer connection to the
main lugs, will get more.

You are correct that the common mode surge current will flow, and will
present the voltage needed to make sure it flows when it encounters
a point of greater impedance. But any such point is a terminal, and
some of that surge will then propogate backwards. The portion depends
on the energy wavelength being considered (e.g. not all frequencies
are affected alike), and the reactive characteristics of the terminal
point. Where the voltage is forged to increase, the rise propogates
in all directions (there are at least 2 directions, one of them being
backwards).

A point of use protector, however, is NOT a device designed to somehow
stop a common mode surge from proceeding. It can do this to some
extent for higher frequency energy components. The inductance of the
circuit wire has this effect. Filters in the protective device, if
they are present, also have this effect.

The rest of the common mode protection afforded by the point of use
protector is equalization. It spreads the common mode surge, which
is now, hopefully, weak in high frequency components, evenly over a
number of devices. The spreading is no different than a plain power
strip would be, except that it ensures this equalization is uniform
over all the individual wires. Appliances that are interconnected,
like a TV and a DVD player, now see the same voltage rise together,
and have no difference that would result in any substantial current.
Thus they only get a charging current.

| . Yes, longer wires (greater separation between a protector and the
| surge source) means better surge protection, if ... If that surge
| current is diverted to earth at the service entrance, then voltage
| need not rise AND a longer wire complements protection. But if that
| protector is adjacent to an appliance, then surge current will still
| flow down that longer wire. Voltage will increase as necessary to
| make that current flow.

Longer wires do what they do regardless of what protection exists ahead
of them. But if there is protection ahead of them, either in the form
of a whole house protector that diverts energy to earth, or just the
plain old grounding of the neutral conductor which helps some, then
there is less energy entering the longer wires, so of course the result
is less.

Add yet another protection at the end of the circuit, in the form of a
point of use SPD, and your protection is greater. It is never 100% in
any scenario. But having both is better than having only one or the
other alone.

| Why do telcos want their surge protector up to 50 meters separate
| from the computer? If a protector is close to earth and protector is
| far from the computer, then protection is even better. Just another
| reason why telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors - why telcos
| use the 'whole house' protector.

They can get some added protection from the inductance. So the distance
helps.

In a telco CO, the entrance protection *IS* the equalization protection.
This is because everything in the telco CO is interconnected. There is
very little benefit of a point of use protector in a telco CO because
everything is so widely interconnected.

Remember, if you have a stereo system to protect, you _must_ plug all
components into the same SPD. Additional SPDs after that for only _part_
of the system does little or no good. It most certainly does NOT perfrom
any equalization protection. So the correct place to connect the point
of use protector is determined by backing up from the group of devices
that are interconnected, and connect everything through that protector.

If you apply that logic to a telco CO, or a TV station, then aside from
any business office appliances (e.g. the computer in the boss's personal
office), the "point of common use" is the entrance itself. The scenario
of a telco CO is entirely different from that of the average home.

| If a protector is adjacent to the appliance, then the 50 foot wire
| (from circuit breaker box to receptacle) provides no protection AND
| the protector may earth that surge destructively through nearby
| appliances. But again, Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8 in that IEEE guide.
| Why does a surge at the plug-in protector get earthed 8000 volts
| destructively through a TV? Ineffective protector was too close to
| appliances and too far from earth ground.

That 50 foot wire reduced the common mode surge. It reduced higher
frequencies more so than lower frequencies. I will also reduce the
differential mode surge somewhat.

I have no interest in an IEEE guide that describes how to protect a
miswired house. Protecting such a house is more black art bordering
on magic, than it is any form of science. Proper protection starts
with correct wiring.

| All appliances have internal protection. It was required by
| standards even in the 1970s. Intel ATX specs require it to be even
| better inside computers. However if one is using assumptions to find
| MOVs inside an appliance, well, there is no such protector component.
| In fact, manufacturers stopped putting MOVs inside appliances because
| those five cent parts did nothing for protection.

That ("All appliances have internal protection") is not true.

| MOV protectors were installed inside the Apple II. Apple Computer
| no longer installed MOVs for same reasons that MOVs inside a power
| strip also provided ineffective protection. All appliances must
| withstand surges without damage - a standard defined by numbers.
| Computers must be even more robust according to Intel ATX specs.

That ("All appliances must withstand surges without damage") is not true.
There may exist an intention on the part of the misguided to expect such
things, but it cannot happen.

Appliances can withstand surges up to some point. Beyond that there is a
breakdown voltage beyond with damage occurs. Sometimes the damage is small
and accumulative, such as pin holes in insulation of a motor winding. In
time the winding will degrade and short out. Surges expedite this event.
The same can happen for transformers.

Still, a motor might be able to withstand a brief 50kV surge whereas a
DVD player could lose its CPU on just a 2kV surge.

| Recently computer ICs must now meet new standards. Interface ICs
| are now constructed to withstand 2000 or 15000 volts. Again, nothing
| new. For example, a datasheet for the USB interface IC provides
| 15,000 volts protection. Why does the datasheet define protection
| with numbers and Phil denies this protection exists?
| http://datasheets.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/MAX3349EA.pdf

The described protection is electrostatic. That's not the same as a surge
produced by lightning that is allowed to enter one device and not another.
Even at less that 15kV difference between devices interconnected with USB
(such as a computer and an external USB hard drive), this kind of surge can
completely destroy the interface IC. This kind of protection is for minor
cases of _people_ being statically charged and inserting USB devices into
a computer. Note that this protection factor is NOT described in Joules.
Static build up surges are very short time impulses. They do have very
large voltages, and very low current ... and very low energy.

| But again, the person promoting a minority opinion is also the only
| one posting and quoting technical sources. View the data sheet that
| lists 15,000 volts. Or view that manufacturer spec on power strip
| protectors that claim to provide protection. Oh. No power strip spec
| ever cites that protection. How curious. Defined by numerous sources
| are reasons why the power strip protectors are not effective. Even
| the manufacturer will not spec that protection. But we should know
| power strip protectors are worth the tens or 100 times more money we
| pay for them?

Your quotes of various information sources are being misapplied as described
above.

I also see protection levels specified on quite many power strip plug-in
point of use protectors. I was looking at some just last night because
someone on IRC has suggested a certain manufacturer had one for a 240V
circuit. They in fact had one. It had a substantially lower level of
protection than most of their 120V models.

| Why does Monster Cable take a $3 power strip, add some fancy paint,
| and some ten cent parts, AND sell that protector for $150? Is it for
| protection ... or for profits?

Some companies sell you a NAME. There may be some better guts in them in
some caes. So it is for profit.

Just because some companies do sell junk versions of certain things does not
mean that _class_ of thing is not worth having.

w_tom

2008-09-17 15:03:36 UTC

Either way, the 'whole house' protector is for all types of surges.

Why do you think this is so?
It is NOT so. No ONE protector completely eliminates any surge.
The whole house protector connected at the entrance point and grounded
does NOT divert all energy to ground. It only diverts part of it to
ground. The only way it could divert all energy to ground is to have
NO OTHER CONNECTION except ground (and the source of energy).

The 'whole house' protector is so sufficient that most all surge
energy goes to ground (dissipated harmlessly) via a low impedance
path. Any surge that would seek earth ground via those long romex
wires is so trivial as to be made irrelevant by protection inside all
appliances.

But again, the numbers. Assume a plug-in protector will earth a
trivial 100 amp surge via 50 feet of inside the wall (romex) wire.
Wire impedance says that voltage from appliance to breaker box is
something less than 12,000 volts. The wire is so long that high
impedance creates that high voltage.

Now install a 'whole house' protector that can earth at least 50,000
amps. How much voltage must the breaker box be to make a trivial 100
amp surge approach the appliance? 12,000 volts. A 'whole house'
protector that has limited voltage to 1000 volts clearly will send
very little surge current to appliances. If that current does arrive
with no voltage losses (impossible, but if), then 1000 volts
protection in all computers would make that surge irrelevant. IOW
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed when earthing one
'whole house' protector.

And then another concept - equipotential - means even less surge
energy enters the house. Why would a surge seek earth ground inside
the house when voltage beneath the house is already near same levels?
Just another reason why 'whole house' protector is so effective.

Why does the telco suffer no damage. Interconnecting everything can
create ground loops - surge damage. That same point was made in
Montandon and Rubinstein's 1998 IEEE paper. (Why do I know so many
professional sources and papers? Maybe I learned this stuff decades
ago?) Telcos eliminate surge damage by interconnecting to a single
point earth ground - not interconnecting everything to everything

Post by p***@ipal.net
1) Whenever possible, a single entry point should be
used for all incoming services in order to avoid that
part of the lightning current flow ...
2) large loops should be avoided by suitable cable
routing inside the building (see figure 10) ...
3) Do not establish equipotenialization by multiple bonding
... to different potential points within the structure.

which means everything is not interconnected to everything else.
Telcos use 'whole house' protectors AND bond everything back to single
point ground. If plug-in protectors work inside homes, then plug-in
protectors work in telco COs. Telcos don't use plug-in protectors for
numerous reasons. Ie. plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide
effective protection. No specs claim that protection.

Repeated stated, a protector is only as good as its earth ground.
If we don't waste money on plug-in protectors and instead upgrade the
earthing, then that 1000 volts can be reduced to 500 volts. Another
example of why a protector is only as effective as its earth ground
AND why every high reliability facility upgrades earthing.

What do Florida residents do for no surge damage? Upgrade earthing
even better:
Loading Image...

http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
But again, nothing new or revolutionary. For 100 years, earthing is
how surge damage was routinely avoided.

Above is only secondary protection. Better protection means layered
protection. Each layer is defined only by what defines that layer -
the single point earth ground. Homeowners should also inspect the
other layer; their primary surge protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Station personnel created even more surge damage by disconnected
earthing. Eventually, they needed a professional who eliminated surge
damage to expensive Nebraska station electronics. How did he
eliminate surge damage? He fixed and upgraded what provides surge
protection - earthing. Yes, he even upgraded the (utility installed)
primary surge protection system. No plug-in protectors were used to
eliminate all surge damage:
http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html

How did Orange County FL 911 system eventually eliminate surge
damage? Again, fixed or upgraded what provides surge protection -
earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Why do I know this stuff? We traced surges. We replaced components
to make surge damaged equipment working. We discovered how plug-in
protectors even made surge damage easier. Equipment had to suffer
direct lightning strikes without damage. Solutions learned from
experience were always less expensive and simple. Protection is about
earthing which is why the 'whole house' protector is so effective and
why the plug-in protector does not even claim to provide effective
protection.

I never said anything was 100% effective. Put numbers to the
protection (why does he have all these facts and numbers?). From IEEE
Green Book (IEEE Standard 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning

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

Properly earth one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per
appliance. If 99.5% is insufficient, then spend $3000 for plug-in
protectors. Of course, plug-in protectors do not even claim to
provide protection. But if an additional $3000 makes you happy, then
even I will sell one to you. With profit margins that obscene, even I
would sell you a plug-in protector.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-17 18:35:14 UTC

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:03:36 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 16, 11:31 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|>> Either way, the 'whole house' protector is for all types of surges.
|>
|> Why do you think this is so?
|> It is NOT so. No ONE protector completely eliminates any surge.
|> The whole house protector connected at the entrance point and grounded
|> does NOT divert all energy to ground. It only diverts part of it to
|> ground. The only way it could divert all energy to ground is to have
|> NO OTHER CONNECTION except ground (and the source of energy).
|
| The 'whole house' protector is so sufficient that most all surge
| energy goes to ground (dissipated harmlessly) via a low impedance
| path. Any surge that would seek earth ground via those long romex
| wires is so trivial as to be made irrelevant by protection inside all
| appliances.

You have a pair of wires that reaches a junction. That junction has
two additional pairs of wires. There are a total of 3 pairs of wires
at this junction. We can label them A, B, and C.

A surge propogating over wire pair A reaches the junctions. The surge
somehow "knows" that wire pair B is attached to ground and wire pair C
is not attached to ground. The surge "chooses" to travel over wire
pair B and not wire pair C.

Do you actually believe the above scenario really happens?

| But again, the numbers. Assume a plug-in protector will earth a
| trivial 100 amp surge via 50 feet of inside the wall (romex) wire.
| Wire impedance says that voltage from appliance to breaker box is
| something less than 12,000 volts. The wire is so long that high
| impedance creates that high voltage.

Why would I assume that?

| Now install a 'whole house' protector that can earth at least 50,000
| amps. How much voltage must the breaker box be to make a trivial 100
| amp surge approach the appliance? 12,000 volts. A 'whole house'
| protector that has limited voltage to 1000 volts clearly will send
| very little surge current to appliances. If that current does arrive
| with no voltage losses (impossible, but if), then 1000 volts
| protection in all computers would make that surge irrelevant. IOW
| protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed when earthing one
| 'whole house' protector.

And the surge "chooses" to entirely go over one metallic path and just
disregard the existance of another metallic path when it reaches the
junction that lets it go either way?

Your assumption that "whole house" protection is complete protection
is just utterly false.

| And then another concept - equipotential - means even less surge
| energy enters the house. Why would a surge seek earth ground inside
| the house when voltage beneath the house is already near same levels?
| Just another reason why 'whole house' protector is so effective.

Surges do not "seek" anything, except maybe to get away from where they
have been (e.g. forward propogation).

| Why does the telco suffer no damage. Interconnecting everything can

It is not true that they suffer no damage. Damage does in fact occur.
What is true is that the equipment they use is better able to handle
the surges that remain after their diverse entrance protections. But
that is not 100% protection.

| create ground loops - surge damage. That same point was made in

They have no choice but to interconnect things. It's what they do.
So they have to design the protection around that constraint.

| Montandon and Rubinstein's 1998 IEEE paper. (Why do I know so many
| professional sources and papers? Maybe I learned this stuff decades
| ago?) Telcos eliminate surge damage by interconnecting to a single

Or maybe you didn't and just made a lot of incorrect assumptions.

| point earth ground - not interconnecting everything to everything
| else. Their first conclusion (how curious that I have their paper):

The telco equipment is widely interconnected. These days, more and more
of it is interconnected _optically_ and so their exposures are less.
But substantial amounts _are_ interconnected metallically.

|> 1) Whenever possible, a single entry point should be
|> used for all incoming services in order to avoid that
|> part of the lightning current flow ...
|> 2) large loops should be avoided by suitable cable
|> routing inside the building (see figure 10) ...
|> 3) Do not establish equipotenialization by multiple bonding
|> ... to different potential points within the structure.
| which means everything is not interconnected to everything else.
| Telcos use 'whole house' protectors AND bond everything back to single
| point ground. If plug-in protectors work inside homes, then plug-in
| protectors work in telco COs. Telcos don't use plug-in protectors for
| numerous reasons. Ie. plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide
| effective protection. No specs claim that protection.

The "single point ground" is often (and probably usually) a ground ring
or similar kind of grounding system.

Get this through your thick skull:

Plug-in protectors work when the plug-in protector can be applied to
the WHOLE group of interconnected equipment. In a home where the
number of pieces of such equipment typically is half a dozen or fewer
then it it practical to use a plug-in protector. In a telco CO the
plug-in protector would have to have HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of pieces
of equipment plugged into it. That is NOT practical for an 8-outlet
power strip with a 15 amp plug.

Telcos protect their equipment on a LARGER SCALE where the whole CO
is all protected together in a different way than a home is protected.

It is possible, but not economically practical, for a home to be
protected the way a telco CO is protected.

It is not economically practical, and probably not even possible, for
telco CO to be protected the way a home is protected.

You seem to be totally blind to the fundamental differences.

You seem to be making assumptions that what works in one place will
work just the same in an entirely different scenario.

You have NO CONCEPT of what actually takes place in a surge and thus
you cannot visualize a surge taking place and how it behaves.

| Repeated stated, a protector is only as good as its earth ground.

Repeating does not make it true. The surge isn't listening to you.

| If we don't waste money on plug-in protectors and instead upgrade the
| earthing, then that 1000 volts can be reduced to 500 volts. Another
| example of why a protector is only as effective as its earth ground
| AND why every high reliability facility upgrades earthing.

The portion of the surge that travels over the junction path that ends
up at ground will, when it reaches that ground, be mostly dissipated
into the ground. But this says nothing about the portion of the surge
that went the other way.

But you assume the surge is seeking ground AND knows in advance which
path is the way to ground AND goes 100% to that path.

| What do Florida residents do for no surge damage? Upgrade earthing
| even better:
| http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
| http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
| http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
| But again, nothing new or revolutionary. For 100 years, earthing is
| how surge damage was routinely avoided.

The fact is, a great many, and probably the vast majority, of homes have
poor ground now. So upgrading the ground will always help. But it will
not bring the level of protection up to 100%. And it will NOT create a
situation where either entrance protection or point of use protection
fails to provide additional protection.

A building with poor ground will get inconsistent results from whatever
combination of other forms of protection it uses. But this is a building
that is INCORRECTLY WIRED.

| Above is only secondary protection. Better protection means layered
| protection. Each layer is defined only by what defines that layer -
| the single point earth ground. Homeowners should also inspect the
| other layer; their primary surge protection system:
| http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
|
| Station personnel created even more surge damage by disconnected
| earthing. Eventually, they needed a professional who eliminated surge
| damage to expensive Nebraska station electronics. How did he
| eliminate surge damage? He fixed and upgraded what provides surge
| protection - earthing. Yes, he even upgraded the (utility installed)
| primary surge protection system. No plug-in protectors were used to
| eliminate all surge damage:
| http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html

But YOU (w_tom) still fail to understand why a telco CO or a TV station
would find it impractical to use a plug-in surge protector.

Again, I will explain it to you:

The primary protection offered by a point of use protector is equalizing
the surge over a group of interconnected equipment. In order for this
kind of protection to be effective, ALL pieces of equipment must be plugged
into this protector. You can do that with your home stereo system by
plugging in the amplifier, tuner, CD player, tape deck, and turntable,
into the same protective device. You can do that with your home theater
system by plugging your TV, DVD player, VHS recorder, and cable/satellite
box into the same protective device (and you MUST also connect the cable,
satellite, and/or TV antenna feed through that protector, as well). You
can do that with your home computer by plugging the computer, monitor,
and the wall warts for the modem, router, LAN switch, and external drives,
all into the same protective device.

If you want to do the same for a telco CO or a TV station, then you MUST
plug ALL the equipment into the same protective device. This is clearly
impractical for a group of over 100 pieces of equipment.

Instead, a telco CO or a TV station will upgrade the entrance protection
they use to be of a type that offers a better level of protection than
the typical home-grade "whole house" protector.

For a home, or even some small businesses, it is more economical to break
apart the functions of protection such that point of use protection is
used. This is more economical protection because of the smaller equipment
groups involved in a home that allows a point of use protective device to
reduce the kinds of surges it is designed to act on.

| How did Orange County FL 911 system eventually eliminate surge
| damage? Again, fixed or upgraded what provides surge protection -
| earthing:
| http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Try plugging all their equipment into a single plug-in surge protector.
You can't because they have too much equipment for that to be practical.
So they MUST upgrade their building-scale protection to make it do the
combined job. THEY spent MORE money on this protection than a home
needs to spend to get the same level of protection.

| Why do I know this stuff? We traced surges. We replaced components
| to make surge damaged equipment working. We discovered how plug-in
| protectors even made surge damage easier. Equipment had to suffer
| direct lightning strikes without damage. Solutions learned from
| experience were always less expensive and simple. Protection is about
| earthing which is why the 'whole house' protector is so effective and
| why the plug-in protector does not even claim to provide effective
| protection.

Plug-in protectors commonly do make surges worse when the building and
equipment is wired wrong. Do your surge tracing on a building that is
correctly wired and come back to me with your (negative) results.

| I never said anything was 100% effective. Put numbers to the
| protection (why does he have all these facts and numbers?). From IEEE
| Green Book (IEEE Standard 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning
| Protection Grounding':

Protection is a tradeoff in costs. For a home, having $100,000 in protection
for $10,000 of equipment is pointless. If you're going to pay that much,
just buy 2 extra sets of equipment and hire people to re-install for you when
things get damaged.

For a telco CO or a TV station, $1,000,000 in protection equipment to protect
$20,000,000 in equipment AND millions of dollars of lost revenue in downtime
is money well spent. This is NOT going to involve a power company installed
surge protector in the meter base. Instead, it will be correctly engineering
building grounds, correctly engineered wiring of the building for power and
all metallic communications, industry grade equipment that integrates surge
equalization across connected components in cases where it is economically an
advantage to do so, and the highest quality entrance surge protective devices
that could easily cost more than your whole house.

A telco CO or a TV station has a completely different economic model and a
completely different equipment strategy involved. While there are ways to
make analogies between a TV station and a typical home, these are more complex.
You clearly don't understand the distinction since your analogies assume them
to merely be the same.

|> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
|> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
|> not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
|> providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
|> Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
|> strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
|> 6000 years ...
|
| Properly earth one 'whole house' protector for about $1 per
| appliance. If 99.5% is insufficient, then spend $3000 for plug-in
| protectors. Of course, plug-in protectors do not even claim to
| provide protection. But if an additional $3000 makes you happy, then
| even I will sell one to you. With profit margins that obscene, even I
| would sell you a plug-in protector.

The whole house protector will provide adequate (not perfect, but measured in
an economic sense, all you need) for most of the power loads in a house. Most
of them are lights and cheaper devices that can be easily replaced. There is
no need for a plug-in protector everywhere. Where you put the plug-in protector
is at the groups of equipment of higher value, either in terms of replacement
cost, or in terms of the need for continued use. Do use plug-in protectors on
your stereo system, theater system, and computer system. Also use them, with
care taken to follow instructions exactly, on any health care equipment used
by invalid relative residents. Use them on the security alarm (though these
general do integrate most of their own protection). DO NOT BOTHER protecting
other things like water heater, dryer, stove, clothes washer, refrigerator,
etc. The whole house protection by itself is adequate for THOSE appliances
in most cases.

w_tom

2008-09-18 04:58:23 UTC

A surge propogating over wire pair A reaches the junctions. The surge
somehow "knows" that wire pair B is attached to ground and wire pair C
is not attached to ground. The surge "chooses" to travel over wire
pair B and not wire pair C.
Do you actually believe the above scenario really happens?

Your scenario completely misrepresents reality and what I posted.
Put a 1 ohm resistor in wire B. Put a 10K resistor in wire C. Now
that the ignored numbers are added, well where does 100 amps flow?
According to your bottom line conclusion, that 100 amps flows equally
through wire B and C? Nonsense.

Stop confusing the issue with wire pairs. Destructive surges are
common mode. That means current flow down one wire OR all wires. If
current is in all wires, then all wires carry same current as if all
wires were the same wire.

Now, current flowing down wire B (and into earth) means voltage on
both ends of wire C is nearly zero. Why would destructive currents
flow through wire C 1) with a 10K resistor and 2) with almost no
voltage difference? Just another reason why protectors are effective
when distant from appliances and close (ie 'less than 10 feet') to
earth ground. Just another reason why most all that 100 amps flows
through wire B.

Why do telcos put protectors at earth ground and up to 50 meters
distant from electronics? Exact same reason (once we add those
missing numbers). Protector distant from electronics and closer to
earth ground is even better. Protector adjacent to electronics simply
connects a wire C surge current destructively through electronics into
earth.

Plug-in protectors earthing surges through adjacent appliances is
the IEEE example on Page 42 Figure 8, is what we saw when two plug-in
power strips earthed a lightning strike through three powered off and
networked computers, AND is the problem defined in Martzloff's IEEE
paper on the upside-down house.

Install the surge protection as soon as practical where
the conductor enters the interior of the facility.

A direct quote from the US Air Force training manual. Why do I
repeatedly quote those who install protection to have no damage? Air
Force - like all facilities that demand no surge damage - put
protectors as close to earth ground where surges would enter the
building AND separated from protected electronics.

Wire C is long so that a (electrically equivalent) resistor causes
more surge to find earth ground via wire B. A long wire C between
electronics and the protector means wire adds to protection already
inside the appliance. This is well understood where damage is not
acceptable and must be ignored where obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors are being promoted.

Any protection that might work adjacent to the appliance (inside a
plug-in protector) is already inside the appliance. Internal
protection that required a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-18 18:52:54 UTC

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:58:23 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 17, 2:35?pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> A surge propogating over wire pair A reaches the junctions. ?The surge
|> somehow "knows" that wire pair B is attached to ground and wire pair C
|> is not attached to ground. ?The surge "chooses" to travel over wire
|> pair B and not wire pair C.
|> Do you actually believe the above scenario really happens?
|
| Your scenario completely misrepresents reality and what I posted.
| Put a 1 ohm resistor in wire B. Put a 10K resistor in wire C. Now
| that the ignored numbers are added, well where does 100 amps flow?
| According to your bottom line conclusion, that 100 amps flows equally
| through wire B and C? Nonsense.

Reality is that there are no resistors in the wires for the power connections.
Maybe the cable company does that, but the electric company does not.

| Stop confusing the issue with wire pairs. Destructive surges are
| common mode. That means current flow down one wire OR all wires. If
| current is in all wires, then all wires carry same current as if all
| wires were the same wire.

Stop making narrow assumptions. Surges can shift modes AND can be just
as destructive in either mode.

I give examples in terms of wire pairs so it CAN be explored and examined
in term of either common mode or differential mode.

| Now, current flowing down wire B (and into earth) means voltage on
| both ends of wire C is nearly zero. Why would destructive currents
| flow through wire C 1) with a 10K resistor and 2) with almost no
| voltage difference? Just another reason why protectors are effective
| when distant from appliances and close (ie 'less than 10 feet') to
| earth ground. Just another reason why most all that 100 amps flows
| through wire B.

I have no interest in exploring how a surge flows through resistors.

| Why do telcos put protectors at earth ground and up to 50 meters
| distant from electronics? Exact same reason (once we add those
| missing numbers). Protector distant from electronics and closer to
| earth ground is even better. Protector adjacent to electronics simply
| connects a wire C surge current destructively through electronics into
| earth.

Why do you still misunderstand the substantial differences between a
telco CO and a residential home?

A telco can, and must, to things differently than a home, for various
reasons, but the big ones are that they have MUCH more equipment to
deal with, and can afford protection that costs more than your whole
house.

| Plug-in protectors earthing surges through adjacent appliances is
| the IEEE example on Page 42 Figure 8, is what we saw when two plug-in
| power strips earthed a lightning strike through three powered off and
| networked computers, AND is the problem defined in Martzloff's IEEE
| paper on the upside-down house.

Plug-in protectors equalize the surges they get so that voltage difference
between connected appliances is kept minimal.

| Why do US Air Force standards demand:
|> Install the surge protection as soon as practical where
|> the conductor enters the interior of the facility.
| A direct quote from the US Air Force training manual. Why do I
| repeatedly quote those who install protection to have no damage? Air
| Force - like all facilities that demand no surge damage - put
| protectors as close to earth ground where surges would enter the
| building AND separated from protected electronics.

The answer to why is because they are the US Air Force. They are NOT a
home. Things are done differently.

Do you think a home should be protected with the same means they use to
protect a telco CO, a TV station, or an Air Force radar installation?

| Wire C is long so that a (electrically equivalent) resistor causes
| more surge to find earth ground via wire B. A long wire C between
| electronics and the protector means wire adds to protection already
| inside the appliance. This is well understood where damage is not
| acceptable and must be ignored where obscenely overpriced plug-in
| protectors are being promoted.
|
| Any protection that might work adjacent to the appliance (inside a
| plug-in protector) is already inside the appliance. Internal
| protection that required a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

You really haven't taken apart any appliances, have you?

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-17 18:42:37 UTC

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:03:36 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:

| http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
| http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
| http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
| http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
| http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html
| http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

BTW, I am totally UN-interested in your links. What I am interested in is
how much YOU personally understand about surges and how to protect against
them. I want to see YOUR arguments about why YOU think things work they way
they do and why YOU think other approaches are inadequate or make things worse.
If such time comes that you make a logical argument that depends up some facts
that are in dispute, THEN I will ask to see if you can support those facts.
My assertion is that despite all these documents you can cite, and despite all
the scenarios you have experienced, your personal analysis of the observations
you have made has been incorrect and has given you the wrong conclusion. If
you think anything I have said is incorrect, then FIRST describe the logic of
what is incorrect about it based on how YOU understand it. I have no interest
in reading some misapplied-by-you document that only seems to YOU to be in
contractiction to something anyone says. I am only interested in YOUR (lack
of) _understanding_ of the topic.

w_tom

2008-09-18 05:11:47 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
BTW, I am totally UN-interested in your links. What I am interested in is
how much YOU personally understand about surges and how to protect against
them.

Which one has been posting quotes from industry professionals, the
electric circuits with numbers, what every high reliability facility
does, what was known for the past 100 years, personal experiences with
designing surge protection, AND tracing surge damage. No, your
questions are not to discover how much I know. Every one of those
links demonstrated far more than you have provided to challenge them.
Protection is always defined by earthing. Where is that surge energy
dissipated if not in earth? Where is that plug-in protector spec that
even claims to provide that protection. You cannot even answer those
questions. This is not about what I know. This is becoming more
about what you do not know, cannot post, and worse ... where are
those specs that even claim a plug-in protector provides any
protection?

How many times do you speculate a myth and I answer with
professional sources – ie an IEEE paper from Montandon and
Rubinstein. What do you do? Ignore what the professionals say.

You are wasting everyone's time if you cannot even provide those
specs. Using a 'whole house' protector with or without plug-in
protectors accomplishes same. But doing it without plug-in protectors
means saving $3000. After all, you still do not provide a single spec
that says plug-in protectors provide any protection.

Meanwhile you also ignore what Martzloff, my own experiences, and
Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrate. A plug-in protector can even earth
surges destructively through adjacent appliances. You don't dispute
this. You simply pretend those facts do not exist. Those facts
exist. What does not exist? That plug-in protector spec that claims
protection from each type of surge.

What was known even 100 years ago? A protector is only as effective
as its earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Therefore every facility that must never suffer surge damage is very
careful about installing what makes surge protection effective -
single point earth ground. A fact demonstrated by those links from
professionals that you must ignore to remain in denial.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-18 18:59:42 UTC

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:11:47 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 17, 2:42 pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> BTW, I am totally UN-interested in your links. What I am interested in is
|> how much YOU personally understand about surges and how to protect against
|> them.
|
| Which one has been posting quotes from industry professionals, the

Which one posts quotes entirely out of context, and applies them totally
wrong, because he doesn't understand them?

Which one is trying to put a $200,000 protective system in a home?

| How many times do you speculate a myth and I answer with
| professional sources ? ie an IEEE paper from Montandon and
| Rubinstein. What do you do? Ignore what the professionals say.

How many times do you answer science you don't understand with references
that don't apply to the circumstances involved?

| You are wasting everyone's time if you cannot even provide those
| specs. Using a 'whole house' protector with or without plug-in
| protectors accomplishes same. But doing it without plug-in protectors
| means saving $3000. After all, you still do not provide a single spec
| that says plug-in protectors provide any protection.

You do not need plug-in protectors on _every_ appliance. I have never said
that, so your $3000 figure is YOUR OWN ERRONEOUS creation.

I say you need the plug-in protectors, and not more than about $200 worth,
with this figure _widely_ varying depending on circumstances.

| Meanwhile you also ignore what Martzloff, my own experiences, and

You don't even understand your own experiences.

| Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrate. A plug-in protector can even earth
| surges destructively through adjacent appliances. You don't dispute
| this. You simply pretend those facts do not exist. Those facts
| exist. What does not exist? That plug-in protector spec that claims
| protection from each type of surge.

A plug-in protector does not earth surges. It equalizes surges when it is
used in a correctly wired building.

| What was known even 100 years ago? A protector is only as effective
| as its earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection.
| Therefore every facility that must never suffer surge damage is very
| careful about installing what makes surge protection effective -
| single point earth ground. A fact demonstrated by those links from
| professionals that you must ignore to remain in denial.

Less was known 100 years ago. You need to catch up.

w_tom

2008-09-17 15:12:17 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Just because some companies do sell junk versions of certain things does not
mean that _class_ of thing is not worth having.

Same components and circuit inside that Monster Cable $150 protector
is also in the APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and $10 grocery store
protector. And all claim to provide the same protection. Where is
that manufacture spec quoted for each type of surge? No such spec
exists for any plug-in protector. Same circuit sold for a profit in
that $10 grocery store protector is sold at much higher prices by
those other manufacturers - who do not even claim to provide that
protection.

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Was
known 100 years ago and is standard for protection in every telco CO.
They don't waste money on highly profitable an ineffective plug-in
protectors. Instead, they want protection.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-17 18:52:30 UTC

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 16, 11:31?pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> Just because some companies do sell junk versions of certain things does not
|> mean that _class_ of thing is not worth having.
|
| Same components and circuit inside that Monster Cable $150 protector
| is also in the APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and $10 grocery store
| protector. And all claim to provide the same protection. Where is
| that manufacture spec quoted for each type of surge? No such spec
| exists for any plug-in protector. Same circuit sold for a profit in
| that $10 grocery store protector is sold at much higher prices by
| those other manufacturers - who do not even claim to provide that
| protection.

Things you failed to observe (or are lying about): lack of specs. There
are some devices that do give specs.

Things you don't comprehend: economics. For example, supply and demand
can raise the price of a name-brand product to many times its cost of
manufacturing. If you want the "Monster Cable" name on everything you
own, then pay for it (or find a cheap Chinese forgery).

| A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Was
| known 100 years ago and is standard for protection in every telco CO.
| They don't waste money on highly profitable an ineffective plug-in
| protectors. Instead, they want protection.

Even the telco CO protection is more than just earthing protection. But you
would not understand that because you see only primary entrance protections.
Because the ENTIRE CO must be protected as a SINGLE UNIT, they have to integrate
all their protection as such.

Your home will not have the kind of protection a telco CO or a TV station has.
The whole house protection you will have, and the grounding you will have
(usually a couple of 3 meter deep grounding electrodes very near the entrance
point), provides you with less protection than the telco CO or TV station.
You can them supplement that protection FOR A FEW APPLIANCES that really need
more because of the value of making sure you don't live without them for any
length of time, with a point of use protector. But even this needs to be
correctly wired. All interconnected appliances need to be wired into a group.
If you run an ethernet connection between your refrigerator and microwave oven
then you should consider plugging them into a common protector. But if they
are not interconnected, or the interconnection is wireless or optical, then
don't bother.

w_tom

2008-09-18 14:10:58 UTC

Things you failed to observe (or are lying about): lack of specs. There
are some devices that do give specs.

Good. Instead of making speculative technical claims, where is your
IEEE paper? Where are your industry professional testimonies? Where
are your numbers? Where are your examples of how others solved these
problems? And where are those specs you say exist?

If those manufacturer specs for protection exist, then you posted
them. We know those specs do not exist because we engineers did this
stuff and even know why those specs do not exist.

Effective protectors protect from all types of surges. Even Phil
said plug-in protectors only protect from differential mode surges.
As demonstrated so many times over, the differential mode surge is
typically not destructive, is made irrelevant by protection inside all
appliances (which is why dimmer switches and clock radios are not
being replaced daily), AND is made further irrelevant by installing
one 'whole house' protector. The typically destructive surge is
common mode - lightning being the typical example.

Why no manufacturer specs for protection? Well, where is that surge
energy dissipated? Earth ground. Discussed are secondary and primary
surge protection systems. Both are defined by what? Each layer is
defined by its single point ground. And that discussion includes
citations and quotes from professional sources.

How to identify ineffective protectors. 1) It has no dedicated,
short, low impedance connection to earth. 2) Manufacturer avoids all
discussion about earthing and where that surge energy gets dissipated.

Yes, one can install a series mode device to block surges - to
supplement protection. Either they work like dams (fail to stop a
surge) or they work like dikes to divert the flood downstream (which
means the 'whole house' protector must be properly earthed). No large
downstream path to absorb a flood ('whole house' protector and earth
ground to absorb surge energy) means that dam is overwhelmed.

Series mode protector can act like a dike - only is the 'whole
house' protector is properly earthed.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why
every responsible source requires protectors connected short to
earth. For example, Sun Microsystems' Planning guide for Sun Server

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

How curious. 'Whole house' protectors are provided by companies
with highly respected reputations such as Siemens, Leviton, Cutler-
Hammer, Polyphaser, Intermatic, Square D, Keison, and GE. Who does
not sell 'whole house' protectors? Companies that sell only plug-in
protectors on myths at massive profit such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite,
and Monster Cable.

Where are these plug-in specs? If specs existed, then you posted
them. How does a plug-in protector supplement protection? It's not a
series mode device. A plug-in protector - a shunt mode device - does
not even claim to protect for the type of surge that typically does
damage. So how does it supplement protection? Where is that spec?
Where is that short connection to earth so that a shunt mode device
can divert the surge into earth? Shunt mode protectors do not block
or absorb surges. So many responsible sources use the action word:
divert. No earth ground is why a plug-in protector can even divert
surge energy 8000 volts destructively into an adjacent TV or network
of powered off computers.

A protection spec for that plug-in protector does not exist. How can
it supplement protection when it does not even claim to provide that
protection? A shunt mode protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

bud--

2008-09-18 16:33:08 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
Things you failed to observe (or are lying about): lack of specs. There
are some devices that do give specs.

If those manufacturer specs for protection exist, then you posted
them. We know those specs do not exist because we engineers did this
stuff and even know why those specs do not exist.

.
The lie repeated. Specs have been posted in this thread (and ignored as
usual).
.

Post by w_tom
How to identify ineffective protectors. 1) It has no dedicated,
short, low impedance connection to earth.

.
The religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
.

Post by w_tom
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground

.
The religious mantra #2.
.

Post by w_tom
How curious. 'Whole house' protectors are provided by companies
with highly respected reputations such as Siemens, Leviton, Cutler-
Hammer, Polyphaser, Intermatic, Square D, Keison, and GE.

.
How curious. All the companies but SquareD and Polyphaser also sell
plug-in suppressors.

For it's best service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
.

Post by w_tom
A plug-in protector - a shunt mode device - does
not even claim to protect for the type of surge that typically does
damage.

.
Complete bullcrap.
.

Post by w_tom
A shunt mode protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

.
w_'s religious mantra (#3) protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka
reality).

Sill never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug–in suppressors
do NOT work.

And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "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 the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

--
bud--

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-18 20:06:38 UTC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:10:58 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 17, 2:52?pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> Things you failed to observe (or are lying about): ?lack of specs. ?There
|> are some devices that do give specs.
|
| Good. Instead of making speculative technical claims, where is your
| IEEE paper? Where are your industry professional testimonies? Where
| are your numbers? Where are your examples of how others solved these
| problems? And where are those specs you say exist?

I don't need to write papers. And I sure would not write one for you.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting since you're probably the only
one even opening the post, and you don't really read it.

| If those manufacturer specs for protection exist, then you posted
| them. We know those specs do not exist because we engineers did this
| stuff and even know why those specs do not exist.

Go read them for yourself. Or are you limiting your searches to just
the IEEE and NIST web sites?

| Effective protectors protect from all types of surges. Even Phil

An effective protection SYSTEM protects from all types of surges. In a
home, an effective AND economical SYSTEM is made up of separate parts,
not all combined in one.

| said plug-in protectors only protect from differential mode surges.

False. I've already told you the other way they protect.

| As demonstrated so many times over, the differential mode surge is
| typically not destructive, is made irrelevant by protection inside all

Who cares about the typical surge. The typical surge of ANY MODE is
not destructive. These typical surges are not the issue. The issue
is the rare occaisional destructive surge.

The physics of surge propogation does suggest that a differential mode
surge would tend to be weaker than a common mode surge in most cases.
There are exceptions.

However, both are still potentially destructive on occaision.

A common mode surge entering a house can result in a mostly differential
mode surge at the end of a branch circuit. Just how much that happens
and how strong the surge is depends on a combination of many factors.
The quality of the entrance protection is one of those factors. But
there are others, including the power level of the surge itself. Even
with a good entrance protector, the fact that one conductor is solidly
grounded, while the other is only grounded through a clamping device,
does mean there is asymmetric diversion. That takes away a lot of the
power of the surge, but leaves behind some combination of differential
mode and common mode to continue to propogate. This is because both
the path to ground and the path to the equipment are present at the
point where the power source and these two path choices meet. A surge
does not "know" which way to go. It neither "wants" to destroy things
not "wants" to reach ground. It is just "blindly" propogating.

| appliances (which is why dimmer switches and clock radios are not
| being replaced daily), AND is made further irrelevant by installing

That is because destructive surges do not happen daily. They are in
fact rare, despite myself having had half a dozen of them in my lifetime.

| one 'whole house' protector. The typically destructive surge is
| common mode - lightning being the typical example.

Point of use protectors still do have a form of protection against a
common mode surge. That protection is equalizing the surge potential
across a group of equipment.

| Why no manufacturer specs for protection? Well, where is that surge

Why do you ask questions that assume factual errors?

| energy dissipated? Earth ground. Discussed are secondary and primary

Tell me, Mr. "all appliances have built in protection", where does that
integrated appliance protection you think all of them have ... where does
that protection dissipate the surge energy?

Some appliances do have integrated protection. With few exceptions, they
do not have ground connections. Instead, they do just what the point of
use protectors do, but limited to the scale of just the one appliance.
The quench differential mode surges, and they equalize common mode surges.

When you have a GROUP of interconnected equipment, integrated protection
is less effective because it cannot perform the equalization protection
properly in the way it is attached. The plug-in protector, when correctly
wired, equalizes common mode surges across a GROUP of equipment.

| surge protection systems. Both are defined by what? Each layer is
| defined by its single point ground. And that discussion includes
| citations and quotes from professional sources.

That is a narrow way to look at things. In certain scenarios, looking
at layers defined by grounding and layers defined by association, you do
end up with the same layering. That happens with a typical telco CO or
TV station. That does NOT happen in a home. There are multiple layers
in a home, but the narrow AND INCORRECT ground-only perspective misses it.

| How to identify ineffective protectors. 1) It has no dedicated,
| short, low impedance connection to earth. 2) Manufacturer avoids all
| discussion about earthing and where that surge energy gets dissipated.

The above is based on the false assumption that ground diverstion is the
only means to provide protection. Yet w_tom contradicts himeself even
with this when he elsewhere says that all appliances have built-in
protection. So w_tom expects all appliances to have ground connections?

| Yes, one can install a series mode device to block surges - to
| supplement protection. Either they work like dams (fail to stop a
| surge) or they work like dikes to divert the flood downstream (which
| means the 'whole house' protector must be properly earthed). No large
| downstream path to absorb a flood ('whole house' protector and earth
| ground to absorb surge energy) means that dam is overwhelmed.

There is another form of protection you have missed. Actually, two.

| Series mode protector can act like a dike - only is the 'whole
| house' protector is properly earthed.

Do you even know what series mode protection is?

| A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is why
| every responsible source requires protectors connected short to
| earth. For example, Sun Microsystems' Planning guide for Sun Server
| room says:

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

In a data center, plug-in protection, while still useful, is less useful
due to the larger GROUP of equipment involved. The benefits a plug-in
protector provides really _can_ be provided to a data center, but it must
be FOR THE WHOLE DATA CENTER AT ONCE.

Best protection for a datacenter is quite different than best protection
for a home. But w_tom still can't see the differences involved.

The paragraph given is for large zone protection. Small zone protection
is not doable in a datacenter, telco central office, or TV station, due
to the wide scale of metallic interconnection. So the zone widens. In
a home the zone can be very small. In a datacenter the protective zone
is generally the entire data center.

I dream of a datacenter where everything is interconnected optically,
and the only metallic connections are for power. That way, I could get
effective protection at a much lower cost. And this would involve a
less expensive entrance protection, and a lot of plug-in protectors.
But the reality is, a purely optical datacenter is at best a very rare
entity.

FYI, I even have a couple schemes to fully isolate equipment even from
the metallic power connections. A non-metalllic coupling of some length
between a motor and a generator would do the trick. And I have in fact
seen this done in one manufacturing facility. Another idea I have for
such is a "hydraulic" power loop using a non-conductive fluid to drive
a turbine attached to a generator.

| How curious. 'Whole house' protectors are provided by companies
| with highly respected reputations such as Siemens, Leviton, Cutler-
| Hammer, Polyphaser, Intermatic, Square D, Keison, and GE. Who does
| not sell 'whole house' protectors? Companies that sell only plug-in
| protectors on myths at massive profit such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite,
| and Monster Cable.

Plug-in protectors are made by some of those same companies. The rest
don't simply because end-usage devices are not typically what the deal
in. They focus on the big ticket items.

| Where are these plug-in specs? If specs existed, then you posted
| them. How does a plug-in protector supplement protection? It's not a

I don't do the posting of specs. You get them if you want them. I was in
fact looking at them on the Tripplite web site a couple days ago. You can
go there and see them for yourself if seeing them it that important to you.
But I do not need to post them. If you fail to see them, it is your fault,
not mine. Find a mirror to see who to blame.

| series mode device. A plug-in protector - a shunt mode device - does
| not even claim to protect for the type of surge that typically does
| damage. So how does it supplement protection? Where is that spec?

Both point of use and point of entrance protectors are NOT 100% protective
devices. No SPD is.

You do seem to be aware that point of entrance protection does divert
energy to ground. You are delusional in thinking that they divert ALL
the energy to ground. That never happens if there is a connection for
another path present.

You do NOT seem to be aware that diversion to ground is not a 100% thing.

You do NOT seem to be aware that point of use protection does have other
means of protection. You are NOT aware that they can quench differential
mode surges that resulted from whatever surge energy passes by a point of
entrance protector. Or maybe it's just because you are in denial about
the existing of differential surges.

You do NOT seem to be aware that point of use protection equalizes the
surge energy in the localized interconnected zone of equipment.

BTW, equalization protection is most effective for a zone when it is
closest to that zone.

| Where is that short connection to earth so that a shunt mode device
| can divert the surge into earth? Shunt mode protectors do not block

The diversion protection is, and must be, only located at the entrance.

| or absorb surges. So many responsible sources use the action word:
| divert. No earth ground is why a plug-in protector can even divert
| surge energy 8000 volts destructively into an adjacent TV or network
| of powered off computers.

Diverting surge energy to ground is an essential part of an effective surge
protection system. Your error is thinking that such diversion is complete
protection. It is not.

| A protection spec for that plug-in protector does not exist. How can

Since I was looking at such data a couple days ago, I know your statement to
be false.

| it supplement protection when it does not even claim to provide that
| protection? A shunt mode protector is only as effective as its earth
| ground.

Your fundamental problem is a narrowminded focus on just one kind of protection.
I speculate that this focus comes to you because diversion to ground is the most
critical component of the protective devices used to protect facilities such as
a datacenter, telco CO, or TV station. Your error is partly in failing to
understand the other roles of protection that, in the case of a datacenter,
telco CO, or TV station, are ALSO served by that same entrance protection.
These differening types of protection MUST be done at the same point, or very
nearly the same point (so it is practical to just do it at the same point),
in these high tech facilities because the entire facility is a single zone of
protection.

By contrast, most residential homes are NOT a single zone of protection. Some
kinds of protection are done best at the entrance. Other kinds of protection
are best done at the border of the protection zone. Typical protection zones
in a home include: 1: a stereo SYSTEM (amplifier, tuner, CD player, cassette
deck, turntable ... and in some these days a whole computer) ... 2: a home
theater SYSTEM (video display, DVD player, VCR, cable/satellite STB) ...
3: a compter SYSTEM (computer, video monitor, modem, router, external hard
drive).

The kind of protection used in a telco CO, datacenter, or TV station is not,
in that form, appropriate for a home. The ELEMENTS of the protection are all
still essential. But in a home, it's not that they can be separated, but also
for most effective protection they _must_ be separated.

There's MORE to surge protection than just diverstion to ground. Of course
grounding a surge, especially very large surges like a direct lightning hit
on the wires coming to the building, is a critical component of protection.
But there is more to it than that.

Ground diversion alone is INCOMPLETE protection.

w_tom

2008-09-19 01:39:29 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
I don't need to write papers. And I sure would not write one for you.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting since you're probably the only
one even opening the post, and you don't really read it.
...
A common mode surge entering a house can result in a mostly differential
mode surge at the end of a branch circuit. Just how much that happens
and how strong the surge is depends on a combination of many factors.
The quality of the entrance protection is one of those factors. But
there are others, including the power level of the surge itself. Even
with a good entrance protector, the fact that one conductor is solidly
grounded, while the other is only grounded through a clamping device,
does mean there is asymmetric diversion.

If a common mode surge arrives at the appliance as a differential
mode surge (as Phil claims), well, Page 42 Figure 8 - then why did
that surge seek earth ground 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV? And why did the protector designed to 'quash'
differential mode surges completely ignored that surge? Maybe because
it is a common mode surge - contradicting Phil's speculation. Common
mode surge entering a building is still a common mode surge when
finding earth ground 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent
TV. Destructive surges seek earth ground. That means it is not
differential mode. It seeks earth ground meaning it is the typically
destructive common mode surge.

Phil cannot write papers because peer review requires supporting
documentation and numbers. Phil never provides either and openly
denies professional sources that contradict his speculations. When

Post by p***@ipal.net
BTW, I am totally UN-interested in your links.

So Phil must even ignore Page 42 Figure 8 - a common mode surge on a
plug-in protector find earth ground destructively through the adjacent

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

(continues in next post)

w_tom

2008-09-19 01:51:14 UTC

(continues from previous post)
Professionals repeatedly define earthing as essential to surge
protection - in telco COs, radio stations, Air Force bases, munitions
storage lockers, retail stores, nuclear hardened facilities, electric
power stations, and homes. Same protection is required where
transistors are at risk. Phil simply dismisses this without reason,
citation, numbers, or experience: how many surge protection systems
have you designed, Phil? How many have earthed direct lightning
strikes without damage in homes and other facilities? Phil has no
experience, no citations, and plenty of contradictions.

In a recent event, a 33,000 volt wire fell upon distribution wires
for a large neighborhood. Hundreds of electric meters (only on the B
phase) literally exploded from their pans. Meters in pieces were found
30 feet from their mounts. One who had only one 'whole house'
protector only had meter damage - no appliances damaged. Others had
numerous damaged appliances even connected to destroyed plug-in
protectors. Plug-in protectors did what they were designed to do.
Promote more sales by failing. Consumer with one 'whole house'
protector - even the 'whole house' protector was not damaged. But
again, only one here has learned from such experience. Why do we know
it was only on phase B? Guess who traced out the surge? That was not
Phil.

Phil - you even deny that appliances have internal protection.
Since you cannot challenge the science or industry standards, now you
invent numbers (in another post)? A 'whole house' protection system
does not cost $200,000 no matter how you create numbers. Effective
'whole house' protectors cost tens or 100 times less than plug-in
protectors. The less expensive 'whole house' solution also protects
from all types of surges.

(continues in next post)

w_tom

2008-09-19 01:57:12 UTC

(continues from previous post)

Simple concept. Building earthing must meet and exceed post 1990
National Electrical Code requirements. In most homes, a couple of
properly installed 3 meter ground rods may be more than sufficient.
But how a ground wire connects to earthing electrodes is critical.
All 'whole house' protectors (ie telephone 'whole house' protector
installed for free by the telco) must make that 'less than 10 foot'
connection to the same earthing electrode. Even cable TV must connect
before entering the building.

Returning to another fact unknown to Phil: this is secondary
protection. Also necessary is to inspect the primary protection
system.

And still, neither Phil nor the sales promoter for plug-in
protectors has provided a single specification that says a plug-in
protector provides protection.

The OP was asking about a 'whole house' protector installed by his
utility for $8 per month. One 'whole house' protector for $50 means
everything inside the house is protected for maybe ten years at $1 per
protected appliance. Yes, the utility installed protector should be
effective if earthing has been properly installed / upgraded. But at
$8 per month, the utility is reaping a significant profit. Utilities
typically do not verify the earthing is upgraded. Earthing is a
homeowner's responsibility. A protector will only be as effective as
its earth ground.

Why did two plug-in protectors earth surges destructively through a
network of powered off computers? No earth ground means no effective
protection. Common mode surges inside the building must find earth
ground - such as through that network of computers. Any appliance can
be overwhelmed if the common mode surge finds earth inside the
building and through appliances. Destructive surges seek earth ground
- also called common mode transients. Protection has always been to
divert before a surge can even enter the building AND to dissipate
surge energy harmlessly - in earth.

Better than a utility provided 'whole house' protector (that is
still a superior solution) is one that does same but costs much less.
Responsible companies such as Intermatic, Leviton, Square D, Keison,
Cutler-Hammer, GE, Siemens, and others sell 'whole house' protectors.
Companies well known for promoting grossly overpriced plug-in
protectors - APC, Tripplite, Belkin, Monster Cable - do not sell
'whole house' protectors. Profit margin is too small.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-19 04:05:54 UTC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:57:12 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:

| Simple concept. Building earthing must meet and exceed post 1990
| National Electrical Code requirements. In most homes, a couple of
| properly installed 3 meter ground rods may be more than sufficient.
| But how a ground wire connects to earthing electrodes is critical.
| All 'whole house' protectors (ie telephone 'whole house' protector
| installed for free by the telco) must make that 'less than 10 foot'
| connection to the same earthing electrode. Even cable TV must connect
| before entering the building.

Wow, a complete paragraph from you that is correct.

| Returning to another fact unknown to Phil: this is secondary
| protection. Also necessary is to inspect the primary protection
| system.

The entrance protection is the "primary" protection because it is the
first protection encountered by surges originating from outside and
arriving on metallic power or signal wiring.

| And still, neither Phil nor the sales promoter for plug-in
| protectors has provided a single specification that says a plug-in
| protector provides protection.

Manufacturers or resellers for a great many of these products do that job.
So I don't need to.

| The OP was asking about a 'whole house' protector installed by his
| utility for $8 per month. One 'whole house' protector for $50 means
| everything inside the house is protected for maybe ten years at $1 per
| protected appliance. Yes, the utility installed protector should be
| effective if earthing has been properly installed / upgraded. But at
| $8 per month, the utility is reaping a significant profit. Utilities
| typically do not verify the earthing is upgraded. Earthing is a
| homeowner's responsibility. A protector will only be as effective as
| its earth ground.

My recommendation was, and still is, that the OP would be better protected
by a whole house protector that is NOT part of the meter base. That is
not to say that what the utility offers cannot do the job. The issue in
this case is flexibility in dealing with protection issues. For one thing,
the homeowner needs to be in a position to changeout the protection on his
own or at least through the hiring of his choice of electrician. A panel
based "breaker style" protector, which does just as well as meter based
protector, can be inspected and changed more readily by an electrician.

It seems you might agree with this recommendation. The meter base is not
normally grounded. The utility would have to ground it. The homeowner
(or his hired electrician) should not be opening a meter box without
having the utility first cut the service drop. That means installing a
proper ground from the meter box to the electrode(s) is not something the
homeowner (or his hired electrician) should be doing. And personally do
not trust the utility to do the grounding correctly.

| Why did two plug-in protectors earth surges destructively through a
| network of powered off computers? No earth ground means no effective

Because YOU wired them wrong, that's why.

| protection. Common mode surges inside the building must find earth
| ground - such as through that network of computers. Any appliance can

The majority of common mode surges would NOT be destructive at all if all
the interconnected appliances rose in voltage at the same time to the same
level. The common mode surge will either find ground through a wire that
is connected via the plug-in protector (example: cable TV wire), or it will
charge up the wiring and reflect back.

| be overwhelmed if the common mode surge finds earth inside the
| building and through appliances. Destructive surges seek earth ground

That's why we wire things correctly so that there is NO current path to
ground _through_ the appliances.

| - also called common mode transients. Protection has always been to
| divert before a surge can even enter the building AND to dissipate
| surge energy harmlessly - in earth.

It is best to divert as much as possible that way as the surge (tries to)
enter the building. But this protection does NOT divert all of the surge,
and it does not even involve all possible surges.

One lightning strike that "killed" a telephone in my house a few years ago
came in on a vertical vent pipe. That pipe went down the wall in one of
the bathrooms. The phone that was killed was in that bathroom. Entrance
surge protection would not have helped. Plug-in surge protection probably
would not have helped, either, although I am not sure just where the surge
was induced across from the pipe to the phone or its wiring.

| Better than a utility provided 'whole house' protector (that is
| still a superior solution) is one that does same but costs much less.
| Responsible companies such as Intermatic, Leviton, Square D, Keison,
| Cutler-Hammer, GE, Siemens, and others sell 'whole house' protectors.

Many, probably most, maybe even all, of the above also sell point of use
protectors. I know Leviton, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, GE, and Siemens do.

| Companies well known for promoting grossly overpriced plug-in
| protectors - APC, Tripplite, Belkin, Monster Cable - do not sell
| 'whole house' protectors. Profit margin is too small.

The APC, Tripplite, and Belkin protectors are reasonably priced. I would
trust the APC and Tripplite ones. BTW, these last 2 companies do put the
surge protection specs on their web sites and/or product brochures. You
should check it out some day and be surprised.

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

An entrance protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

There ... fixed it for you.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-19 03:42:28 UTC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| (continues from previous post)
| Professionals repeatedly define earthing as essential to surge
| protection - in telco COs, radio stations, Air Force bases, munitions
| storage lockers, retail stores, nuclear hardened facilities, electric
| power stations, and homes. Same protection is required where

I would ask you for a citation of an expert that says a home has the same
needs as certain other of those facilities. Interestingly enough, some
of what you listed are special cases unique to themselves. But instead of
asking you for the citation, I instead ask for your explanation. You have
so far not explained any science.

| transistors are at risk. Phil simply dismisses this without reason,
| citation, numbers, or experience: how many surge protection systems
| have you designed, Phil? How many have earthed direct lightning
| strikes without damage in homes and other facilities? Phil has no
| experience, no citations, and plenty of contradictions.

About 20.

| In a recent event, a 33,000 volt wire fell upon distribution wires
| for a large neighborhood. Hundreds of electric meters (only on the B
| phase) literally exploded from their pans. Meters in pieces were found
| 30 feet from their mounts. One who had only one 'whole house'
| protector only had meter damage - no appliances damaged. Others had
| numerous damaged appliances even connected to destroyed plug-in
| protectors. Plug-in protectors did what they were designed to do.
| Promote more sales by failing. Consumer with one 'whole house'
| protector - even the 'whole house' protector was not damaged. But
| again, only one here has learned from such experience. Why do we know
| it was only on phase B? Guess who traced out the surge? That was not
| Phil.

Actually, that was about 20 years ago. It was in Harford county, Maryland.

The first thing to consider is that feeding 33,000 volts into homes is NOT
a surge. It is an overvoltage. The wires from the 33,000 volt lines were
crossed into the 13,000 volt lines, causing destruction in the 13,000 volt
wiring and in the transformers. This allowed more damage to further leak
across to the 120/240 volt network and service drops. This overvoltage has
a very high available current behind it.

Not all homes had

| Phil - you even deny that appliances have internal protection.

I deny your assertion that _ALL_ appliances have internal protection. What I
know to be true is that many do and many do not. And the level of protection
that does exist in those that do varies greatly.

| Since you cannot challenge the science or industry standards, now you
| invent numbers (in another post)? A 'whole house' protection system
| does not cost $200,000 no matter how you create numbers. Effective

My reference to a $200,000 protection system is the one at the telco CO. The
better protected facilities will have that level of protection. YOU are the
one that is asserting that a home needs to have what a telco CO has. I am the
one saying that what a home needs is a completely different kind of whole house
protection in around the $500 to $1500 price range, and about $50 to $150 of
plug-in protectors ... along with the absolutely essential correct wiring.

| 'whole house' protectors cost tens or 100 times less than plug-in
| protectors. The less expensive 'whole house' solution also protects
| from all types of surges.

This is one of the most absurd statements you have said so far.

The Eaton (Cutler-Hammer, formerly Westinghouse) line of surge protective
devices (they have BOTH whole house AND point of use protection, and
indicates the IEEE recommends two-stage protection) in their catalog (see
section 4). Pricing is from $50 to $500 on their products. Installation
by a professional licensed electrician for the whole house components will
be needed, so a few more hundred dollars.

The point of use (plug-in) protection needed is about $50 to $150, or a bit
more if you choose the pricy C-H versions. That's about 1/10 of the pricing
of the whole house protection.

So you were WAY WAY OFF on that one ... absurdly so.

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-19 04:34:56 UTC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:

| In a recent event, a 33,000 volt wire fell upon distribution wires
| for a large neighborhood. Hundreds of electric meters (only on the B
| phase) literally exploded from their pans. Meters in pieces were found
| 30 feet from their mounts. One who had only one 'whole house'
| protector only had meter damage - no appliances damaged. Others had
| numerous damaged appliances even connected to destroyed plug-in
| protectors. Plug-in protectors did what they were designed to do.
| Promote more sales by failing. Consumer with one 'whole house'
| protector - even the 'whole house' protector was not damaged. But
| again, only one here has learned from such experience. Why do we know
| it was only on phase B? Guess who traced out the surge? That was not
| Phil.

For those wanting more information on this, you can view these 3 videos:

Or download them directly if you want to make a DVD:

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-video.mp4
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-wmar-1.mp4
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-wmar-2.mp4

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-19 06:31:20 UTC

On 19 Sep 2008 04:34:56 GMT phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
| On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
|
| | In a recent event, a 33,000 volt wire fell upon distribution wires
| | for a large neighborhood. Hundreds of electric meters (only on the B
| | phase) literally exploded from their pans. Meters in pieces were found
| | 30 feet from their mounts. One who had only one 'whole house'
| | protector only had meter damage - no appliances damaged. Others had
| | numerous damaged appliances even connected to destroyed plug-in
| | protectors. Plug-in protectors did what they were designed to do.
| | Promote more sales by failing. Consumer with one 'whole house'
| | protector - even the 'whole house' protector was not damaged. But
| | again, only one here has learned from such experience. Why do we know
| | it was only on phase B? Guess who traced out the surge? That was not
| | Phil.
|
| For those wanting more information on this, you can view these 3 videos:
|
| http://youtu.be/mvNA2kawKVE
| http://youtu.be/dRnwSmDWG0E
| http://youtu.be/gGjRcXvs6M8
|
| Or download them directly if you want to make a DVD:
|
| http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-video.mp4
| http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-wmar-1.mp4
| http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-wmar-2.mp4

Actually, there are 2 different videos at the scene, so the revised URLs:

http://youtu.be/mvNA2kawKVE
http://youtu.be/dRnwSmDWG0E
http://youtu.be/gGjRcXvs6M8

http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-video-1.mp4
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-video-2.mp4
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-wmar-1.mp4
http://phil.ipal.org/usenet/miue/2008-09-18/harford-power-event-wmar-2.mp4

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-19 03:06:36 UTC

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:39:29 -0700 (PDT) w_tom <***@usa.net> wrote:
| On Sep 18, 4:06?pm, phil-news-***@ipal.net wrote:
|> I don't need to write papers. And I sure would not write one for you.
|> Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting since you're probably the only
|> one even opening the post, and you don't really read it.
|> ...
|> A common mode surge entering a house can result in a mostly differential
|> mode surge at the end of a branch circuit. Just how much that happens
|> and how strong the surge is depends on a combination of many factors.
|> The quality of the entrance protection is one of those factors. But
|> there are others, including the power level of the surge itself. Even
|> with a good entrance protector, the fact that one conductor is solidly
|> grounded, while the other is only grounded through a clamping device,
|> does mean there is asymmetric diversion.
|
| If a common mode surge arrives at the appliance as a differential
| mode surge (as Phil claims), well, Page 42 Figure 8 - then why did
| that surge seek earth ground 8000 volts destructively through the
| adjacent TV? And why did the protector designed to 'quash'

Why is it that you always ask questions? Why don't you just EXPLAIN what
YOU think is happening.

No surge "seeks" anything, other than to spread out (propogate). If a TV
is damaged by a surge that resulted in current going between the point
where the path to ground was connected to the TV, then there is something
miswired, or else you don't understand what is going on.

A TV should not have its own path to earth.

If the current flowed over an interconnection to another device, then the
issue to explore is why that other device was not at an equalized voltage.

It is possible for the surge to have strong very high frequency components
to the energy such that equalization is not achieved due to a disruption
of that equalization by the reactive components in the appliance.

| differential mode surges completely ignored that surge? Maybe because
| it is a common mode surge - contradicting Phil's speculation. Common

I don't know what kind of surge was involved in someone else's scenario.
But I do know that most of the differential component to a surge would be
quenched by the point of use protector. And I know that the low frequency
components of a common mode surge would be equalized across the various
appliances/equipment that are connected through that protector.

YOU have to tell me whether the path that destructive current followed
was to one of the other appliances that was equalized by the point of
use protector. Otherwise I have no idea what was involed in a given
scenario.

| mode surge entering a building is still a common mode surge when
| finding earth ground 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent
| TV. Destructive surges seek earth ground. That means it is not
| differential mode. It seeks earth ground meaning it is the typically
| destructive common mode surge.

Surges do not seek anything.

| Phil cannot write papers because peer review requires supporting
| documentation and numbers. Phil never provides either and openly
| denies professional sources that contradict his speculations. When
| professional citations contradict Phil's conclusions, then Phil says:
|> BTW, I am totally UN-interested in your links.

I'm still totally UN-interested in your links.

What I am interested in is your ignorance about surges. If you cannot do
the explaining in your own words right here, then you do not understand it.
Whether what you are reading is correct or not does not matter. What matters
is if you are coming away from it with a correct understanding. And all the
incorrect and/or misapplied information in your posts indicates you are not
coming away with very much that is right. You know just enough to be very
dangerous.

| So Phil must even ignore Page 42 Figure 8 - a common mode surge on a
| plug-in protector find earth ground destructively through the adjacent
| TV. Or the NIST which says quite bluntly:

Either they miswired it, or you misinterpreted it. Given you lack of being
able to understand this stuff, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

TWayne

2008-09-16 17:23:04 UTC

Post by TWayne
EXCELlent links! I'd forgottan all about the mikeholt site in fact.
Thanks.

...

It might be helpful to some who are trying to follow this thread, to
provide some brief definitions. These links aren't perfect, but they do
provide the layman with some education to at least put more meaning to
the discussion, IMO:

Mode 1 (hot to earth) and Mode 2 (Common Mode):
http://www.spikeandsurge.com/site/574069/page/45031
Careful: Not all their pages are super-alccurate but I think this one
is good for an understanding of the terms used here.

This one is reasonable good:
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/computer_technology/surge.html

And this one has some good representations of the various types of
application:
http://www.mastec.co.nz/Power%20Kinetics/PK8.html

Plus, looking up the specs on some MOVs would be useful, too.

Earth grounding methods have been beat to death here and for good
reason, but the reader should understand that computers and digital
equipment problems are substantially different from other types of
equipment. When you go analog, you get even more differences to
consider.
Contrary to what some think, the home has a lot more digital equipment
these days than it does analog or purely inductive or resistive these
days.

Post by p***@ipal.net
A differential mode surge will be effectively suppressed by a plug-in
protector by clamping the opposing polarities of that surge together.
It may be destroyed for stronger surges. But it is doing the job it
is expected to do. This kind of surge is not "seeking" ground.
A common mode surge would pass a plug-in protector unaffected. But
this is the kind of surge that would be substantially reduced already
by the inductance of wiring it arrives on, even if that is coaxial
cable.

And even further as it finds transformers, subsequent protection
components, capacitances and inductances sometimes meant for protection,
sometimes simply part of the design.

...

Hope you don't mind my jumping in like this Phil, but I was having some
discussions on another group and they were trying to figure out "what he
said" so I thought this might be germian. Your post was the best so
far, IMO.

--
Cheers,

Twayne

w_tom

2008-09-17 15:44:00 UTC

Mode 1 (hot to earth) and Mode 2 (Common Mode):http://www.spikeandsurge.com/site/574069/page/45031
Careful: Not all their pages are super-alccurate but I think this one
is good for an understanding of the terms used here.

That first citation is grossly inaccurate. So inaccurate that one
must be totally ignorant of basic electrical concepts (or a sales
promoter for APC) to recommend it. Utility switching and lightning
are common mode surges. That means a surge enters on one or all wires
and leaves seeking earth via the building or other wires.
Differential (normal) mode surges do not get conducted by wood, etc.
But common mode surges that are so robust even use concrete and
linoleum tile floors as conductors. Once inside a building, the
common mode surge may find numerous destructive paths to earth. Just
another reason why common mode surges are so destructive and why all
high reliability facilties put protectors at the service entrance so
divert common mode surges to earth. No such protector means the
common mode surge is inside the building and still seeking earth
ground.

That author says the only hazardous surge enters on one wire and
leaves on another (normal or differential mode). Errors that even a
first year engineering student should see right through - the errors
being that obvious.

Only normal mode surges enter buildings in the U.S. since the
neutral and ground wires are bonded at the service entrance.

Common mode surge enters on the other two hot wires that wer not
mentioned - and seeking earth ground. Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8 in
that IEEE citation shows why the TV is destroyed by 8000 volts.
Common mode surge incoming on AC mains. Outgoing to earth ground
destructively via TV2. A common mode surge - not normal mode. Show
me the differential mode (normal mode) surge that is 8000+ volts? It
does not exist.

For safety reasons, UL5 requires power supplies have a 2,000
Volt minimum "dielectric withstand." This means they must
withstand a common mode voltage of 2,000 volts or more with
no ill effects.

As posted repeatedly, all appliances contain protection (although
most are not this robust - author was confused as to what was being
measured). Differential (normal) mode surge is typically a hundred or
so volts. Common mode surge as demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8
created 8000 volts destructively in a TV (and addional voltage
elsewhere on connecting wires). Why is that 2000 volts not
sufficient? Because the typically destructive surge - common mode -
is above 2000 volts. Typically destructive surge will overwhelm
protection inside appliances. Any typically destructive surge will
blow through any protector that tries to stop or absorb it (what the
plug-in protector must do).

Obviously, a typically destructive surge that enters on any or all
wires is seeking earth ground. Seeking earth ground is a common mode
surge, defines why it is so destructive, and why it can find numerous
destructive paths. Common mode surges need not even use wires to be
outgoing to earth ground. What can conduct destructive surges?
Wood. Concrete. Linoluem tile. Did the author also forget to mention
that part?

Cited by www.spikeandsurge.com is information from APC.
Iimmediately suggests where an author without basic electrical
knowledge got educated. APC only sells protectors for differential
mode - trivial surges. APC does not sell protectors for lightning -
common mode surges. To sell their obscenely overpriced products, APC
must claim that only differential mode surges are destructive.
Hardly. But then propaganda experts say, be the first to tell
someone something so that majority will blindly and devotely believe
it. Facts be damned.

A lie from www.spikeandsurge.com. Differential (normal) mode surges
do all the damage. Conclusion? Lightning never causes appliance
(electronics) damage. Total nonsense from www.spikeandsurge.com.
Obviously lightning - a common mode surge - is destructive.

If www.spikeandsurge.com was honest, then every telphone facility is
down for days after every thunderstorm. Telcos don't use plug-in
protectors. They install protection for common mode surges. So why
do you still have phone service after every thunderstorm?

bud--

2008-09-16 14:27:40 UTC

Post by TWayne
EXCELlent links! I'd forgottan all about the mikeholt site in fact.
Thanks.

The IEEE guide shows how plug-in
protectors can earth surge energy. Located inside the house, it
earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud
calls that 8000 volt damage TV acceptable.

.
If poor w_ could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
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 power service ground 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."
- w_'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.
.

Post by w_tom
The NIST citation is even blunter about that same fact. From the
NIST on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24)

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

What does the NIST guide say about w_'s favored service panel suppressors?
"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."

(But I agree service panel suppressors are a good idea.)
.

Post by w_tom
Most every IEEE Standard (IEEE makes
recommendations in Standards) state that earthing is what provides
protection.

.
The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
.
A protector only connects surges to earth OR the

Post by w_tom
protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Even
Martzloff makes the same point in his IEEE paper about plug-in (point
of connection) protectors

.
The village idiot forgets to mention that Martzloff says in the same
1994 document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

More recently, Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
.

Post by w_tom
Again, which poster supports facts with numerous technical sources
and numbers?

.
w_ is fond of twisting sources to say the opposite of what they really say.

What do the sources really say? w_ never answers embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example “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 the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?

Never seen - a source that agrees with w__ that plug–in suppressors do
NOT work.

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

--
bud--

w_tom

2008-09-16 15:37:08 UTC

Post by bud--
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

To only protect from one type of surge, the home owner must buy 100
plug-in protectors - maybe $3000. He must somehow connect a plug-in
protector to every clock radio, furnace, every dimmer switch, etc.
Otherwise these too will be damaged. No wonder telcos don't waste
money on high profit plug-in protectors. Instead, telcos install one
'whole house' protector where a surge might enter the building. IOW
telcos spend maybe 100 times less money for protectors that can even
protect non-plug-in appliances. What protects your dishwasher?

Bud's own citations state why the plug-in protector does not protect
from destructive surges. If the plug-in protector was so effective,
then the professional sales promoter would simply post numeric
specifications. Bud never posts a spec that claims protection. No
such protection specs exist. Manufacturer cannot claim protection
that does not exist. As both the IEEE and NIST guides note -
effective protectors are earthed.

So Bud (as a sale promoter) will post insults rather than tech
specs. He even lies about what the The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE
Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic

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

Failure to connect a surge protector on a low impedance (ie 'less
than 10 foot') connection to earth ground means hazardous voltages
create surge damage. What does the effective surge protector do?
Connect, bond, or divert surges on a low impedance earthing
connection. Why does the Emerald Book quote contradict Bud? Bud is a
sales promoter who uses spin and technical terms such as "The village
idiot". Why does Bud not just post those manufacturer tech specs?
No plug-in protector manufacturer claims such protection. Bud forgets
to mention that part. As Phil also notes, the plug-in protector only
protects from differential mode surges - not the typically destructive
common mode surges. But will say anything to avoid that reality.

One 'whole house' protector (which Bud does not market) protects from
all types of surges. When selling a $3 power strip with some ten
cent protector parts for $25 or $150, then insulting the technically
competent is necessary to protect scam profit margins.

bud--

2008-09-17 15:40:49 UTC

Post by bud--
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

He must somehow connect a plug-in
protector to every clock radio, furnace, every dimmer switch, etc.

.
Repeating:
"According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires."

Plug-in suppressors are used for sensitive high value equipment,
particularly if it has connections to both power and phone or cable.
.

Post by w_tom
Bud never posts a spec that claims protection. No
such protection specs exist.

.
Posted often and ignored. Someone on a different newsgroup just posted:
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=459507
.

Post by w_tom
So Bud (as a sale promoter)

.
To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
.

Post by w_tom
He even lies about what the The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE
Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic
Equipment") says.

.
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by clamping (limiting) the voltage on all wires (signal
and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors
do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide
explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

w_’s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that conflicts
with his religious belief. Like that the Emerald Book recognizes plug-in
suppressors as an effective protection device. And that the IEEE and
NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
.

Post by w_tom
Bud is a
sales promoter who uses spin and technical terms such as "The village
idiot".

.
Only an idiot would try to make Martzloff say the opposite of what he
really said.

On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ similarly misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor, another "Upside down house" author, 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."
.

Post by w_tom
As Phil also notes, the plug-in protector only
protects from differential mode surges - not the typically destructive
common mode surges.

.
Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G (plus signal wires to
the ground at the suppressor). That is all possible combinations and all
surge modes. The example in the IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) is a
common mode surge.

Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors
are effective.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w__ that plug–in
suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example “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 the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?

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

--
bud--

p***@ipal.net

2008-09-17 19:32:41 UTC

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:40:49 -0500 bud-- <***@isp.com> wrote:

| With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.

You've used the same tactic, too. It's just that your perspective on
surge protection covers the other end of what w_tom fails to.

|> He even lies about what the The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE
|> Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic
|> Equipment") says.
| .
| w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
| must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
| well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
| suppressors work by clamping (limiting) the voltage on all wires (signal
| and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors
| do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide
| explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Earthing is an advantage where earthing is practical. Earthing is not
practical at most points of use, so we cannot use earthing protection
in those places. But a point of use protector is still an advantage,
particularly for certain sensitive and interconnected equipment like a
stereo, computer system, home theater, etc.

BOTH types of protection are needed. In a home it is practical to do
this with a combination of low cost (up to $1000) entrance protection
that is earthed, AND point of use protection that is not earthed (but
provides equalization protection, and in some cases reactive protection).

Using only ONE type of protection alone, whichever it is, for most types
of surges, is better than no protection at all. But the best protection
for a home is both kinds.

This assumes a correctly wired home. An incorrectly wired home may end
up with things made worse. But that depends on just how that incorrect
wiring happens to be done. Handyman specials tend to be quite diverse
and it is not practical to guess what was done.

| w_?s religious blinders prevent him from seeing anything that conflicts
| with his religious belief. Like that the Emerald Book recognizes plug-in
| suppressors as an effective protection device. And that the IEEE and
| NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

As long as these do not say that these supporessors alone provide the best
level of protection, then I would agree.

|> Bud is a
|> sales promoter who uses spin and technical terms such as "The village
|> idiot".
| .
| Only an idiot would try to make Martzloff say the opposite of what he
| really said.

I don't agree 100% with Martzloff. But he is not here to argue his
points. It may be that his information is taken out of context or
otherwise misinterpreted. He should be the one to defend it, or where
needed, clarify it.

My interest in the discussion of surges is to deal with how YOU understand
it. If you assume Martzloff has it right, but you don't understand it
yourself enough to defend Martzloff (BTW, you can't use Martzloff to defend
Martzloff), then I would only be interested in discussing it with Martzloff.

My arguments against your posts or w_tom's posts are arguments against how
well you or he understand the subject matter. Neither of you seem to have
a complete understanding. It seems you have more than w_tom does, but it
is not clear for sure given your habit of using metaphorical references.

Try arguing it in terms of what you personally understand, without making
any references to anything (until asked to).

| On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ similarly misconstrued the views of
| Arshad Mansoor, another "Upside down house" author, 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."

I have not seen Mr. Mansoor posting here. It might be an interesting day
when he, or Mr. Martzloff, shows up.

|> As Phil also notes, the plug-in protector only
|> protects from differential mode surges - not the typically destructive
|> common mode surges.
| .
| Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G (plus signal wires to
| the ground at the suppressor). That is all possible combinations and all
| surge modes. The example in the IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) is a
| common mode surge.

It is clear w_tom does not grasp what I have repeatedly told him. I don't
know if it helps coming from you, too. But you never know. Maybe some
day that light will come on for him.

| Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors
| are effective.

I'm for both. In the home, that is both in separate devices. One device
or maybe two at the entrance, and at least the first is earthed (my second
optional device would primarily be a filter on the power connection intending
to deflect more surge energy of higher frequencies back to the first device).
But despite any practical whole house protection, I use point of use plug-in
protection, too.

| Still never seen - a source that agrees with w__ that plug?in
| suppressors do NOT work.

The problem is people are saying "... is effective". And this leads to
many misunderstandings. Some people appear to be taking this to mean
that protection declared as such is being declared as "completely and
total protection ... all that anyone needs", which is definitely not
true. Fortunately, most who assume that is the meaning of the speaker
are smart enough to know that the speaker would be in error with such a
meaning.

Plug-in protectors DO WORK when faced with a surge they are intended to
protect against (assuming the proector is not defective due to poor quality
of manufacturing or having been damaged in some way).

Whole house protectors DO WORK when faced with a surge they are intended
to protect against (assuming the proector is not defective due to poor
quality of manufacturing or having been damaged in some way).

BOTH protectors can work together to maximize the level of protection in
a home for the appliances/equipment that is important to be protected.

| Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
| - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
| suppressors?

As the IEEE guide author.

| - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
| solution"?

I can specifically disagree with what you say. There is NO _SOLUTION_ to
the issue of surge protection. My understanding of the meaning of the
term "solution" would be total 100% protection. No combination of correct
wiring and the best protective devices provides a total "solution". What
you get is a degree of protection that you have to make an economic
judgement about.

A carefully chosen brand-name (not cheap knockoff) plug-in protector DOES
provide a level of protection that is much better than having none at all.
This varies depending on how well the house is wired. With correct wiring,
the protection level is maximized.

Do avoid the overpriced "glamor brands".

| - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
| IEEE example, pdf page 42?

I don't care about specific examples. In a correctly wired house, it can
divert some surge energy to ground. For medium surges this may be enough
even if the appliance has no additional protection. For high surges this
may be enough when combined with a point of use protector. For extreme
surges, the appliance could be damaged even with all protection properly
in place.

In an IN-correctly wired house, protection might be muted, or completely
ineffective, or even in some cases make things worse. This can apply to
both point of entrance protection as well as point of use protection.

Determining the best protection to add to an incorrectly wired house is
a black art that I have no intention or desire to explore. The first
thing to do with an incorrectly wired house is to fix the wiring.

| - Why does the IEEE guide say in that example ?the only effective way
| of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug?in] protector"?

Ask the author.

| - 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]"?

Maybe he said that because it is one solution. Saying it is "one solution"
also implies there might be another solution, too. But maybe the other
solution is more expensive or less practical. Ask the author.

| - Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
| effective surge protection device?

That depends on the meaning of "effective".

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

If they were real science, people who understand the science can come to their
own correct conclusions. Saying a conclusion suggests that the authors expect
readers to either not understand the science (that seems commonplace on Usenet)
or to skip over the science. But given the many misinterpretations of the ways
to deploy protection, especially involving incorrectly wired buildings, the
authors may be doing the public a disservice by giving "clear" but simple
solutions that people, in their infinite creativity, can still do all wrong.

w_tom

2008-09-18 04:31:23 UTC

BOTH types of protection are needed. In a home it is practical to do
this with a combination of low cost (up to $1000) entrance protection
that is earthed, AND point of use protection that is not earthed (but
provides equalization protection, and in some cases reactive protection).

Using plug-in protectors without a properly earthed 'whole house'
protector (we saw this often) meant a surge was earthed by the plug-in
protector destructively through adjacent appliances. One
spectacularly obvious case was described repeatedly. Household wiring
was perfect. Lightning strike was earthed by two plug-in protectors
through the adjacent, powered off computers. That surge exited on the
network and found earth ground via a third computer.

Without plug-in protectors, then the surge probably would never pass
through computer power supplies - no damage. Thanks to both plug-in
protectors, the surge bypassed power supply protection and was
connected directly to computer motherboard. What kind of protection
was that? Expensive and ineffective. Same damage was demonstrated on
Page 42 Figure 8 of that IEEE guide. Plug-in protector earths a surge
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. We have seen this
repeatedly. Why ignore what engineers testify to here. what
Martzloff's IEEE paper defines, AND what Bud's IEEE guide also shows
on Page 42 Figure 8? How can one deny so many examples - a plug-in
protector earthing surges destructively through adjacent appliances?

To avoid that damage, a plug-in protector needs a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. And that damage also does not happen if the
'whole house' protector is installed without plug-in protectors.
Solution - one 'whole house' protector that costs $100 or less - works
with or without obscenely profitable plug-in protectors. Protection
inside the power supply would not have been overwhelmed if the plug-in
protector was not there. A plug-in protector gave the surge more and
destructive paths around power supply protection and directly into the
motherboard.

Why do telcos who have the exact same problem use 'whole house'
protectors and no use plug-in protectors? Same reasons as we
learned. Plug-in protectors without a 'whole house' protector may
even contribute to appliance damage. One 'whole house' protector is,
well, what did the IEEE quote say? 99.5% to 99.9%. Why then spend
$3000 on plug-in protectors? Why do high reliability facilities not
used plug-in protectors, put that money into better earthing, and have
even better protection? 100 surges during each thunderstorm without
damage. Telcos have the exact same surge problem (on a larger scale)
also found in homes. In every case, a destructive surge earthed
before entering the building means no (minimal and irrelevant) surge
currents inside the structure.

Why are you spending $1000 on a 'whole house' protector? Standard
prices are as low as $44.95 and at full retail maybe $100. That is $1
per protected appliance. But if using plug-in protectors, every
appliance including life critical appliances such as furnace, GFCIs,
and smoke detectors also must have plug-in protectors. Good luck
trying to install that.

No way around the bottom line. In any science, energy must be
accounted for. Either the plug-in protector must absorb all that
energy or that energy gets dissipated somewhere else. Page 42 Figure
8 shows where the plug-in protector dissipated energy. 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV. In our network example, that
energy was dissipated by two plug-in protectors inside three powered
off computers. What kind of protection is that? Expensive and
ineffective.

No way around the bottom line. Protection with or without plug-in
protectors is only as effective as earthing provides connected to a
'whole house' protector. This is secondary protection. To make
protection even better requires another earthing layer - primary
protection system installed by the utility. Plug-in protector
promoters also must 'forget' that primary protection system to protect
their profits.

Why would the plug-in protector provide additional protection when
its manufacturer will not even claim such protection? Why would you
spend tens or 100 times more money (ie $3000 for plug-in protectors)
to simply add another 0.1% additional protection?

One 'whole house' protector (with or without plug-in protectors) is
99.5% to 99.9% protection. For homes that rarely see one surge during
a thunderstorm, that one 'whole house' protector (properly earthed) is
massive and sufficient protection.

bud--

2008-09-18 16:11:46 UTC

Post by p***@ipal.net
BOTH types of protection are needed. In a home it is practical to do
this with a combination of low cost (up to $1000) entrance protection
that is earthed, AND point of use protection that is not earthed (but
provides equalization protection, and in some cases reactive protection).

Thanks to both plug-in
protectors, the surge bypassed power supply protection and was
connected directly to computer motherboard. What kind of protection
was that?

.
Incompetent protection. As any reliable manufacturer will tell you, all
wires to a group of protected equipment needs to go through the plug-in
suppressor. It was in my first post. But poor w_ can't figure out how
plug-in suppressors work.
.

Post by w_tom
Same damage was demonstrated on
Page 42 Figure 8 of that IEEE guide. Plug-in protector earths a surge
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV.

.
The lie repeated.
The plug–in suppressor at TV1 lowers the surge voltage at TV2. It causes
NO damage to TV2. The point of the illustration for anyone who can think
is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is
required."

A service panel suppressor would provide NO protection. The surge comes
in on the cable service with ground wire for the cable entry block that
is 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."
.

Post by w_tom
To avoid that damage, a plug-in protector needs a properly earthed
'whole house' protector.

.
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_.
.

Post by w_tom
Either the plug-in protector must absorb all that
energy or that energy gets dissipated somewhere else.

.
According to the IEEE guide the surge is earthed elsewhere in the
system. In the example page 42 "the vast majority of the incoming
lightning surge current flows through" the cable entry block `ground'
wire. The guide says that is "as the NEC/CEC writers intended."
.

Post by w_tom
Page 42 Figure
8 shows where the plug-in protector dissipated energy. 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV.

.
And the lie repeated again.
.

Post by w_tom
Why would the plug-in protector provide additional protection when
its manufacturer will not even claim such protection?

.
Another lie repeated.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w__ that plug–in
suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "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 the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?

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

--
bud--

bud--

2008-09-18 16:24:22 UTC