Surge Protectors
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
Jim Yanik
news:htioft$8nr$2...@reader1.panix.com:
> Are surge protectors based on grounding or diode clipping?
grounding. once the breakover voltage is reached,the surge is conducted to
ground.
Otherwise,the surge would just find it's own way to ground,through your
device,catastrophically. and you have to have a good ground,as grounds can
float above true ground,particularly in poor soils,like Florida's sandy
soil.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
whit3rd
> Are surge protectors based on grounding or diode clipping?
Both. Most surge suppressors have a conducts-on-overvoltage
element directly across the line, with a fuse or circuit breaker to
keep the fire hazard low. Additional elements that connect to the
protective ground pin are of secondary importance.
The conducts-on-overvoltage element is usually a metal oxide
varistor, a kind of crude semiconductor breakover diode.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
GregS
>On May 26, 2:09=A0am, vjp2...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>> Are surge protectors based on grounding or diode clipping?
>
>Both. Most surge suppressors have a conducts-on-overvoltage
>element directly across the line, with a fuse or circuit breaker to
>keep the fire hazard low. Additional elements that connect to the
>protective ground pin are of secondary importance.
I would argue that. The differential surpressor is fine, but the common
mode surge can do more harm and a lot of noise problems. Using an isolation transformer
makes common mode problems impossible. Its a direct short to ground.
greg
Jim Yanik
news:htlreq$mlf$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
it's not a "diode",its just a sintered semi-metallic pellet that conducts
once a certain voltage is reached.
a "diode" is a P/N junction or a semiconductor/metal junction.
>
even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
whit3rd
> zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote innews:htlreq$mlf$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
> >>> Are surge protectors based on grounding or diode clipping?
>
> >>Both. Most surge suppressors have a conducts-on-overvoltage
> >>element directly across the line, with a fuse or circuit breaker to
> >>keep the fire hazard low.
> >>The conducts-on-overvoltage element is usually a metal oxide
> >>varistor, a kind of crude semiconductor breakover diode.
>
> it's not a "diode",its just a sintered semi-metallic pellet that conducts
> once a certain voltage is reached.
> a "diode" is a P/N junction or a semiconductor/metal junction.
The metal oxide in a MOV is certainly a semiconductor. The breakover
is due to avalanche multiplication rather than minority injection.
The oldest
ones were SiC (basically, just grinding wheels with electrodes bolted
on).
It has two leads, so it's a diode. It's made with a semiconductor, so
it's a semiconductor diode. It isn't a rectifier diode, though.
DIAC and current regulator two-terminal devices are also diodes,
but aren't simple PN junction types (don't really rectify).
Vacuum tubes are sometimes diodes, too (like my microwave oven's
magnetron).
> even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
> ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
The protective ground connection is, in most situations, carrying no
current. The MOVs that connect to that protective ground are not so
much
protecting the plugged-in device, as they are dumping transient energy
in
the building's wiring (protecting the building rather than the
appliance).
The internal suppressors on lots of consumer equipment only have
one MOV, across the line, not the full trio that is common in third-
party
suppressor modules.
GregS
>On May 27, 8:53=A0am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>> zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote innews:htlreq$mlf$1...@usenet01.srv.=>> >>Both. =A0Most surge suppressors have a conducts-on-overvoltage
I thought there were NO supressors in most consumer equipment
because its a liability.
Its the line to ground noise and surges that cause TTL computer type equipment
to BOMB OUT. Ground has everything to do with functioning circuits, that use ground
for reference. Of, course, its best not to use ground for reference.
greg
Jim Yanik
news:htmh5b$rcn$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
> In article
> <6a2cfce3-46ea-472c...@v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 27, 8:53=A0am, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>> zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote
>>> innews:htlreq$mlf$1...@usenet01.srv.=
>>cis.pitt.edu:
>>
>>> >>> Are surge protectors based on grounding or diode clipping?
>>>
>>> >>Both. =A0Most surge suppressors have a conducts-on-overvoltage
>>> >>element directly across the line, with a fuse or circuit breaker
>>> >>to keep the fire hazard low.
>>
>>> >>The conducts-on-overvoltage element is usually a metal oxide
>>> >>varistor, a kind of crude semiconductor breakover diode.
>>>
>>> it's not a "diode",its just a sintered semi-metallic pellet that
>>> conducts once a certain voltage is reached.
>>> a "diode" is a P/N junction or a semiconductor/metal junction.
>>
>>The metal oxide in a MOV is certainly a semiconductor.
I never said otherwise. but it's NOT a "diode".
>>The breakover
>>is due to avalanche multiplication rather than minority injection.
>>The oldest
>>ones were SiC (basically, just grinding wheels with electrodes bolted
>>on).
>>It has two leads, so it's a diode.
No,it's not.
from the Free Dictionary;
1.An electronic device that restricts current flow chiefly to one
direction. 2. An electron tube having a cathode and an anode. ...
Other Google examples for "diode definition" are essentially the same.
A thermistor is another semiconductor,with two leads,yet NOT a "diode",but
a resistor.An MOV is closer to "resistor" than "diode".
a Polyfuse is another semiconductor with two leads,yet not a "diode".
>>It's made with a semiconductor, so
>>it's a semiconductor diode. It isn't a rectifier diode, though.
>>DIAC and current regulator two-terminal devices are also diodes,
>>but aren't simple PN junction types (don't really rectify).
>>Vacuum tubes are sometimes diodes, too (like my microwave oven's
>>magnetron).
>>
>>> even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg
>>> to ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta"
>>> config.
>>
>>The protective ground connection is, in most situations, carrying no
>>current. The MOVs that connect to that protective ground are not so
>>much
>>protecting the plugged-in device, as they are dumping transient energy
>>in
>>the building's wiring (protecting the building rather than the
>>appliance).
MOVs -shunt- surge energy to ground,through the wiring.
sometimes,they cannot handle the energy,and blow apart.I've had to replace
more than a few of them,living in the Lightning Capitol of the US,central
Florida. Sometimes,the surge energy finds a better path through the
protected device,with unfortunate results.
>>The internal suppressors on lots of consumer equipment only have
>>one MOV, across the line, not the full trio that is common in third-
>>party
>>suppressor modules.
>>
>
> I thought there were NO supressors in most consumer equipment
> because its a liability.
no,just an extra cost.
plus,after they absorb a strike,they often need replacement,along with the
blown fuse.
>
> Its the line to ground noise and surges that cause TTL computer type
> equipment to BOMB OUT. Ground has everything to do with functioning
> circuits, that use ground for reference. Of, course, its best not to
> use ground for reference.
>
> greg
>
even with floating circuits,a lightning strike will find some path to
ground. Probably one that is destructive.
whit3rd
> zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote innews:htmh5b$rcn$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
> >>> >>The conducts-on-overvoltage element is usually a metal oxide
> >>> >>varistor, a kind of crude semiconductor breakover diode.
>
> >>> it's not a "diode",its just a sintered semi-metallic pellet that
> >>> conducts once a certain voltage is reached.
> >>> a "diode" is a P/N junction or a semiconductor/metal junction.
>
> >>The metal oxide in a MOV is certainly a semiconductor.
>
> I never said otherwise. but it's NOT a "diode".
> from the Free Dictionary;
> 1.An electronic device that restricts current flow chiefly to one
> direction. 2. An electron tube having a cathode and an anode. ...
>
> Other Google examples for "diode definition" are essentially the same.
How sad. Diode, meaning two electrodes... applies to a variety
of semiconductor devices, and vacuum tubes. Not just rectifiers,
but tunnel diodes and gunn diodes and those self-blinking
LEDs (really oscillator integrated circuits with a lamp).
The dictionary is wrong. MOVs are semiconductor devices
equivalent to avalanche (Zener) diodes, but without any
forward-bias conduction. They're semiconductor diodes in
all senses of the words.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
thinking: In February and August 2001 I lost two external modems to lightning
(caused my line to be off-hook until disconnected modems) and someone on
usenet told me to tie a ground to the modem. That particular computer (Ampro
2210 80186 hooked up to 1980 HP2621a terminal) with modems had previously
survived 1988-1995 without problems (no phone surge supressor but one on
power). In 2008 I lost two LCD monitors the same week during light rain. I
am therefore excessively (and probably unreasonably) cautious of using
computers during bad weather. Also in 1980 I took two semesters of EE for
non-EEs (am a 1981 ChE).
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
*+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
*+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?
WOuld it make sence to put a surge suppressor (what kind?) on my
incoming phone line? Neighbors have complained of fried modems, but
curiously I don't remember anyone ever telling mtheir computer got fried.
Michael A. Terrell
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>
> *+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
> *+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
>
> Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?
>
> WOuld it make sence to put a surge suppressor (what kind?) on my
> incoming phone line? Neighbors have complained of fried modems, but
> curiously I don't remember anyone ever telling mtheir computer got fried.
There should already be one inside the phone company's Network
Interface.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
Cydrome Leader
>
> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>
>> *+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
>> *+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
>>
>> Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?
>>
>> WOuld it make sence to put a surge suppressor (what kind?) on my
>> incoming phone line? Neighbors have complained of fried modems, but
>> curiously I don't remember anyone ever telling mtheir computer got fried.
>
>
> There should already be one inside the phone company's Network
> Interface.
This applies to the US-
there are surge and lightning arrestors on phone lines where they enter a residence, and they're
grounded to something good, like a water pipe for instance.
It works great.
Now if lightning surges hit your power then what happens?
a cheapo-garbage "surge protector" like a power strip or the like will use MOVs to short out line
to neutral or even line to ground.
What happens if you throw a short across line to ground and can somehow clamp it to 600 volts or
whatever? The numbers are made up, but concept is the same.
well, your ground ends up at 300 volts above actual earth ground where that device is located. This
assumes your ground has the same impedance as the current carrying conductors.
So now your computer isn't really grounded, and floating at a potential way off what the phone like
is at, which worst case is being protected to a really solid ground, and not hundreds of feet or
wiring in your walls or whatever.
This is what blows up stuff like modems or devices that sit between your outlets and a phone line.
The best move is to install a service entrance surge supressor. They'll clamp surges at the best
ground you've got, with the lowest possible impedance, and at your ground/nuetral bonding point not
at your load where any attempts to do so are pretty useless across the extra fraction of an ohm.
You can easily test the resistance of your wiring at home too, and at the same time actually test
if your ground is solid.
connect some large resistive loads like halogen lamps, hairdryer, toaster oven or whatever at and
outlet. Measure the voltage drop when it's on. Break out the suicide cables and test that same
device using line to ground.
Depending on how your place is wired, you may find that under an actual load, your ground is really
awful. A volt meter won't pick crappy ground connections unless you are actually running real
current through it, so just reading 120 across hot and ground and saying "looks good" really
doesn't count.
Trying to suppress a surge with a $4 power strip connected though 5 junction boxes connected with
BX cable can really just be a big joke.
bud--
> Michael A. Terrell <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>> *+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
>>> *+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
>>>
>>> Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?
>>>
>>> WOuld it make sence to put a surge suppressor (what kind?) on my
>>> incoming phone line? Neighbors have complained of fried modems, but
>>> curiously I don't remember anyone ever telling mtheir computer got fried.
>>
>> There should already be one inside the phone company's Network
>> Interface.
>
> This applies to the US-
>
> there are surge and lightning arrestors on phone lines where they enter a residence, and they're
> grounded to something good, like a water pipe for instance.
>
> It works great.
Some comments are somewhat specific to the US.
A couple of excellent sources of info on surge protection are:
<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
from the IEEE, and a much simpler one from the US-NIST
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf>
With a strong surge current to the earthing electrode, the "ground" for
the building can rise thousands of volts above "absolute" earth
potential. You want power and phone (and cable) wires rise together.
That requires a short ground wire from the telephone entrance protector
to the earthing system at the power service.
>
> Now if lightning surges hit your power then what happens?
>
> a cheapo-garbage "surge protector" like a power strip or the like will use MOVs to short out line
> to neutral or even line to ground.
>
> What happens if you throw a short across line to ground and can somehow clamp it to 600 volts or
> whatever? The numbers are made up, but concept is the same.
>
> well, your ground ends up at 300 volts above actual earth ground where that device is located. This
> assumes your ground has the same impedance as the current carrying conductors.
>
> So now your computer isn't really grounded, and floating at a potential way off what the phone like
> is at, which worst case is being protected to a really solid ground, and not hundreds of feet or
> wiring in your walls or whatever.
>
> This is what blows up stuff like modems or devices that sit between your outlets and a phone line.
If you RTFM, any competent plug-in suppressor manufacturer should tell
you the phone wires have to go through the suppressor along with the
power wires. The voltage on all wires is clamped to the ground at the
suppressor. The voltage between the wires to the protected equipment is
safe for the protected equipment. All interconnected equipment needs to
be connected to the same suppressor, or external wires, like cable need
to go through the suppressor. This is clearly explained in the IEEE
guide starting pdf page 40, and shown in the examples at the end.
Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
>
> The best move is to install a service entrance surge supressor. They'll clamp surges at the best
> ground you've got, with the lowest possible impedance, and at your ground/nuetral bonding point not
> at your load where any attempts to do so are pretty useless across the extra fraction of an ohm.
Service panel suppressors are a real good idea. I would particularly use
one in high risk areas like Florida.
But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."
The NIST guide suggests most damage results from high voltage between
power and phone/cable wires. A service entrance suppressor does not, by
itself, limit that voltage.
>
> You can easily test the resistance of your wiring at home too, and at the same time actually test
> if your ground is solid.
>
> connect some large resistive loads like halogen lamps, hairdryer, toaster oven or whatever at and
> outlet. Measure the voltage drop when it's on. Break out the suicide cables and test that same
> device using line to ground.
>
> Depending on how your place is wired, you may find that under an actual load, your ground is really
> awful. A volt meter won't pick crappy ground connections unless you are actually running real
> current through it, so just reading 120 across hot and ground and saying "looks good" really
> doesn't count.
May well be worthwhile. But even with a good earth connection the
building ground can rise thousands of volts.
>
> Trying to suppress a surge with a $4 power strip connected though 5 junction boxes connected with
> BX cable can really just be a big joke.
Neither the IEEE or NIST agree. Both guides say plug-in suppressors,
used correctly, are effective. Plug-in suppressors with very high
ratings are readily and cheaply available. In the US you should only buy
suppressors listed under UL1449. UL tests include a testing to at least
a minimum floor of protection. UPSs with surge protection should also
have UL1449 listing.
==========
If there is a strong surge on power wires, with no power service
suppressor, at about 6kV there is arc-over from the hot busbars to the
service panel enclosure. After the arc is established, the arc voltage
is hundreds of volts. Since the enclosure is connected to
ground-neutral-earthing electrode, most of the surge energy is dumped to
earth. A surge is a short event, thus a relatively high frequency event.
The impedance of the branch circuit greatly limits the current to a
plug-in suppressor (unless the branch circuit is very short) and thus
limits the energy that can reach a plug-in suppressor. For both these
reasons the energy dissipated in a plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small.
Neither service entrance or plug-in suppressors work by absorbing the
surge energy. But in the process of protecting, some energy is absorbed.
--
bud--
ian field
<vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message
news:htq3ba$a0r$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> *+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to
> *+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config.
>
> Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections?
Most commercial telecom kit has MOVs but some high end gear has gas
discharge surge suppressors.
Once in a while I've found answering machines with something resembling a
neon bulb where the line lead connects to the PCB.
Cydrome Leader
The lab NIST uses is not the typical home people live in.
Have you opened a "surge supressor" that the average person owns? It's
really surprising more don't catch on fire with no surges.
the construction quality tends to really really suck.
Even "name brand" items from tripp-lite are utter pieces of crap for the
most part. I've seen those catch fire, and these were made in USA ones.
I don't use or trust cheap-o power strips, at all, anywhere.
bud--
I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion is ordinary
surge suppressors
>
> Have you opened a "surge supressor" that the average person owns? It's
> really surprising more don't catch on fire with no surges.
>
> the construction quality tends to really really suck.
>
> Even "name brand" items from tripp-lite are utter pieces of crap for the
> most part. I've seen those catch fire, and these were made in USA ones.
>
> I don't use or trust cheap-o power strips, at all, anywhere.
So don't get "cheap-o power strips". I use name brand suppressors with
high ratings.
UL1449 has, since 1998, required thermal discoinnects for overheating
MOVs. If a suppressor is UL1449 listed there is not much probability of
any problem. The author of the NIST guide has written "In fact, the
major cause of [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage,
rather than an unusually large surge". TOV is, for example, a
distribution wire falling onto the secondary wires that go to your house.
--
bud--
Cydrome Leader
yes, ordinary surge surpressors. go to the store, pick one up and tell me
what you find inside of it.
I'd be pleased to counter with the CPSC recall notice.
>> Have you opened a "surge supressor" that the average person owns? It's
>> really surprising more don't catch on fire with no surges.
>>
>> the construction quality tends to really really suck.
>>
>> Even "name brand" items from tripp-lite are utter pieces of crap for the
>> most part. I've seen those catch fire, and these were made in USA ones.
>>
>> I don't use or trust cheap-o power strips, at all, anywhere.
>
> So don't get "cheap-o power strips". I use name brand suppressors with
> high ratings.
>
> UL1449 has, since 1998, required thermal discoinnects for overheating
> MOVs. If a suppressor is UL1449 listed there is not much probability of
> any problem. The author of the NIST guide has written "In fact, the
> major cause of [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage,
> rather than an unusually large surge". TOV is, for example, a
> distribution wire falling onto the secondary wires that go to your house.
Again, if you really trust any UL markings on a power strip, go for it.
You do relized that UL doesn't even test most stuff, they sell stickers.
That's the business model. If you want to get more technical, they're
really a licensing company.
they have nothing at all to do with safety, at all, any more than iso 9001
has anything to do with quality.
It's possible you have some decent surge protectors, but you're 0.01% of
the market.
bud--
Complete nonsense.
In Europe equipment is mostly self-certified that it meets a standard.
UL tests almost all equipment it lists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
"the UL Mark requires independent third-party certification from UL"
Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
to test whether they work.
Much of the UL listed equipment - fuses, circuit breakers, switches, ...
- are tested to comply with a standard that requires “fitness for a
given use” and “service life”.Ordinary wall switches used in power
wiring are tested by UL to remain functional after 30,000 operations at
or above their current and voltage rating. (The test is a lot more
involved than that.)
For surge suppressors, under UL1449 suppressors are tested by UL for
let-through voltage under specified conditions followed by a series of
20 surges followed by a let-through voltage test again. If the second
let-through voltage dropped significantly the MOVs are deteriorating. A
suppressor has to be functional through all these tests. Further tests
are of a nature that the suppressor might fail. It must fail safely. As
in my last post, overheating MOVs must be disconnected safely.
Incidentally, I was the technical end of a UL panel shop.
>
> they have nothing at all to do with safety, at all, any more than iso 9001
> has anything to do with quality.
UL listing of electrical equipment has everything to do with safety.
>
> It's possible you have some decent surge protectors, but you're 0.01% of
> the market.
UL1449 listed suppressors have been tested to pass at least a minimum
floor of protection. Anyone can buy well known name brands and get
suppressors with high ratings like I do.
Francois Martzloff was the surge expert at the US-NIST and wrote the
NIST guide. He also has many published papers on surges. I have included
some of his information in previous posts.
In one of his papers Martzloff has written "in fact, the major cause of
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge". TOV is, for instance, a distribution wire
dropping onto the wires that go to your house. (This is, of course, not
a surge.)
Martzloff also suggests in the NIST guide that most equipment damage is
from high voltage between power and cable/phone wires. (This is
illustrated in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.)
The IEEE is the largest association of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US. The IEEE guide (a link was provided) was written by
the IEEE committee that covers surge protection devices. The IEEE guide
says plug-in suppressors are effective. The only 2 examples of
protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors.
Similarly, surge expert Martzloff says in the NIST guide (link provided)
that plug-in suppressors are effective.
Where is your source that says otherwise.
--
bud--
Cydrome Leader
> given use? and ?service life?.Ordinary wall switches used in power
So, did martzloff test this item?
http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html
what about this, who tested these? they were wired with reverse polarity,
even a $3 outlet tester would have found that:
http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html
how about energizer branded products, were these tested:
http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html
That's just a random sampling. These products and pretty much anything
similar are the most poorly constructed and designed products ever made,
next to coffee pots that lack power switches.
If you really expect some item that's about to burst into flames by just
being plugged in to protect anything when there's a power surge, you must
love living on the edge.
Jeffrey D Angus
> So, did martzloff test this item?
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html
ETL Certified.
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html
No listing of it on the Belkin home page, or in their
recall listings.
> how about energizer branded products, were these tested:
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html
Canadian UL
So, what point were trying to make about UL ?
Jeff
--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
bud--
The recall is for a power strip, which is not a surge suppressor.
It was tested by ETL - maybe a reason to not buy equipment that is not
tested by UL. Did ETL use the appropriate UL standard?
>
> what about this, who tested these? they were wired with reverse polarity,
> even a $3 outlet tester would have found that:
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html
Wow - a recall from 2004.
It also does not cover any surge related components. So what? Companies
can make dumb mistakes.
>
> how about energizer branded products, were these tested:
>
> http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html
How devastating - a recall from 2003. Appears to be UPS parts, not surge
related parts.
The pictures of the case shows no UL label - a label should be visible.
>
> That's just a random sampling.
Anecdotal evidence proves astrology and homeopathy work.
> These products and pretty much anything
> similar are the most poorly constructed and designed products ever made,
> next to coffee pots that lack power switches.
I understand now. You are afraid of electricity. Avoid the nasty
electrical stuff - *any* of which may be recalled. Just move to the
country, use candles and outhouse and a horse. Maybe you could become Amish.
>
> If you really expect some item that's about to burst into flames by just
> being plugged in to protect anything when there's a power surge, you must
> love living on the edge.
I don't expect any listed surge suppressor to burst into flames so I
guess I am not living on the edge.
UL listed suppressors made since 1998 have thermal disconnects to
disconnect overheating MOVs.
None of your horrifying links have anything to do with surge protection.
The 6 electrical engineers who actually know something about surge
protection and who have written 2 guides all say plug-in suppressors are
effective. They don't share your paranoia (but they aren't afraid of
electricity).
Where is your source that says plug-in suppressors are not effective?
And why does the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors in the only 2
examples of surge protection?
--
bud--
westom
> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
> to test whether they work.
Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
protector have to be working after all tests? No. Protector can fail
- provide no protection. But if that failure does not create a fire
threat, then the protector is UL Listed. UL is not about surge
protection. UL is only about human safety.
And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we
have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors
from causing house fires.
Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct
lightning strikes do not cause protector failure.
Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited
Dr Martzloff says no. Plug-in protectors, in some cases can
contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE
brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground)
earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. UL
does not care. UL's only concern is that protector does not cause a
house fire.
From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection)
protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute
to nearby appliance damage:
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference in reference
> voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of
> connection of appliances.
What do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not
cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector. Then expensive
Tripplite, et al plug-in protectors are protected.
bud--
> On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
>> to test whether they work.
>
> Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
> protector have to be working after all tests? No.
westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
uses google groups to look for "surge".
As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
later tests that determine they fail safely.
So does a suppressor have to be working after *all* the tests? No. The
later tests are intended to cause failure.
Does it have to successfully suppress the test surges and remain fully
functional? Yes.
>
> And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we
> have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors
> from causing house fires.
In westom's mind plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and service
panel suppressors have mega-ratings.
In fact:
- UL listed suppressors have been tested to provide at least a floor
level of protection.
- As I said previously, the amount of energy absorbed in a MOV in a
plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small, even with a very strong strike
to a utility pole behind a house (information from Martzloff technical
papers).
- Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily and cheaply
available.
UL standards are constantly changing. Where is the massive record of
house fires?
>
> Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct
> lightning strikes do not cause protector failure.
westom's objection to plug-in suppressors is really based on his belief
that all protection must directly involve earthing the surge. Since
plug-in suppressors protect primarily by clamping, not earthing, westom
cannot figure out how they work. Perhaps because his earthing belief
makes him look like even more of a nut, it is almost nonexistent in this
thread.
>
> Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited
> Dr Martzloff says no.
What does Martzloff really say about plug-in suppressors?
Read what he wrote in the NIST surge guide:
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.
> Plug-in protectors, in some cases can
> contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE
> brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8:
> http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
> It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground)
> earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV.
If poor westom could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
surge guide says in this example:
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO
protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.
>
> From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection)
> protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute
> to nearby appliance damage:
westom forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same paper:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport surge suppressors (including
ports for phone and cable) were just a concept or very new. The whole
point of his paper was that multiport suppressors were effective
protecting, for example, TVs with both power and cable connection.
On alt.engineering.electrical, westom similarly misconstrued the views
of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, and provoked a response from an
electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."
Trying to twist sources to say the opposite of what they really say is a
favorite tactic.
>
> What do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not
> cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector.
A service panel suppressor is a good idea.
But again quoting from NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."
A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
cable/phone wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the cause of
most equipment damage.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides to surge protection. Both
say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective - there are none.
Simple questions that have never been answered:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
--
bud--
GregS
>westom wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>>> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
>>> to test whether they work.
>>
>> Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
>> protector have to be working after all tests? No.
>
>westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
>to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
>uses google groups to look for "surge".
>
>As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
>requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
>functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
>later tests that determine they fail safely.
I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box.
When I moved in the power company said there was one
installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using
it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder
if they really took it out. ??
I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines
to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem.
Never had any know hits after that though.
just last week guy here said his surge surpressor exploded as a hit
happened outside the house. His TV still works.
greg
bud--
> In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud-- <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>> westom wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>>>> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
>>>> to test whether they work.
>>> Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
>>> protector have to be working after all tests? No.
>> westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
>> to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
>> uses google groups to look for "surge".
>>
>> As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
>> requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
>> functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
>> later tests that determine they fail safely.
>
>
> I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box.
> When I moved in the power company said there was one
> installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using
> it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder
> if they really took it out. ??
The utility suppressors I have seen are between the meter and meter box
- there is a spacer between them.
I would rather have my own service panel suppressor. The IEEE surge
guide has advice for ratings and installation.
They solve many, but not all, surge problems. They are a particularly
good idea in high lightning areas.
>
> I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines
> to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem.
> Never had any know hits after that though.
As I have said several times, the NIST surge guide suggests that most
equipment damage is likely caused by high voltage between power and
phone/cable wires.
In the US, telephone companies are almost always very good about
installing an entrance protector that clamps the voltage on the phone
wires to a ground terminal. The ground terminal needs to connect with a
short wire to the ground at the electrical service. With a large surge
the house ground can rise thousands of volts above absolute ground. You
want all wiring - power, phone, cable, satellite - to rise together.
This is stressed in the IEEE surge protection guide - very good
information. A cable entry ground block also has to connect with a short
wire - cable companies are not nearly as good as phone companies doing
this right. And satellite entry ground blocks also have to connect to
the power grounding system. Satellite installations can be even worse.
As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
to the protected equipment.
--
bud--
GregS
I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house unused,
and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power
supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency
lighting.
I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
This is a basic model..................
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search
greg
GregS
I always thought local surpressors were good to protect from motorized equipment
and keep things common mode and to ground.
I might have a lack of available breakers, and I am thinking I
allready have an outlet near the box on one 120 side. i might put in another outlet on the other
120 side and use plug in replacable MOV's. I don't see much difference in
using separate breakers vs protecting lines allready in use.
greg
Jeffrey D Angus
> I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that
> are cheap. I found one for $30 and might get a discounted
> price. This is a basic model..................
> http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search
Well, you can't say inexpensive and Grainger in the same sentence.
You'll find the exact same products elsewhere for 25-50% less.
Jeff
--
�Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.�
bud--
> In article <huon5i$sut$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, zekf...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
>> In article <98a90$4c0fd58a$cde8d56a$23...@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
>> <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>>> GregS wrote:
>>>> In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud--
>>> <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>
>>> As I said previously, if you use a plug-in suppressor all external wires
>>> to a set of protected equipment need to go through the suppressor -
>>> power, phone, cable, .... This prevents high voltage between the wires
>>> to the protected equipment.
>>>
>> I have to recheck my cable for ground. I still have a telephone to the house
>> unused,
>> and an old unused Comcast phone box unused. Also the battery power
>> supply backup which I am going to use for my house emergency
>> lighting.
>>
>> I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
>> I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
>> This is a basic model..................
>> http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search
I wouldn't call $30 for a service panel suppressor expensive. The 2
plug-in suppressors I am using cost about $30 each. You appear to be
looking for Cydrome's "cheap-o" suppressors.
The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for
high lightning areas 40-120kA. All the MOVs in the 2 plug-in
suppressors I have are rated higher than the Grainger suppressor. I have
never heard of ICM.
>
> I always thought local surpressors were good to protect from motorized equipment
> and keep things common mode and to ground.
Motors are not a particular surge threat in a home. The #1 hazard is
lighting. The #2 threat is normal and abnormal utility switching
operations, including switching power factor correction capacitors.
Equipment, in general, has somewhere over 600-800V immunity from surges
(from Martzloff).
>
> I might have a lack of available breakers, and I am thinking I
> allready have an outlet near the box on one 120 side. i might put in another outlet on the other
> 120 side and use plug in replacable MOV's. I don't see much difference in
> using separate breakers vs protecting lines allready in use.
If I am reading you right, you want to protect the service with plug-in
suppressors. Bad idea. I wrote earlier that the impedance of wire at
surge frequencies greatly limits the current. There is a high voltage
drop along the wire. The clamp voltage at the panel will be far higher
than the voltage at the suppressor. This is also an issue for panel
mounted suppressors. See the section on lead length in the IEEE surge
guide starting pdf page 31.
If plug-in suppressors have a very short branch circuit length to the
panel they should have high ratings.
I believe at least some service panel suppressors say to wire them to
existing circuits/circuit breakers.
--
bud--
Grant
>westom wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>>> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical
>>> to test whether they work.
>>
>> Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a
>> protector have to be working after all tests? No.
>
>westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade
>to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he
>uses google groups to look for "surge".
>
>As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL
>requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully
>functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during
>later tests that determine they fail safely.
Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?
Grant.
--
http://bugs.id.au/
Jim Yanik
news:huogl7$rhq$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
I've had power supplies in TEK pro video equipment have the MOV blown apart
and the line fuse blown after a lightning strike,and the PS work after
replacing the fuse and MOV. I had one TSG-170A burn a hole in the PCB from
the MOV failing,and after filling in the hole and a new MOV and fuse,the PS
worked.
Central Florida gets a lot of lightning strikes.
We're the Capital of the US in that respect.
GregS
I said I found a cheap one.
I found another model with a lot higher rating. Most surpressors sold are almost $200.
It seems while searching, there is a trend to upgrade to higher current ratings.
But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
high rating in Joules. ??
http://www.amazon.com/Tripp-Lite-TRAVELER-Suppressor-Transformers/dp/B00006B83F
bud--
Normal failure mode is that as MOVs deteriorate (past the defined end of
life) the voltage at which they start to conduct goes down until they
conduct on 'normal' voltage. That produces heat and they go into thermal
runaway and wind up as a low resistance or short. I would expect this is
after (not during) a surge. The thermal disconnects required in UL1449
listed suppressors disconnect MOVs when they fail. If this is a fuse I
would expect it is in close proximity to the MOV.
The IEEE surge guide shows that for plug-in suppressors, the protected
load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected if MOVS fail.
Or the protected load can be connected to the incoming line and remain
powered if the MOVs are disconnected. I want the former.
--
bud--
westom
> I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
> I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
> This is a basic model..................
> http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search
So that high voltage differences do not exist between phone and
electric lines, everything must connect short to earth. Bud's job is
to promote plug-in protectors. So he will say anything to avoid that
reality. Every responsible source discusses earth as the means of
eliminating those voltage differences.
To do that means the protector must connect even direct lightning
strikes harmlessly to earth. To connect 20,000 amps (a typical
lightning strike) harmlessly to earth means, at minimum, a 50,000 amps
protector. At 24,000 amps, you would need two of those Grainger
protectors just to do a minimum.
More responsible companies make these 'whole house' protector
including General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison, and
Square D. A Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector sells in Lowes and
Home Depot for less than $50. All names that any 'guy' knows for
their better reputations.
Surge protection is about connecting at least 50,000 amps to earth.
That is the only way to above voltage differences inside the house.
Only then will the telephone "installed for free" protector, if also
connected to the same earthing electrode, also be effective.
Notice how your dimmer switches fail hourly as surges from the
refrigerator destroy it. Oh. It doesn't. Surges created by motors
are the myth that Bud promotes so that you will spend $25 or $150 on
protectors that also sell for $7 in the grocery store.
View that Tripplite protector. Where is the dedicated wire to make
that short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth? It does not
exist. Ask bud for the manufacturer spec that claims protection from
each type of surge. He works in this business. And cannot provide
those specs. Why? The Tripplite does not claim to protect from
typically destructive surges. It claims to protect from mythical
motor created surges. How often is your refrigerator and vacuum
destroying dimmer switches, Gucci’s. and clock radios? Never?
Because that protector is protecting from a myth.
Your concern is the rare surge. Either it dissipates harmlessly
outside the building. Or it is inside hunting for earth destructively
via appliances.
UL is only about human safety. Says nothing about whether a
protector is effective. bud will say anything to confuse that issue -
including insult. He will not even admit he is paid to promote plug-
in protectors - ie that Tripplite.
What will that Tripplite do when its hundreds of joules somehow
absorbs surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Explode.
Vaporize. Create a human safety problem also seen in these other
scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339
Bud's job is to keep you from learning these realities. To avoid
those scary pictures, one install a 'whole house' protector. Similar
to the grainer.com protector - but more robust - to earth at least
50,000 amps. Plug-in protectors (ie that Tripplite) require
protection that only earthing and the 'whole house' protector can
provide.
BTW, if any appliance is generating surges, then one 'whole house'
protector also makes that surge irrelevant. Just another reason why
informed consumers install only one 'whole house' protector. Do not
install 20 or 50 plug-in protectors. Yes, to do what bud is claiming,
you must buy at least 20 plug-in protectors for all over house. You
must put them on the dishwasher, refrigerator, dimmer switches, one
for every powered smoke detector, etc. Or you do what the informed
do. Upgrade earthing and install only one 'whole house' protector.
Did bud forget to mention what his job is? Which is why he promotes
a $3 power strip containing ten cent protector part that sells for $25
or $150. Protecting those obscene profit margins are his job.
Earth a ‘whole house’ protector so that your protection costs are
only $1 per protected appliance. So that you really have protection
as it has always been done for over 100 years.
westom
> Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
> rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?
Any protector that fails means it did no protection. That failure
gets the naive to recommend that protector. Undersizing the power
strip protector promotes more sales.
Even MOV manufacturers list that catastrophic failure as completely
unacceptable. A condition that exceed Absolute Maximum Parameters. A
condition that creates these scary pictures that most every fire
department has seen with so many UL listed protectors that are still
too small for serious surges:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339
How does it fail? Open - sometimes explosively. A thermal fuse
disconnects its protector circuit. Leave the appliance connected to
that surge – to fend for itself. To disconnect that protector circuit
as fast as possible. Then the naive recommend that protector.
Failure promotes sales.
Properly sized protector connected short to earth must not fail.
Earths even a direct lightning strike to earth - and remains
functional. But then nobody knew a surge existed? Then the naive
cannot recommend anything? That is the problem. An effective
solution means nobody knows a surge existed. Because the protector did
not completely fail. Therefore the naive do not recommend this
superior solution – earthing only one ‘whole house’ protector.
Protection is always - always - about where energy dissipates. Earth
one 'whole house' protector so that energy dissipates harmlessly in
earth. So that even direct lightning strikes do not damage the
protector. Where does energy dissipate? If permitted inside a
building, then surges must hunt for earth destructively via
appliances. That is why appliances are damaged. Energy finds earth
destructively via that appliance. Effective protection always means
that energy remains outside the building. And is absorbed harmlessly
by earth.
Unfortunately, a superior protector costs about $1 per protected
appliance. Does not have the obscene profit margins found in power
strip protectors - that are sometimes recommended because they failed.
It is always about where energy dissipates. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. You should not be discussing failure
open or shorted. You should be discussing why the protector - without
that short connection to earth - is a fire threat. Only profit
centers fail. Effective protectors do not fail during a surge. And
those protectors also costs tens or 100 times less money.
westom
>> But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
> high rating in Joules. ??
How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
thousands of joules. How does that Tripplite magically make all that
energy disappear? It doesn't. That $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts is selling for how much? Appreciate its purpose.
Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
that costs less than $50. That protector (model CHSPMICRO) is for
50,000 amp surges. Don't take my word for it. Read the numeric
specs. It will connect a direct lightning strike harmless to earth if
connected to a breaker box that connects 'less than 10 feet' to earth
ground. Massive energy dissipates harmlessly in earth. That Cutler-
Hammer protector is required to protect the Tripplite.
It is always about where energy dissipates. Why does that Tripplite
numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
in numbers? Because it only claims to protect from surges that are
typically not destructive. How does its hundreds of joules absorb
surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Ask bud for those
specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
provide those specs.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Which is why
the Cutler-Hammer protector - about $1 per protected appliance - is
also the superior solution.
GregS
OK, I can't find it on their website.
Read here. You say hundreds of thousands of Joules.
This one has 100KA at 840 Joules
This is twice the amperage as you state.
http://www.drillspot.com/products/423212/Supco_SCMPLUS_Surge_Protector
grge
GregS
The little bitty Tripplite laptop protector is over a 1000 Joules.
Jim Yanik
news:hur1nd$df8$1...@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu:
surge protectors don't ABSORB strike energy,they shunt it to
ground,providing a low resistance path to ground.
Instead of the energy passing thru your equipment on it's way to ground.
A higher Joules rating means the device absorbs less than a lower rated
device,and thus can divert more energy before IT blows up.
One more limit is your home wiring;how much strike energy can those lines
carry? (to ground)
and how good is the house ground?
bud--
> On Jun 10, 9:10 am, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
>>> But, a little Tripplite portable laptop surpressor has a really
>> high rating in Joules. ??
>
> How many hundred joules? Destructive surges are hundreds of
> thousands of joules.
So service panel suppressors absorb hundreds of thousands of joules?
> How does that Tripplite magically make all that
> energy disappear? It doesn't.
Of course not.
As explained early in this thread, the amount of energy that can reach a
plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small. The information came from
Martzloff, the NIST expert on surges.
> That $3 power strip with some ten cent
> protector parts is selling for how much?
One of the suppressors I use has 3 MOVs with ratings of 590J each.
Provide a source for a 590J MOV for $.10.
>
> Go to Lowes. Ask him for the Cutler-Hammer 'whole house' protector
> that costs less than $50.
Last I heard this didn't exist. Apparently Greg couldn't find it either.
> Why does that Tripplite
> numeric specifications not list protection from each type of surge -
> in numbers?
Why does service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD not list "each
type of surge in numbers"? Because it is nonsense - just another bogus
argument. UL listed suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That is
all possible combinations and all possible surges.
> How does its hundreds of joules absorb
> surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules?
How does "hundreds of joules absorb surges that are hundreds of
thousands of joules" in a service panel suppressor? It doesn't. Neither
service panel or plug-in suppressors protect by absorbing energy. They
absorb some energy in the process of protecting.
> Ask bud for those
> specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He will never
> provide those specs.
I have provided specs often, so have others. They are always ignored by
westom, who just continues to repeat his lies.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
The religious (immune form challenge) belief in earthing.
Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit by
lightning? Do they drag an earthing chain?
Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
bud--
> On Jun 9, 2:40 pm, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
>> I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that are cheap.
>> I found one for $30 and might get a discounted price.
>> This is a basic model..................
>> http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search
>
> to promote plug-in protectors.
Lacking any valid technical arguments westom attacks those who challenge
his nonsense.
> So he will say anything to avoid that
> reality.
westom will say anything to avoid the reality that plug-in suppressors
are effective.
The IEEE, NIST, General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison,
and Square D all say they are.
> Every responsible source discusses earth as the means of
> eliminating those voltage differences.
It is the religious belief (immune from challenge) in earthing.
Everyone is in favor of earthing.
And every responsible source says plug-in suppressors are effective.
The IEEE surge guide explains, for those that can think, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on each wire to the
ground at the suppressor, not earthing. The IEEE says earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system.
>
> To do that means the protector must connect even direct lightning
> strikes harmlessly to earth. To connect 20,000 amps (a typical
> lightning strike) harmlessly to earth means, at minimum, a 50,000 amps
> protector. At 24,000 amps, you would need two of those Grainger
> protectors just to do a minimum.
A 20,000A direct lightning strike to a power line will have multiple
paths to earth. The maximum surge current to a house from a much more
powerful lightning is 10,000A according to accepted standards.
The IEEE surge guide recommends - for homes - ratings of 20-70kA, or for
high lightning areas 40-120kA.
westom, of course, is smarter than the IEEE.
>
> More responsible companies make these 'whole house' protector
> including General Electric, Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Keison, and
> Square D.
All these "responsible companies" except SquareD make plug-in suppressors.
SquareD says for their "best" service panel suppressor "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
> Surges created by motors
> are the myth that Bud promotes
westom is prone to hallucinations. "Motors are not a particular surge
threat in a home."
> Ask bud for the manufacturer spec that claims protection from
> each type of surge. He works in this business.
The lie repeated - 2nd time.
>
> UL is only about human safety. Says nothing about whether a
> protector is effective.
Nonsense. As has been detailed previously, a UL listed suppressor has to
suppress a series of surges and remain functional.
> He will not even admit he is paid to promote plug-
> in protectors - ie that Tripplite.
The lie repeated - 3rd time.
>
> What will that Tripplite do when its hundreds of joules somehow
> absorbs surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Explode.
> Vaporize. Create a human safety problem also seen in these other
> scary pictures:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
In addition to completely failing to understand how any suppressor
works, westom refuses to understand his own hanford link. It is about
"some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a
revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a
problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in
effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had
a UL label.
But with no valid technical arguments all westom has is pathetic scare
tactics.
> Bud's job is to keep you from learning these realities.
The lie repeated - 4th time.
> Plug-in protectors (ie that Tripplite) require
> protection that only earthing and the 'whole house' protector can
> provide.
Funny - neither the IEEE or NIST surge guides mention that.
Another of westom's hallucinations
> Yes, to do what bud is claiming,
> you must buy at least 20 plug-in protectors for all over house.
Yet another hallucination.
>
> Did bud forget to mention what his job is?
The lie repeated - 5th time. People with valid arguments don't have to lie.
Still missing - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
bud--
> On Jun 9, 6:13 pm, Grant <o...@grrr.id.au> wrote:
>> Do they fail to known state? Open or short? App. note showed a test
>> rig with individually fused varistors, so I'm thinking they fail shorted?
>
They fail shorted. If not removed from a supply of power they may fracture.
> A thermal fuse
> disconnects its protector circuit. Leave the appliance connected to
> that surge – to fend for itself.
As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load
may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.
If a service panel suppressor fails it leaves the appliance connected to
surges – to fend for itself.
> Earth
> one 'whole house' protector so that energy dissipates harmlessly in
> earth.
A service panel suppressor is a good idea.
But repeating from NIST surge guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."
A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and
cable/phone wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the cause of
most equipment damage.
> A protector is only as
> effective as its earth ground.
westom's religious mantra protects him from confusing thoughts - like
plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
Still missing - any reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
bud--
Ratings are good. I wouldn't buy it because I have never heard of the
manufacturer. I would like to explicitly see that it is UL1449 listed.
"Meets UL" is a manufacturer claim and is not the same as UL listed (UL
tested). The "UL 1449 Clamping Volts" have nothing to do with UL ratings
- a red flag.
>>> grge
>
> surge protectors don't ABSORB strike energy,they shunt it to
> ground,providing a low resistance path to ground.
> Instead of the energy passing thru your equipment on it's way to ground.
That is probably appreciated by people here, but not in general. Neither
service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by absorbing
the surge. But they both absorb some energy in protecting.
>
> A higher Joules rating means the device absorbs less than a lower rated
> device,and thus can divert more energy before IT blows up.
The energy rating of a MOV - say 100 joules - is the singe event energy
that can be absorbed by the MOV and put it at the defined end of life
(but still functional). If the energy hits are less, say 10 joules, the
cumulative energy rating will be significantly higher than 100 joules.
If the energy hits are far lower, say 2 joules, the cumulative energy
the MOV can absorb will be far larger than 100 joules. A very high
rating means the suppressor is far less likely to fail. I don't expect
my plug-in suppressors with high ratings to ever fail.
>
> One more limit is your home wiring;how much strike energy can those lines
> carry? (to ground)
>
> and how good is the house ground?
>
If a house has a surge current to earth of 1,000A and a quite low
resistance to earth of 10 ohms the system ground will rise to 10,000V
above "absolute" earth potential.
Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true
earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
various parts of the grounding system." Make sure the phone and cable
entrance protectors are connected with short wires to the ground at the
power service. (Other systems, like satellite must also be connected.)
If they are, the power and phone and cable wires can rise together. IMHO
'improving' the earthing is less important.
High voltage between power and phone/cable wires is likely a major cause
of equipment damage.
--
bud--
westom
> As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load
> may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.
That is not what your protectors do. Others can observe same. A
power strip protector with the 'failed' light on still power
appliances. Because the appliance is not disconnected when the
protector circuit fails. A grossly undersized protector circuit
disconnects as fast a possible to avoid fire. Leaves the appliance
connected to the surge.
Or view pictures from Zerosurge:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
They removed all MOVs. ‘Failed’ light said the protector was still
good. And power was still connected to appliance receptacles. Again,
protector circuits disconnected – and appliance remains connected to
the surge.
Bud's NIST citation discusses his protectors:
> 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.
"useless if grounding is not done properly" defines protectors that
bud promotes. I am kind. I only called them ineffective. The NIST
calls them "useless".
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Every
protection layer is only defined by THE item that does protection -
earth ground. Earth one 'whole house' protector for secondary
protection. Necessary even to protect protectors that bud promotes.
Also inspect your primary protection system. Again, every
protection layer is only defined by the earthing:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
bud will post incessently. And never provide one simple fact.
Numeric specs that claim protection from each type of surge. He
promotes high profit plug-in protectors. And still cannot cite even
one manufacturer spec that lists protection from each type of surge.
Of course not. Plug-in protectors are neither designed nor claim to
provide protection from typically destructive surges. But when
selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts for $25 or
$150, then why tell the whole truth?
Protection - as even defined in all his citations - is only as
effective as its earth ground. Page 42 Figure 8 even shows the
protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a TV –
because the protector is too close to appliances and too far from
earth ground. Protection is always about where energy dissipates.
How does his protector (hundreds of joules) absorb surges that are
hundreds of thousands of joules? It doesn't. So he does not post
numeric specs. Will not even discuss where energy dissipates.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How do those
hundreds of joules make surges - hundreds of thousands of joules -
just magically disappear? That answer is adjacent to those never
provided numeric specs.
westom
> Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true
> earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
> various parts of the grounding system."
Martzloff what quite clear about what plug-in (point of connection)
protectors can do to appliances. It was the very first conclusion in
his 1994 paper - that discusses where energy dissipates:
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference
> in reference voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices
> are present at the point of connection of appliances.
What is necessary to protect plug-in protectors? What is necessary
so that plug-in protectors do not make appliance damage easier?
Earthing. And a 'whole house' protector properly connected short (ie
' less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground. Where is surge
energy dissipated when the effective 'whole house' protector is
earthed? Harmlessly outside the building. Then objectionable
differences do not exist in reference voltages.
Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on plug-in
protectors? They put their money where it does protection. Better
earth grounds and a 'whole house' type protector that costs
significantly less money. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.
Somehow that 1000 joules protector (that only used 333 and never
more than 667 joules) will magically make hundreds of thousands of
joules just magically disappear? I would say the same thing if my
profit margins were that excessive.
westom
> Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit bylightning? Do they drag an earthing chain?
Even his own citation contradicts what he posts. His own citaion,
page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates the problem with plug-in protectors.
Especially an earthed 'whole house' protector is missing. He cannot
deny that. So he now wants to discuss airplanes..
Why is 'cloud to cloud' lightning relevant to protecting household
appliances? It is not. Why are flying airplanes relevant? They are
not. Bud's job is propaganda - to promote protectors that have no
earthing. In deperation, he will discuss a flying airplane.
Where are those numeric specs that claim protection from each type
of surge. Bud cannot provide them for one simple reason. They can
lie all they want in a sales brochure. But they cannot lie in the
numeric specs. Bud cannot present numbers that do not exist. So now
he wants to discuss flying airplanes.
Read his own citations. The NIST defines bud's protectors:
> The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Numerous IEEE Standards say why bud's protectors do not claim
protection in their numeric specs. From the IEEE Red Book:
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced
> surges, diverting them to ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes.
How does it divert to earth when it does not connect to earth? Does
it magically make energy disappear? Diverting (connectiong, bonding,
shunting, switching) a surge to earth. Then the protector does,
according to the NIST:
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud wants
to discuss airplanes to avoid reality. Where are those manufacturer
specs that claim protection from each type of surge? NIST and IEEE
say why bud cannot provide them. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.
bud--
> On Jun 11, 1:27 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Martzloff has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true
>> earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
>> various parts of the grounding system."
>
> protectors?
Gee - why wouldn't telcos use plug-in suppressors for their switches? Um
- one reason may be because the switches are high amp hard wired and the
thousands of phone circuits would have go through the suppressor?
> A protector is only as effective as its
> earth ground.
The required religious mantra along with the drivel that has already
been debunked. westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you
repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
But - surprise - still no reliable source that agrees with westom that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And surprise - still missing, answers to any of the simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
bud--
> On Jun 11, 12:57 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day when they are hit bylightning? Do they drag an earthing chain?
>
westom still refuses to explain how you can protect airplanes without an
earth connection. What a surprise.
> Why are flying airplanes relevant?
"A protector is only as effective as its earth ground."
If you could figure out how airplanes are protected you could figure out
how plug-in suppressors work.
> In deperation, he will discuss a flying airplane.
In desperation westom will ignore the question.
>
> Where are those numeric specs that claim protection from each type
> of surge. Bud cannot provide them for one simple reason.
Each type of surge is still nonsense. And westom has never explained how
common mode surges get past the neutral-ground bond required in all US
services.
Just a few of the times specs have been provided:
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=1770++joules+author%3Abud--&btnG=Search&sitesearch=>
westom will continue to lie about them just like he has every time in
the past.
> Numerous IEEE Standards say why bud's protectors do not claim
> protection in their numeric specs. From the IEEE Red Book:
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 surge guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Ho-hum - the required religious mantra.
Still no reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
Still missing, answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don�t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
Why can't you answer simple questions westom???
bud--
> On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> As pointed out previously, in a plug-in suppressor the protected load
>> may be connected across the MOV and be disconnected with a failing MOV.
>
> That is not what your protectors do. Others can observe same. A
> power strip protector with the 'failed' light on still power
> appliances.
With minimal reading ability westom could read in the IEEE surge guide
the discussion on connecting the protected load across the MOVs. At
least one, and probalby both, of the suppressors I have do that.
>
> Or view pictures from Zerosurge:
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
> They removed all MOVs.
This is indeed a problem if there is a gang of MOV thieves operating in
your neighborhood. Check with your local police.
> The NIST
> calls them "useless".
If the village idiot was not wearing religious blinders he could read
what the NIST surge guide says:
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.
> Necessary even to protect protectors that bud promotes.
I promote only accurate information - like the IEEE and NIST surge guides.
westom promotes his religious beliefs. Just like talking to Jehovah’s
Witness.
>
> bud will post incessently.
westom will post incessantly. His belief in earthing has been challenged
and cracks in his universe may develop.
> And never provide one simple fact.
Facts I have provided:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"
- The NIST guide says "One effective solution is to have the consumer
install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
- A service panel suppressor would provide no protection in the IEEE
example, page 42.
- The IEEE guide says in one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".
- Martzloff says in a paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is
the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]".
- Dr. Mansoor supports multiport plug-in suppressors
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".
- SquareD service panel suppressors do not list "each type of surge".
And the biggest fact:
westom has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.
Jeffrey D Angus
> westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you
> repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law.
Jim Yanik
news:hv0ge...@news6.newsguy.com:
> bud-- wrote:
>> westom is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you
>> repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
>
> Oopsies, thread over. Due to my invoking of Goodwin's Law.
>
> Jeff
>
>
isn't it Godwin's Law? (DAGS)
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(god...@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over",
and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses,
because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that
don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to
an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh.
I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a
post is unnecessary.
But "westom" does post often WRT lightning protection.
Jeffrey D Angus
> isn't it Godwin's Law? (DAGS)
Yeah, my fingers are either getting fatter or my keyboard's
getting narrower.
Jeff
--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
Cydrome Leader
bingo.
I'm still amused that people really believe bogus junk surge protector
power strips from china are actually made to any relevant UL rating of any
sort.
Cydrome Leader
you really think so?
send one over to me, I'll post a video of me dumping 1kJ into to to see
what happens.
bud--
"People" - like the 6 electrical engineers that actually work at surge
protection?
Who say in a surge guide from the IEEE that plug-in suppressors are
effective?
And in a surge guide from the NIST that plug-in suppressors are effective?
Do you know of more reliable sources than the IEEE and NIST?
And you still haven't admitted that UL tests the devices it lists?
Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective - just like westom.
And westom has been looking for years.
I can only conclude that you are a Nazi.
--
bud--
westom
> Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
> effective - just like westom.
> And westom has been looking for years.
You prove it. Your job is to promote plug-in protectors. You
cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each
type of surge. For good reason. To sell scam protectors, lying is
normal. You have been lying for years. Even your own citations show
damage to electronics because the protector is too close to appliances
and too far from earth ground.
Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does
that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically
disappears. Reality. Either that energy dissipates harmlessly in
earth - a 'whole house' protector connected within feet to earth
ground. Or that energy is hunting for earth destructively via
appliances.
Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts
destructively through a nearby TV. Why? The home was using a plug-in
protector promoted by Bud. The house did not earth via a 'whole
house' protector. Energy was inside the building. Therefore damage.
Where does all that energy dissipate? In hundreds of request, bud
never posts numeric specs that claim protection. Bud never posts those
numeric specs because no plug-in protector claims effective
protection. bud must deny to protect profit margins. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.
It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid to
promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do. Where
are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any. He cannot claim
protection that does not exist.
Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise he
must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
protection.
William Sommerwerck
> to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
> Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
> He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
> Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
> he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers � not
> protection.
Uh... In the MOV?
I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around
300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage
heated up the MOV.
Am I missing something?
Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors. If
they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.
Jim Yanik
news:hvigjf$hg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
>> to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
>> Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
>> He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
>
>> Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
>> he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers � not
>> protection.
>
> Uh... In the MOV?
>
> I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
> around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
> that voltage heated up the MOV.
>
> Am I missing something?
Ohm's Law.
If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will be
minimal.
Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted to.
Jeffrey D Angus
> Uh... In the MOV?
>
> I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around
> 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage
> heated up the MOV.
>
> Am I missing something?
In your typical plug in suppressor mounted next to the computer
for example. The job of the MOV is to clamp the maximum voltage
across the "protected" outlets. That it does this fairly quickly
is what hopefully protect the equipment, while at the same time
drawing enough current through the house wiring to either pop
the fuse or circuit breaker at the suppressor or back at the
service panel.
What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally
inductive) in the house wiring to limit the rise time of the
surge until the circuit breaker (or fusable parts) have time to
react by opening up.
The term joules can be described as Watt Seconds. And the ability
to deal with it is based on the fault (or surge) being over, or
the circuit breakers upstream open before the device self
destructs.
Whole house protectors work the same way in that they shunt the
current to ground safely before it has a chance to cause a
destructive rise to the rest of the house wiring.
Jeff
--
�Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.�
William Sommerwerck
>> around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
>> that voltage heated up the MOV.
>> Am I missing something?
> Ohm's Law:
> If the MOV conducts at a low resistance, the power it dissipates will be
> minimal. Thus, the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's
> shunted to.
How low is low?
I suspect that's not a complete explanation, but I won't argue at this time.
Cydrome Leader
>> It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
>> to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
>> Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
>> He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
>
>> Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
>> protection.
>
> Uh... In the MOV?
>
> I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally around
> 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above that voltage
> heated up the MOV.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test suppressors. If
> they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.
hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supression
devices?
Sjouke Burry
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:hvigjf$hg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>> It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
>>> to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
>>> Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
>>> He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
>>> Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
>>> protection.
>> Uh... In the MOV?
>>
>> I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
>> around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
>> that voltage heated up the MOV.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> Ohm's Law.
> If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will be
> minimal.
> Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted to.
>
>
Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.
Where did you learn about electricity??????
Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,
and that is specified in the documentation, as in how
many WATTseconds blows it to pieces.
Even then it still might provide protection, although
only once, and then blow the mains fuse.
William Sommerwerck
If
>> they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said so.
> hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supression
> devices?
It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.
Jim Yanik
news:4c1d48fd$0$14115$703f...@textnews.kpn.nl:
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:hvigjf$hg7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>> It is bud's job to constantly promote lies and myths. He is paid
>>>> to promote plug-in protectors. Lying is what promoters may do.
>>>> Where are those numeric specs? bud will never provide any.
>>>> He cannot claim protection that does not exist.
>>>> Where does that energy dissipate? bud cannot say. Otherwise
>>>> he must admit that plug-in protectors are profit centers – not
>>>> protection.
>>> Uh... In the MOV?
>>>
>>> I thought the MOV conducted above its breakdown voltage (generally
>>> around 300V), and the energy in the section of the AC waveform above
>>> that voltage heated up the MOV.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Ohm's Law.
>> If the MOV conducts at a low resistance,the power it dissipates will
>> be minimal.
>> Thus,the surge energy gets dissipated in whatever ground it's shunted
>> to.
>>
>>
> Bullshit. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
> Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
> Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
> The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.
I never said it did.
the MOV voltage rating is the voltage when it changes state and drops to a
low resistance to shunt the surge to GROUND.
Now,how low a resistance in the conducting state is another matter.
that's dependent on the MOV design/ratings.
> Where did you learn about electricity??????
USAF PME School,1971.
> Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,
yes,I said the MOV's dissipation would be "minimal",....compared to the
total energy the MOV was passing to ground.
what energy the MOV dissipates can easily be enough to blow it apart.
I've seen it happen many times.
But the MOV is not dissipating the total energy of the surge with it's
suicide.
> and that is specified in the documentation, as in how
> many WATTseconds blows it to pieces.
> Even then it still might provide protection, although
> only once, and then blow the mains fuse.
>
>
Of course,the fuse itself can arc over in a lightning strike,as it
can exceed the typical 250v voltage rating of the fuse.
David
>> Bullshit. The Mov dissipates (Umov)*I*T, or
>> Total Energy=MOVvolts * Current * Seconds.
>> Or integrate over those values, if they vary in time.
>> The Mov voltage does NOT drop to zero, when conducting.
>
> I never said it did.
> the MOV voltage rating is the voltage when it changes
> state and drops to a
> low resistance to shunt the surge to GROUND.
> Now,how low a resistance in the conducting state is
> another matter.
> that's dependent on the MOV design/ratings.
>
>
>> Where did you learn about electricity??????
>
> USAF PME School,1971.
>
>> Of course some currents might be enough to blow the MOV,
>
> yes,I said the MOV's dissipation would be
> "minimal",....compared to the
> total energy the MOV was passing to ground.
> what energy the MOV dissipates can easily be enough to
> blow it apart.
> I've seen it happen many times.
> But the MOV is not dissipating the total energy of the
> surge with it's
> suicide.
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com
A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
a voltage clamp. You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
is totally dissipated in the MOV.
David
Cydrome Leader
So what is the point? John Dvorak wrote a story about surge supressors and
how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?
William Sommerwerck
news:hvk9c7$hrm$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Many years ago, PC and/or Byte (I forget which) used to test
suppressors.
>>>> If they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said
so.
>>> Hilarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge
supression
>>> devices?
>> It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.
> So what is the point? John Dvorak wrote a story about surge supressors and
> how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?
The point is that they were performing lab tests on the suppressors. These
tests included determining the clamping voltage. (I don't remember if they
were tested to destruction.) The tests were presumably performed in
accordance with industry-accepted standards.
bud--
> On Jun 18, 3:55 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Still missing - your source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
>> effective - just like westom.
>> And westom has been looking for years.
>
Poor westom just keeps repeating the same lies, just like Josef Goebbels.
If he had valid technical arguments he would not have to try to
discredit those that expose his drivel.
My only association with surge suppressors is that I have 2 of them.
> You
> cannot even post any spec numbers that define protection from each
> type of surge.
"Each type of surge" is more nonsense. SquareD, amongst others, does not
have specs for "each type of surge".
I provided a link to the specs I have provided in many threads -always
ignored by westom, just like he ignores anything that conflicts with his
religious belief in earthing.
Apparently poor westom believes plug-in suppressors do not work, so he
believes specs cannot possibly exist.
> Destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules. Where does
> that energy dissipate? Bud says that energy just magically
> disappears.
Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from seeing what has been
said in this thread, and numerous other threads.
For incoming power wires, at about 6kV there is arc over from service
busbars to the enclosure. After the arc stabilized the arc is hundreds
of volts. The enclosure is connected to the earthing electrodes, so this
dumps the vast majority of the incoming surge energy to earth. The
neutral (in the US) is also always tied to the system ground at the
service, so energy coming in on the neutral is directly earthed.
Apparently that is all magic for westom.
For a plug-in suppressor, the impedance of the branch circuit wiring
greatly limits the current that can reach the suppressor. That greatly
limits the energy that can reach the suppressor. NIST surge guru
Martzloff looked at the energy that could reach the suppressor and was
surprised that it was 35 joules or less. In most of his tests it was
under 1 joule. That is with service surges up to the maximum that there
is any reasonable probability of occurring.
As Sjouke wrote, the MOV dissipates an energy equal to the clamp voltage
times the current times the time. For a plug-in suppressor the current
is very limited by the branch circuit impedance. And the time is very
short - well under 100 microseconds. Fuses or circuit breakers do not
provide protection because they are nowhere near fast enough - they
won't open during a surge.
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing a surge - that
reason poor westom believes they do not work. The IEEE surge guide
explains how they work (starting pdf page40). They clamp the voltage on
all wires to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage between all wires
going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.
Service panel suppressors also work by clamping the voltage - from hot
wires to ground/earthing electrode (and hot-to-hot). Because the current
can be up to 10,000A per hot (essentially zero probability of higher
current, at least for houses) they can dissipate significant energy. But
the vast majority of the energy is dissipated in the earth by the
service earth electrode connection. The largest surges (lightning) are
under 100 microseconds. Suppressors are readily available that will
provide protection. With thousands of amps to the earthing electrode,
the potential of the building "ground" can rise far above "absolute"
earth potential.
Neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by
absorbing the surge energy. But in the process of protecting, some of
the energy is absorbed.
MOVs are fast enough to protect from the fastest surge. And if there was
an extremely fast rise time it would be lowered by the impedance of the
source wiring.
All of the above is from NIST expert Martzloff, or other experts in the
field.
westom ignores it all.
> Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a surge earthed 8000 volts
> destructively through a nearby TV.
The lie repeated. Poor westom tries to make an example that explains
protection say the opposite.
The plug-in suppressor in this IEEE surge guide example protects the TV
connected to it. It lowers the surge voltage at a second TV, although
its job is to protect the equipment connected to it. It is a lie that
the suppressor at TV1 damages TV2.
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
> Why?
> The house did not earth via a 'whole
> house' protector.
In the IEEE example the surge comes in on the cable service, and high
voltage results from a ground wire that is too long. westomn's favored
service panel suppressor would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
IEEE says, for distant entrance points, that "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
> A protector is
> only as effective as its earth ground.
westom's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka
reality).
westom is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.
Still never explained - why aren't flying airplanes crashing every day
when they are hit by lightning?
> He is paid to
> promote plug-in protectors.
The lie repeated.
But still never seen - any reliable source that agrees with westom that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don�t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
The IEEE guide, in particular, is really an excellent source of
information from a reliable source. I really recommend anyone who is
interested in surge protection read it.
--
bud--
westom
> A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It is
> a voltage clamp. You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
> current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
> is totally dissipated in the MOV.
Now do the numbers. How does that hundred joule MOV absorb energy
that is hundreds of thousands of joules? You are reciting the myths
promoted by plug-in protectors.
For example, how to get the protector to last longer? Increase its
joules rating. Then the entire protector absorbs "LESS" energy.
Protector that absorbs a surge is the urban myth promoted by those who
never learned this stuff. This 100 years old technology.
So that energy dissipates harmlessly in earth - not inside the
building - the protector must make a short ('less than 10 foot')
connection to single point earth ground. No protector is protection.
None. A protector is only a connecting device. Either it connects a
20,000 amp surge harmlessly to earth. Or it does nothing. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which those
educated by advertising never learn.
westom
> What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally
> react by opening up.
No surge protector is too slow. That wiring is why plug-in
protectors are not earthed. And why Bud will not discuss wire
impedance and earth ground.
bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protecting earthing
a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. He hopes you do
not grasp the point in his IEEE citation.
So let's put numbers to it. Let's say the plug-in protector and TV
are 50 feet of wire from the breaker box. That means it is less than
0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. So that protector
will earth a trivial 100 amp surge? 100 amps times 120 ohms means the
protector and TV are at maybe 12,000 volts. Why did the protector
earth that surge 8000 volts through the TV? AC electric wire
impedance meant the surge had to obtain earth 8000 volts destructively
through the TV.
Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on bud's plug-in
protectors? Because telcos can suffer about 100 surges per
thunderstorm. So telcos put a protector as close to earth ground as
possible. And up to 50 meters separated from electronics. That
separation means increases protection. Why? See numbers in that
above paragraph.
Whereas an average homeowner suffers maybe one surge every seven
years. A telco suffers at least 100 with each storm. So telcos do
not locate protectors adjacent to electronics. Telcos always earth
'whole house' protectors for the same reasons it was done 100 year ago
– a low impedance connection to single point ground. Protector must
be as close to earth as possible (lowest impedance to single point
ground) AND works best when distant from electronics.
Learn that no protector works by absorbing energy. That is why the
protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can
even earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. A
majority only believe the advertising myths - that protectors
magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically
disappear. That myth sells plug-in protectors. Any location that
cannot have damage (ie munitions dumps) instead earths a 'whole house'
protector. Then energy never enters a building. Then energy
harmlessly dissipates outside the building in earth ground.
Protection is always about where energy dissipates. IOW a protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. A reality that would harm
bud's profit margins.
Jim Yanik
september.org:
no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.
> You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
> current to ground just like you do with any load. The energy
> is totally dissipated in the MOV.
>
> David
>
>
>
totally wrong.
Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest you read it.
--
Jim Yanik
"clamping" is a misuse of the word WRT surge protectors.
It misleads people,as in "david" s post.
"trigger voltage" might more accurate.
David
>>
>> A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It
>> is
>> a voltage clamp.
>
> no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.
>
>> You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
>> current to ground just like you do with any load. The
>> energy
>> is totally dissipated in the MOV.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
> totally wrong.
> Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest
> you read it.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com
Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this topic.
Maybe you should check this out:
<http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>
David
Jeffrey D Angus
> <http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>
Amazing coincidence that they act much like the old NE-2 neon
bulb across the antenna leads of old receivers for protection.
They would conduct around 65 volts and suddenly go to near
zero impedance, safely shunting what ever energy on the antenna
line to ground.
And although most receiver inputs couldn't handle a steady state
of 65 volts (or 130 vpp), they could handle them long enough for
the neon bulb to conduct and then shunt them to ground.
Jeff
--
“Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.”
mike
>
> <http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>
>
> David
Hi,
I've been following this thread, and I got to wondering are there any
accepted methods to tell if a surge arrestor setup is still usable as
such? I've got a couple industrial 3-phase units that I'd like to
hook up to protect my incoming power, and though they pass the sniff
test I haven't quite convinced myself to add them to the electrical
panel yet. I only have single phase (in the US), but figure that gives
me a spare module that would just be left disconnected.
Anyone have any recommendations or guidance to lend?
Thanks,
Mike
Jim Yanik
september.org:
did you even READ the wiki article? it appears not.
Jim Yanik
september.org:
>
>>>
>>> A MOV is somewhat like two back-to-back Zener diodes. It
>>> is
>>> a voltage clamp.
>>
>> no,it's not. it does not "clamp" the voltage.
>>
>>> You do not pass energy to ground, you pass
>>> current to ground just like you do with any load. The
>>> energy
>>> is totally dissipated in the MOV.
Uh,"passing current to ground" IS passing energy to ground.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> totally wrong.
>> Wiki has a nice article on metal-oxide varistor,I suggest
>> you read it.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> localnet
>> dot com
>
> Jim, I am not going to get into a flame war over this topic.
> Maybe you should check this out:
>
><http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>
>
> David
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_oxide_varistor
Varistors can absorb part of a surge. How much effect this has on risk to
connected equipment depends on the equipment and details of the selected
varistor. Varistors do not absorb a significant percentage of a lightning
strike, as energy that must be conducted elsewhere is many orders of
magnitude greater than what is absorbed by the small device.
sparky
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. So bud wants
to discuss airplanes to avoid reality. Where are those manufacturer
specs that claim protection from each type of surge? NIST and IEEE
say why bud cannot provide them. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. "
Certain ignorant people here keep perpetuating this total LIE. I
won't call them liars because I believe they are not doing it
inttentionally, they just have no understanding of what they are
talking about. This makes them very dangerous as they are spreading
False information which may be read by someone who thinks it is
actually true.
David
This is my final say on this topic. In the quote above, you
assume the section saying that "... energy that must be
conducted elsewhere ..." goes to ground through the MOV.
This is where your error resides. The energy is going
elsewhere but being dissipated somewhere else completely
such as blowing up a transformer. The article should also
use the term dissipated elsewhere to make things clearer.
You also assume that passing current is equivalent to
dissipating energy. Current can *move* energy somewhere, but
electrical energy is only dissipated when the current causes
a voltage drop. A perfect ground will not have a voltage
drop so that is not where the the energy is being
dissipated.
David
Jim Yanik
september.org:
feel free to edit it.
>
> You also assume that passing current is equivalent to
> dissipating energy.
No,that's what YOU assume I said. Wrongly.
> Current can *move* energy somewhere, but
> electrical energy is only dissipated when the current causes
> a voltage drop. A perfect ground will not have a voltage
> drop so that is not where the the energy is being
> dissipated.
HA,now you're talking about "perfect grounds".Sheesh.
you don't know what you're talking about.
BTW,when a lightning strike hits a ground,it dissipates it's energy -in the
ground-. literally.
It even makes a fulgurite.(fused earth)
bud--
> On Jun 19, 12:25 pm, Jeffrey D Angus <jan...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> What the plug-in suppressors rely on is the impedance (generally
>> inductive) in the house wiring to limit the rise time of thesurgeuntil the circuit breaker (or fusable parts) have time to
>> react by opening up.
>
> impedance and earth ground.
Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from reading what gets
written. I certainly have written about wire impedance in this thread.
But if westom was not hampered by religious blinders he would read in
the IEEE surge guide that plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by
earthing. They work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to
the ground at the suppressor.
>
> bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protecting earthing
> a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. He hopes you do
> not grasp the point in his IEEE citation.
I hope everyone will "grasp the point" in the IEEE example.
- The TV connected to the plug-in suppressor is protected.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
>
> So let's put numbers to it. Let's say the plug-in protector and TV
> are 50 feet of wire from the breaker box. That means it is less than
> 0.2 ohms resistance. And maybe 120 ohms impedance. So that protector
> will earth a trivial 100 amp surge? 100 amps times 120 ohms means the
> protector and TV are at maybe 12,000 volts.
With minimal reading skills westom would have read that at about 6kV
(US) there is arc-over at the service panel from bus to enclosure/ground
- which is connected to the earthing electrode and neutral. After the
arc is established, the voltage is hundreds of volts. The same thing
happens at receptacles. This is a well established action for people who
are familiar with surge protection.
westom makes up a 100 amp surge on the branch circuit and 120 ohm
impedance - won't happen together.
> Why did the protector
> earth that surge 8000 volts through the TV?
And the lie repeated - 5th time?
In the IEEE example - of how plug-in suppressors protect - the
suppressor at TV1 causes absolutely NO damage to TV2.
>
> Why do telcos all over the world not waste money on bud's plug-in
> protectors?
Ho-hum - because telco switches are high amp, hard wired, and thousands
of phone circuits would have to go through the plug-in suppressor.
>
> Learn that no protector works by absorbing energy.
True of service panel and plug-in suppressors (but they absorb some
energy while protecting).
If you put a MOV across a relay coil, it protects by absorbing energy.
> That is why the
> protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can
> even earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV.
The lie repeated - 6th time?
In the IEEE example the surge comes in on the cable service.
westom has not explained how his service panel suppressor would provide
any protection.
That is because it would provide absolutely NO protection.
With separated service entry points the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
> A
> majority only believe the advertising myths - that protectors
> magically make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically
> disappear.
Only magic if you suffer from willful stupidity.
> IOW a protector
> is only as effective as its earth ground.
Ho-hum - still never explained - why aren't flying airplanes crashing
every day when they are hit by lightning? They must drag an earthing chain.
Still missing - any reliable source that agrees with westom that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
bud--
I agree. The vast majority of energy in a lightning strike is passed on
to the earth.
Assume a surge of 10,000A on a service wire (maximum that has a
reasonable probability), a very good resistance to earth of 10 ohms and
a duration of 100 microseconds. If I am multiplying right that is
100,000 joules dissipated in the earth.
If you had a service panel suppressor with UL let through voltage of
330V (measured at a specified current much lower than 10kA) the actual
voltage across the MOV might be 500V and the energy dissipated for the
same surge would be 500 joules.
Most of the energy that was available at the cloud is dissipated on the
trip down - in heat, light, sound....
In about any lightning strike there are multiple paths to earth -
multiple utility earthing points, multiple houses, ....
>
> BTW,when a lightning strike hits a ground,it dissipates it's energy -in the
> ground-. literally.
Nice example.
bud--
MOVs have a smooth, but nonlinear, curve from not conducting at low
voltage to high conduction current at higher voltages. They do not
"trigger" like a neon light. And the voltage across the MOV does not
suddenly decrease, like it would in a neon light (you probably didn't
say it did). "Clamping" is a widely used term, including the wiki
article on MOVs. (Gas discharge tubes are like a neon light, and do
trigger.)
One of the parameters for a MOV is MCOV (maximum continuous operating
voltage) which is the voltage at which the current is 1 mA. The
increase in current is smooth (but very non-linear) above the MCOV, just
like it was smooth (and non-linear) below the MCOV.
(When the MCOV for a MOV decreases 10% it is the defined end of life for
a MOV - referred to in the wiki article.)
A MOV is very much like back-to-back Zener diodes, but does not clamp as
sharply. But MOVs have huge current capacity in a small package.
The clamp voltage that is usually cited is the UL let through voltage
(UL calls it something a little different). This is the voltage at a
specified test surge current. If the surge current goes up, the let
through voltage will be higher (in a non-linear way).
--
bud--
Jeff Liebermann
<jan...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>David wrote:
>> <http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/metal_oxide_varistor_(mov).htm>
>
>Amazing coincidence that they act much like the old NE-2 neon
>bulb across the antenna leads of old receivers for protection.
>
>They would conduct around 65 volts and suddenly go to near
>zero impedance, safely shunting what ever energy on the antenna
>line to ground.
>
>And although most receiver inputs couldn't handle a steady state
>of 65 volts (or 130 vpp), they could handle them long enough for
>the neon bulb to conduct and then shunt them to ground.
We used to test our radios with 117vac on the antenna terminals. While
not a required test, it happened often enough that it was worth
testing and protecting. The AC plug to PL-259 test cable on my cable
rack generated quite a few odd questions.
Neon lamps, MOV's, back to back diodes, PIN diodes, and such are
generally a bad idea in high RF environments. Any non-linear device
between the antenna and the RF amp is going to act like a mixer and
create the dreaded intermodulation products. MOV's and diodes are
particularly bad because they start to slightly conduct at nearly zero
voltage, and increase exponentially with increasing signal. The MOV
also has 100-1000pf of unstable and unpredictable capacitance, which
is not a good thing on the antenna input. The closest approximation
of an ideal protection device are the one-time gas filled spark gaps
used in lightning protectors. No conduction at all until they arc
over. Then, they're dead.
Question:
What's the peak to peak output voltage of a 50 watt transmitter
into 50 ohms?
Answer:
V = 2.828 * 50^2 / 50 = 141 volts p-p
Now, do you REALLY want a device that conducts at 65 volts across the
xmitter antenna terminals?
I actually tried a varistor across the antenna terminals of an HF 150w
PEP xmitter and confirmed the big bang theory.
Hint: Things work differently at 60Hz than at RF frequencies.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
GS
My news reader sees a problem in these postings
.
Mark Waller wrote an article for Byte.
I have his book PC Power Protection from 1988.
Great reading. I should also have that mag article if
anybody is interested. I should look it up.
From worrying too much about protection, Mark is now a Family
Therapist.
greg
westom
> Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from reading what gets
> written. I certainly have written about wire impedance in this thread.
Bud promotes plug-in protectors. It is his job. Either that
protector connects energy harmlessly to earth. Energy absorbed
without damage. Or energy is inside the building - bud's IEEE guide
Page 42 Figure 8 - hunting for earth destructively via appliances.
8000 volts destructively through the TV because bud's miracle
protector cannot absorb destructive surges.
bud's NIST citation also describes bud's "profit center" protectors:
> 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.
No earth ground (bud's high profit protectors) means no effective
protection. Even the NIST says so. All of bud's citations say that.
Meanwhile IEEE Standards (the Red Book) - where the IEEE makes all
recommendations - state what is always necessary for surge protection
- and what bud denies:
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the process of interception of lightning produced
> surges, diverting them to ground, and by altering their associated wave shapes.
Or IEEE Emerald Book:
> 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 that personnel may
> be near or might simultaneously contact.
Protection is always about where energy dissipates. That means an
effective protector connects short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single
point earth ground. But somehow bud's protectors magically make
energy just disappear? It is what he is paid to promote. It is why
he gets angry. Reality would harm profits.
Surge protection means energy dissipates harmlessly in earth;
outside the building. A protector without that dedicated and short
connection to earth does not claim protection in its numeric specs -
as bud tacitly admits. So bud's protector magically makes that energy
disappear? That is also what bud tacitly claims.
westom
> I've been following this thread, and I got to wondering are there any
> such?
Assuming they are MOV based, read MOV datasheets to learn how MOVs
work and obtain relevenant numbers for the test. Perform a 1
milliamp test to confirm these numbers on that protector. This test
is described in some manufacturer application notes.
The test only confirms the protector can conduct. Does not say
anything about what makes a protector effective - the earth ground and
how it connects to earth. The best surge protection in the world can
bud--
> On Jun 21, 11:19 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> Poor westom's religious blinders prevent him from reading what gets
>> written. I certainly have written about wire impedance in this thread.
>
> Bud promotes plug-in protectors. It is his job.
westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.
And the same misrepresentations - a la religious fanaticism. All the
sources westom uses, including even his favorite manufacturers, say
plug-in suppressors are effective.
In particular, the IEEE and NIST surge guides both say plug-in
suppressors are effective. Links have been provided to these reliable
sources.
There are 259,615,938 other web sites, including 23,843,032 by lunatics,
and westom can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.
Also still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
Why can't you answer simple questions westom????
--
bud--
GregS
IEEE 587 and UL 1449 Talks of 3-6KV and 500 amps typical
test produces eventual failure.
greg
GregS
>On Jun 20, 1:36=A0am, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ors.
>> > If
>> >>> they failed to provide suppression, I assume the mag would have said =
>so.
>>
>> >> hillarious, PC magazine is your source for the lowdown on surge supres=
>sion
>> >> devices?
>>
>> > It was, 20 years ago. I don't think you get the point, though.
>>
>d
>> how they worked with his Cumulus 386 laptop and his CompuAdd 486sx tower?
>
>My news reader sees a problem in these postings
>
>Mark Waller wrote an article for Byte.
>I have his book PC Power Protection from 1988.
>Great reading. I should also have that mag article if
>anybody is interested. I should look it up.
>
>From worrying too much about protection, Mark is now a Family
>Therapist.
Here is the article.
http://zekfrivolous.com/misc/waller.pdf
GregS
If its not clear, the first thing a great surpressor must have, is an isolation transformer.
greg
mike
westom wrote:
> Assuming they are MOV based, read MOV datasheets to learn how MOVs
> work and obtain relevenant numbers for the test. Perform a 1
> milliamp test to confirm these numbers on that protector. This test
> is described in some manufacturer application notes.
>
Been awhile since I looked inside, I'll have to open 'em back up and
see what numbers are on them (if any, I can't remember).
> The test only confirms the protector can conduct. Does not say
> anything about what makes a protector effective - the earth ground and
> how it connects to earth. The best surge protection in the world can
> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
Makes sense, I'll confirm that the service entrance ground is in good
condition, too.
Thanks,
Mike
westom
> westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.
An honest bud would simply post numeric specs to prove what he
claims. He cannot. No plug-in protector claims that protection from
each type of surge. bud is a promoter. He again posts insults
because his protectors do not claim protection in numeric specs.
Honesty is not bud.
What do his citations show? Page 42 Figure 8. A protector too far
from earth ground and too close to TVs earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. IEEE brochure Page 42 Figure 8
demonstrates why high profit plug-in protectors do not even claim
protection in numeric specs. Bud’s job is to lie and insult so that
you will ignore what he cannot provide - effective protection.
Where are those numeric specs that claim surge protection? bud
promotes these things – and still cannot find those numeric specs.
bud--
> On Jun 21, 1:40 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> westom just continues to repeat the same lies - a la Goebbels.
>
> An honest bud would simply post numeric specs to prove what he
> claims.
An honest westom would admit that specs have been provided often in
other threads, and through a link in this thread. And also by other
people. Always ignored.
An honest westom would admit that both the IEEE and NIST surge guides
say plug-in suppressors are effective.
An honest westom would not try to make sources say the opposite of what
they actually say.
An honest westom would admit he can't find another lunatic that agrees
that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
An honest westom could answer simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Why don’t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of
surge"?
Why don't you ever answer questions westom???
--
bud--
GS
> GregS wrote:
> > I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that
> > are cheap. I found one for $30 and might get a discounted
> > price. This is a basic model..................
> > http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/items/1ECD1?Pid=search
>
> Well, you can't say inexpensive andGraingerin the same sentence.
> You'll find the exact same products elsewhere for 25-50% less.
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
> Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
>
> http://www.stay-connect.com
I finally hooked up a suppressor to the main box. I ordered the item
from Drillspot, and
received it from GRAINGER !
I also fooled around with my lightning arrestors on the deck outside.
I want to keep surge protector also in the separate garage. I also
need
to put something in my LED lighting string around the house. That
would be expensive to replace and difficult.
GregS
>On Jun 9, 3:20=A0pm, Jeffrey D Angus <jan...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> GregS wrote:
>> > I just checked, and its difficult to find surpressors that
>> > are cheap. I found one for $30 and might get a discounted
>> > price. This is a basic model..................
>>
>> Well, you can't say inexpensive andGraingerin the same sentence.
>> You'll find the exact same products elsewhere for 25-50% less.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> --
>> Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
>> Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954
>>
>> http://www.stay-connect.com
>
>I finally hooked up a suppressor to the main box. I ordered the item
>from Drillspot, and
>received it from GRAINGER !
>
>I also fooled around with my lightning arrestors on the deck outside.
>I want to keep surge protector also in the separate garage. I also
>need
>to put something in my LED lighting string around the house. That
>would be expensive to replace and difficult.
I find 90 volt gas discharge tubes. I could probably
use a lower voltage device. I don't know what else would be
self resetting.
greg