How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

[Metspitzer]

Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
and how to use them safely.

Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
brother) is a licensed union electrician, and sat down with me to talk
about how to choose the best surge protectors for your gadgets, and
how to avoid accidents, electrical fires, and other dangerous
situations when using them. Here's what you need to know.

Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

First of all, not every power strip is a surge protector. It may sound
basic, but it's a fundamental piece of knowledge you'll need. While a
power strip just splits your outlet into multiple ports, a surge
protector is designed to protect your computer, TV, and other
electronics against power surges and any interference or noise on your
power line. Power surges may not be an everyday event, but they're
common enough that they can damage your equipment. Charles notes:

The main thing for people to pay attention too is that they are in
fact buying a "surge protector" and not a power strip. A consumer
should look for the words surge protection, fused strip, or
interrupter switch. If it says power strip on it it most likely does
not offer surge protection, so pay attention.

You'll almost certainly pay more for a surge protector than a power
strip, but it's worth it. If you're the type to head over to Amazon
and just buy whatever's cheapest, keep this in mind. Don't assume that
because it's in the same category as surge protectors, or even in the
department store hanging next to the surge protectors that it is one.
Choose the Right Surge Protector for Your Needs

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

There are five major points to consider when buying a surge protector.
They are:

Buy the right number of ports. Don't just assume that every surge
protector is six or eight ports. Some of them, like one of my
favorites, sport 12 ports, well spaced so you can use them all. Buying
the right number of ports will make sure you don't have to daisy chain
surge protectors—something we'll get to in a moment.
Consider the gear you'll plug into the surge protector. Think
about the things you're going to plug into the surge protector you're
buying. You can just go all out and buy the best you can afford, but
you'll save some money by buying a surge protector appropriate for the
equipment you'll use it with. Your TV and home entertainment center
will call for a more robust surge protector than the lamp and phone
charger on your nightstand, for example.
Check for the UL seal, and make sure it's a "transient voltage
surge suppressor." Making sure that the surge protector you're
planning to buy is both certified by Underwriter's Laboratories, and
at least meets their UL 1449 standards (required for the label
"transient voltage surge suppressor,") will make sure the surge
protector you take home will actually protect the equipment you plug
into it.
Check the surge protector's energy absorption rating, and its
"clamping voltage." The absorption rating is, as the name implies, how
much energy it can absorb before it fails. You'll want something at
least 6-700 joules or higher. (Higher is better here.) The clamping
voltage is the voltage that will trigger the surge protector—or
essentially when the surge protector wakes up and starts absorbing
energy. Look for something around 400 V or less. Lower is better here.
Finally, see if response time is listed in the product details—it's
good to know, and lower is better.
Check the warranty. Some surge protectors warranty the devices
connected to it for some amount of damages if a power surge does get
through. Check to see what's covered (and what isn't), and how you can
file a warranty claim if the surge protector fails.

Belkin Pivot-Plug Surge Protector

Amazon.com: $24.84

Bottom line: Make sure you're informed before you buy, and read the
back of the box or the product details before you buy anything. You
don't want to invest in a surge protector only to find out that it's
far too weak to protect your devices, or it's a surge protector in
name only. Charles notes that price shouldn't guide your decision,
either:

As far as cost, the most expensive is not always the best. The
best thing to do is figure out what you need to protect and buy
accordingly.

Related
Conserve Surge Protector Saves Energy, Money

Belkin's Conserve Surge Protector with timer knocks out the energy
drain from vampire devices that draw standby power even when they're…
Read…

You might also want to look into other features, like a surge
protector that automatically turn off when your devices turn off or
stop charging, or has a remote control that you can use to turn it on
or off along with the devices on them. The idea is especially good for
surge protectors connected to things that like to live in standby
mode, like game consoles and some TVs, and the remote control options
are great for surge protectors that are hard to get to.
Don't Daisy Chain Multiple Surge Protectors

How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector

Odds are you've daisy chained, or plugged a power strip into another
power strip or surge protector, when you were desperate for more
outlets. It's tempting, and it's easy, but it's also dangerous.
Charles explains:

As far as daisy chaining surge protectors, it doesn't work. The
first strip will trip if a second is plugged into it and used. In
theory power strips can be daisy chained since they lack surge
protection, however I would severely advise against it.

Remember in "A Christmas Story," when they had all those cords
plugged in at once and it blew a fuse? Yeah, it's kind of like that
except that overloading the circuit can create the source of ignition
for an electrical fire.

So resist the urge to daisy chain your power strips, or plug a bunch
of power strips into a surge protector. It may be tempting, and you
may look at it from a "eh, it can't hurt if I just do it once"
perspective, but whenever you do it you're taking a risk that you need
to be clear-headed about when you do it. Frankly, we think it's not
worth it when you can buy a surge protector with more ports—or another
surge protector you can put next to your existing one—for a couple of
dollars.

For more reading, check out this Home Depot guide to surge protectors,
which includes not just surge protector strips like we've discussed,
but also whole-home surge protectors you can have installed and more
details on UL certifications for surge protectors. Similarly, this
guide from Tripplite will help you pick a good surge protector for
your needs (although remember Tripplite sells them, so they have a
vested interest). A little forethought, research, and safe practices
will go a long way towards making sure your gadgets are safe from
harm—and that you're not fumbling around behind your gear looking for
spare outlets.

Charles Ravenscraft is a certified union electrician. He graciously
volunteered his expertise for this post, and we thank him.

Photos by Daniel R.Blume, Al Pavangkanan, Joy Mystic, and State Farm.

http://lifehacker.com/your-homes-electrical-circuits-probably-need-to-be-grou-1409892102

[Oren]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:

>Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector

See my recent threads (two) on surge protectors: HVAC disconnect and
whole house (breaker in the electric panel).

There is one poster to not follow for trust. He said something about a
direct ground to earth that was not applicable in my case.

[tra...@optonline.net]

I'm sure we'll be hearing from him shortly. :)

There is a lot of bait in that post just waiting for
him. IMO, it's not a very good article either. It misses
important points like buying a surge protector with
cable tv, Ethernet, phone ports in addition to AC outlets
for appliances that use more than just AC so everything
passes through it.

The daisy chaining part I've never heard before. This
guy is claiming that if you plug one surge protector
into another, the first one will trip? First, what's to
trip? The ones I've had, they jut have an on/off switch.
The MOVs inside just sit across the lines, shunting anything
over 400V, etc. So, what is there to trip? And even if
there was, I don't see why plugging one into another
would cause them to not operate correctly.

[mike]

On 9/27/2013 3:51 PM, Metspitzer wrote:

>
> As far as daisy chaining surge protectors, it doesn't work. The
> first strip will trip if a second is plugged into it and used.
>

I'd like to hear more about the mechanism that makes this happen...

[Oren]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:58:48 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Friday, September 27, 2013 7:29:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector
>>
>>
>>
>> See my recent threads (two) on surge protectors: HVAC disconnect and
>>
>> whole house (breaker in the electric panel).
>>
>>
>>
>> There is one poster to not follow for trust. He said something about a
>>
>> direct ground to earth that was not applicable in my case.
>
>
>I'm sure we'll be hearing from him shortly. :)
>

Let the beatings commence - AGAIN.

>There is a lot of bait in that post just waiting for
>him. IMO, it's not a very good article either. It misses
>important points like buying a surge protector with
>cable tv, Ethernet, phone ports in addition to AC outlets
>for appliances that use more than just AC so everything
>passes through it.

<snipped>

Ya'll could talk about air planes (LOL)

[bud--]

On 9/27/2013 4:51 PM, Metspitzer wrote:
> Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
> why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
> televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
> alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
> electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
> and how to use them safely.
>
> Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
> brother) is a licensed union electrician, and sat down with me to talk
> about how to choose the best surge protectors for your gadgets, and
> how to avoid accidents, electrical fires, and other dangerous
> situations when using them. Here's what you need to know.
>
> Understand the Difference Between a Power Strip and a Surge Protector
>
> How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector
>
> First of all, not every power strip is a surge protector. It may sound
> basic, but it's a fundamental piece of knowledge you'll need. While a
> power strip just splits your outlet into multiple ports, a surge
> protector is designed to protect your computer, TV, and other
> electronics against power surges and any interference or noise on your
> power line.

I haven't figured out how noise filters actually do anything useful.

> Power surges may not be an everyday event, but they're
> common enough that they can damage your equipment. Charles notes:
>
> The main thing for people to pay attention too is that they are in
> fact buying a "surge protector" and not a power strip. A consumer
> should look for the words surge protection, fused strip, or
> interrupter switch. If it says power strip on it it most likely does
> not offer surge protection, so pay attention.
>
> You'll almost certainly pay more for a surge protector than a power
> strip, but it's worth it. If you're the type to head over to Amazon
> and just buy whatever's cheapest, keep this in mind. Don't assume that
> because it's in the same category as surge protectors, or even in the
> department store hanging next to the surge protectors that it is one.
> Choose the Right Surge Protector for Your Needs
>
> How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector
>
> There are five major points to consider when buying a surge protector.
> They are:
>
> Buy the right number of ports. Don't just assume that every surge
> protector is six or eight ports. Some of them, like one of my
> favorites, sport 12 ports, well spaced so you can use them all. Buying
> the right number of ports will make sure you don't have to daisy chain

> surge protectors�something we'll get to in a moment.

A multiport protector is likely to refer to connections where coax and
phone can wire through the protector.

You should get a protector with enough outlet for what you want to
plug-in, and space around the outlet is need if you are plugging in wall
warts.

> Consider the gear you'll plug into the surge protector. Think
> about the things you're going to plug into the surge protector you're
> buying. You can just go all out and buy the best you can afford, but
> you'll save some money by buying a surge protector appropriate for the
> equipment you'll use it with. Your TV and home entertainment center
> will call for a more robust surge protector than the lamp and phone
> charger on your nightstand, for example.

People use surge protectors for lamps?
I wouldn't use one for a phone charger either unless it was real easy to
use a protector that was around for more important equipment.
And if a load merits a surge protector why would some of them require
significantly less protection?

> Check for the UL seal, and make sure it's a "transient voltage
> surge suppressor." Making sure that the surge protector you're
> planning to buy is both certified by Underwriter's Laboratories, and
> at least meets their UL 1449 standards (required for the label
> "transient voltage surge suppressor,") will make sure the surge
> protector you take home will actually protect the equipment you plug
> into it.

Actually UL "lists" equipment. It doesn't "certify".

> Check the surge protector's energy absorption rating, and its
> "clamping voltage." The absorption rating is, as the name implies, how
> much energy it can absorb before it fails. You'll want something at
> least 6-700 joules or higher. (Higher is better here.) The clamping

> voltage is the voltage that will trigger the surge protector�or

> essentially when the surge protector wakes up and starts absorbing
> energy. Look for something around 400 V or less. Lower is better here.

330V is the lowest that is in the UL1449 listing standard. And lower is
not necessarily better.

> Finally, see if response time is listed in the product details�it's

> good to know, and lower is better.

Virtually all plug-in protectors use MOVs. MOVs are fast enough for any
surge. Response time is meaningless.

> Check the warranty. Some surge protectors warranty the devices
> connected to it for some amount of damages if a power surge does get
> through. Check to see what's covered (and what isn't), and how you can
> file a warranty claim if the surge protector fails.

Better be a major brand if you expect to use a warranty.

I would only buy a protector with a major brand name anyway.

>
> Belkin Pivot-Plug Surge Protector
> Amazon.com: $24.84

No idea what this is about.

>
> Bottom line: Make sure you're informed before you buy, and read the
> back of the box or the product details before you buy anything. You
> don't want to invest in a surge protector only to find out that it's
> far too weak to protect your devices, or it's a surge protector in
> name only.

"In name only"?

If UL1449 listed at least a protector provides enough protection to
survive the surges included in the UL testing.

> Charles notes that price shouldn't guide your decision,
> either:
>
> As far as cost, the most expensive is not always the best. The
> best thing to do is figure out what you need to protect and buy
> accordingly.
>
> Related
> Conserve Surge Protector Saves Energy, Money
>
> Belkin's Conserve Surge Protector with timer knocks out the energy

> drain from vampire devices that draw standby power even when they're�
> Read�

I can't think of many places where some of these fancy expensive
features would be useful.

The protector for my computer and related stuff is accessible and I turn
it off.

If I turn the protector for my big TV and related stuff off, various
stuff loses programing.

>
> You might also want to look into other features, like a surge
> protector that automatically turn off when your devices turn off or
> stop charging, or has a remote control that you can use to turn it on
> or off along with the devices on them. The idea is especially good for
> surge protectors connected to things that like to live in standby
> mode, like game consoles and some TVs, and the remote control options
> are great for surge protectors that are hard to get to.
> Don't Daisy Chain Multiple Surge Protectors

Actually I agree with this.

>
> How to Choose, Buy, and Safely Use a Good Surge Protector
>
> Odds are you've daisy chained, or plugged a power strip into another
> power strip or surge protector, when you were desperate for more
> outlets. It's tempting, and it's easy, but it's also dangerous.
> Charles explains:
>
> As far as daisy chaining surge protectors, it doesn't work. The
> first strip will trip if a second is plugged into it and used.

I agree with mike and trader that this is idiocy.

> In
> theory power strips can be daisy chained since they lack surge
> protection, however I would severely advise against it.

It is actually a violation of UL listing to daisy chain power strips,
including surge protectors.

>
> Remember in "A Christmas Story," when they had all those cords
> plugged in at once and it blew a fuse? Yeah, it's kind of like that
> except that overloading the circuit can create the source of ignition
> for an electrical fire.

I suspect that is why UL doesn't want power strips daisy chained, but
with minimal intelligence overloading can be avoided.

>
> So resist the urge to daisy chain your power strips, or plug a bunch
> of power strips into a surge protector. It may be tempting, and you
> may look at it from a "eh, it can't hurt if I just do it once"
> perspective, but whenever you do it you're taking a risk that you need
> to be clear-headed about when you do it. Frankly, we think it's not

> worth it when you can buy a surge protector with more ports�or another
> surge protector you can put next to your existing one�for a couple of
> dollars.

Totally missing, as trader noted, and of major importance:
All interconnected equipment must be plugged into the same protector.
All external connections, including phone and cable, _must_ go through
the protector.

Any competent manufacturer will tell you the same thing. If you don't
observe that restriction you may well be better off not using a surge
protector.

>
> For more reading, check out this Home Depot guide to surge protectors,
> which includes not just surge protector strips like we've discussed,
> but also whole-home surge protectors you can have installed and more
> details on UL certifications for surge protectors. Similarly, this
> guide from Tripplite will help you pick a good surge protector for
> your needs (although remember Tripplite sells them, so they have a
> vested interest). A little forethought, research, and safe practices
> will go a long way towards making sure your gadgets are safe from

> harm�and that you're not fumbling around behind your gear looking for

> spare outlets.
>
> Charles Ravenscraft is a certified union electrician. He graciously
> volunteered his expertise for this post, and we thank him.

Electricians, union or otherwise, are not necessarily experts on surge
protection.

This one missed one of the most important points - all external
connections must go through the protector. The electrician on This Old
House, in a recent thread, missed the same thing.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
wrote:

>Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
>why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
>televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
>alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
>electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
>and how to use them safely.
>
>Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
>brother) is a licensed union electrician,

Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.

My vote is for crap, not just for him but for the whole bloody
nonsense about surge protectors. It's a giant industry to protect you
from something that basically none of you have to worry about.

There was a guy in my computer club many years ago who worked for one
of the main companies that built surge protectors. He said it's all
nonsense as far as anyone really needing them. The transient spikes
are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6
feet. So unless you have really crappy wiring in your house with bad
grounds and such and the outlet your computer is plugged into is the
same outlet as your 40 year old refrigerator uses that draws 20 amps
to start and dims the lights then repeats 6 times before finally
starting, you are chasing a mirage. About the only thing you might
need to worry about is lightening striking but if it does your little
surge strip isn't going to protect anything anyway.

I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a
radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
protector would have stopped that motha.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:12:47 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

>>Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
>>brother) is a licensed union electrician,
>
>Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
>Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.

I'd think that some may know, others not. It is not something you
study in "How to Wire a Receptacle" but like any trade, some study
deeper.

>
>There was a guy in my computer club many years ago who worked for one
>of the main companies that built surge protectors. He said it's all
>nonsense as far as anyone really needing them. The transient spikes
>are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6
>feet.

Then I need one for my computer. It is less than 3 feet from the main
coming into the house and the panel. Actually, I use a battery backup
that also protects me from little glitches too.

>
>I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
>have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
>24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a
>radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
>protector would have stopped that motha.

Had one of those too. Nothing happened to my computer, but I did have
to scrap my TV and buy a 47" flat screen. Also had to pick up pieces
of the blown apart receptacle where it came into the detached garage
and then into the house. Lost the TV, Receiver, doorbell, circuit
breaker.

[bud--]

You are talking about surges that originate inside the house. I agree
they are not a problem. The 2 sources I often post, from the IEEE and
NIST, do not include surges originating inside the house as a problem. I
don't remember that competent manufacturers talk about surges
originating inside a house.

Lightning, however, can be a problem. So can a number of normal and
abnormal power utility events.

As I have often written, a plug-in protector with good ratings and
connected correctly is very likely to protect from a very near very
strong lightning strike.

A protector at the service panel is very likely to protect anything
connected only to power wiring from a very near very strong lightning
strike.

The IEEE and NIST surge guides are to give you information to protect
from lightning strikes.

>
> I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
> have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
> 24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a
> radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
> protector would have stopped that motha.

In your opinion.

[westom]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
> have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
> 24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a
> radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
> protector would have stopped that motha.

The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges. Plugin types that costs dollars to make while selling for tens or 100 dollars. He is right about best protection damped out in the first six feet. But only if a completely different device (also misleadingly called a surge protector) exists there.

One incoming wire already connects to earth. So a destructive surge is damped out in the first feet. Other AC wires are only earthed if a 'whole house' protector makes that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point ground. Only then are surges made completely irrelevant in the first feet. If that completely different device ('whole house' protector) does not exist, then surges are inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. In your case, apparently once in thirty years. Those cheap power strips did exactly what they claim - no protection from destructive surges. Why do so many recommend replacing power strip protectors every couple years? Because advertising says so. Most who recommend plug-in protectors are educated by advertising. And not by hard facts.

Daily surges that so many fear are only noise - made completely irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance - even dimmer switches. Effective protection means destructive surges (even direct lightning strikes) are damped out when connection low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.

Routine is protection from direct lightning strikes when a protector connects low impedance to earth. And the numbers that say so. Direct lightning strikes are typically about 20,000 amps. So a minimal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Because unlike power strips, one 'whole house' protector is protection for all types of surges including direct lightning strikes.

"No surge protector would have stopped that motha". Correct. Any protector that stops, blocks, or absorbs a surge is a scam. Why is a 'whole house' protector so effective? It works like a wire. It connects hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly to earth outside the building. Then even power strip protectors (that only claim to absorb hundreds of joules) are protected.

Another probably has posted the usual cut and paste myths. With text to keep you confused. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8 shows how plug-in protectors even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Nothing protects once a destructive surge is all but invited inside. Somehow adjacent protectors must somehow block or absorb a surge. Nothing stops or blocks destructive surges. Therefore every facility that cannot have damage always connects destructive surges to earth outside the building - either by a wire or via a 'whole house' protector. Only then is one surge every seven years or one surge every 30 years made irrelevant. That superior solution (because is does not stop surges) also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). Or destructively via appliances. Surge damage is determined by decisions made by a homeowner. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - since nothing an stop a surge.

Why do companies with better integrity manufacturer 'whole house' protectors? Do you want protection. Or do you want to enrich them for selling a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts for $25 or $80? Better is to put your money into real world protection. That means a 'whole house' protector (a completely different device) from companies such as Leviton, Syscom, Siemens, Polyphaser, Intermatic, ABB, General Electric, Square D, or Cutler-Hammer - to name but a few. An effective Cutler-Hammer solution was selling in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Then grossly undersized power strip protectors need not create house fires.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I *knew* this bait was just too tempting for W_Tom to refuse. The
idiot can't even figure out how to use a newsreader.

[Oren]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<right on queue>

> Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years

Does that include Leap years?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:51:19 -0400, Metspitzer <Kilo...@charter.net>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Most of us have more devices than we have plugs in the wall, which is
>
> >why you'll likely find a surge protector behind most people's
>
> >televisions and under our desks. However, not all surge protectors are
>
> >alike, and some even put your gadgets at risk. We talked to an
>
> >electrician to sort out how to tell the good ones from the bad ones,
>
> >and how to use them safely.
>
> >
>
> >Charles Ravenscraft (yes, that's Lifehacker writer Eric Ravenscraft's
>
> >brother) is a licensed union electrician,
>
>
>
> Why would an electrician be any kind of expert on surge protection?
>
> Maybe he is, maybe he's full of crap.
>
>
>
> My vote is for crap, not just for him but for the whole bloody
>
> nonsense about surge protectors. It's a giant industry to protect you
>
> from something that basically none of you have to worry about.
>
>
>
> There was a guy in my computer club many years ago who worked for one
>
> of the main companies that built surge protectors. He said it's all
>
> nonsense as far as anyone really needing them.

What makes you think this person knows anything more than the
electrician you just criticized. Was he an electrical engineer,
familiar with surge protection concepts, or did he work
the company phone?

> The transient spikes
>
> are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6
>
> feet.

BS. Relevant documents from NIST, IEEE have been posted
here many times and they sure don't say anything like that.
Maybe you can explain to us the physics behind how 6 ft of
house wiring stops a surge.

So unless you have really crappy wiring in your house with bad
>
> grounds and such and the outlet your computer is plugged into is the
>
> same outlet as your 40 year old refrigerator uses that draws 20 amps
>
> to start and dims the lights then repeats 6 times before finally
>
> starting, you are chasing a mirage.

Refrigerators and similar appliances in the house typically don't
create the surges that need to be protected against.

About the only thing you might
>
> need to worry about is lightening striking but if it does your little
>
> surge strip isn't going to protect anything anyway.
>
>

Well that's true if the lightning bolt directly hits the TV
sitting in the living room. But that is almost impossible.
The surges from lightning that damage appliances in a house
are typically from lighting striking nearby,
eg hitting the utility lines along the street, the service
cable going to the house, etc. That creates a powerful surge,
on the lines going into the house, but it's a small amount
of the total energy from the lightning strike. Surge protectors are
effective in dealing with those surges. If they are not,
why do you think companies that have electronic eqpt
to protect, eg Telco, cable company, etc all use surge protection?

>
> I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
>
> have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
>
> 24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a
>
> radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
>
> protector would have stopped that motha.

Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.

Read what the IEEE panel of engineering professionals says:

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

[westom]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:29:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
> Does that include Leap years?

A leap year is the year you jump because a strike was so close.

[k...@attt.bizz]

Nah, W_Tom's surges are caused by broken mirrors.

[Oren]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:26:06 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:29:42 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>> Does that include Leap years?
>
> A leap year is the year you jump because a strike was so close.

Do you know what a leap day is?

[Ashton Crusher]

Absolutely IMHO. The surges from outside the house are even less of a
problem because typically you've got dozens of feet of wire between
where your service entrance is and where the wire to it connects to
"the mains". And people in areas where the "grid" is buried
underground have even less need to worry about "surges".

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:14:11 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Excellent info.

[Ashton Crusher]

That's lightening protection, not the "surge protection" the scammers
are selling.

[bud--]

On 9/29/2013 9:14 AM, westom wrote:
>
> The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges.

What a surprise. The village idiot is here with his misrepresentations,
and lies.

But no answers to simple questions - like:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, page 33?
- 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
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

Still missing - anyone who agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do
not work.

For real science read the IEEE surge guide (posted by trader) and the
NIST surge guide:
And also:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/file/Surges%20happen!.pdf
Both surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

[bud--]

Lightning strikes are basically current sources. Strong surges can cause
arc-over at a service panel - about 6,000V. "Dozens of feet of wire"
give no protection.

What "dozens of feet" may refer to is that a relatively short length of
wire will significantly lower the "rise time" of a very fast surge,
which could affect the "response time" for a protector. But MOVs are
fast enough for surges.

Perhaps you could read the NIST surge guide. You might learn something.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 8:49:54 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
> On 9/29/2013 9:14 AM, westom wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges.
>
>
>
> What a surprise. The village idiot is here with his misrepresentations,
>
> and lies.
>
>

And finally, after all these years and all those posts
Tom's actually found someone, Ashton, who agrees with him.

[westom]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:48:38 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
> protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.

The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground. Therefore nearby appliances were damaged by 8000 volts. How can this be since you claim a surge can be inside the house and never cause damage. Oh. You are attacking the messenger because you have no facts.

Protection means a surge current is not inside the house. Any protector that would stop or absorb that current at the appliance is ... well where is that manufacturer spec number that claims protection? Oh. You never provided one for one good reason. Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. So you attack the messenger rather than post facts.

Even the IEEE Guide shows what happens when a surge is not properly earthed by one 'whole house' protector. Appliances damaged by 8000 volts. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8.

[tra...@optonline.net]

"Where do you think most destructive surges seen by appliances
like a TV or PC come from? Did you bother to even read the IEEE guide?"


1. INTRODUCTION
This guide is intended to provide useful information about the proper specification
and application of surge protectors, to protect houses and their contents from
lightning and other electrical surges. The guide is written for electricians,
electronics technicians and engineers, electrical inspectors, building designers,
and others with some technical background, and the need to understand lightning
protection.
Surge protection has become a much more complex and important issue in recent
years."


Lightning is the most common sources of these destructive
surges. As Bud pointed out there are other possible sources
from utility events as well. You, in your post, basically
dismissed the possibility of protecting against lightning surges.

"I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge protector would have stopped that motha. "

The IEEE guide discusses exactly that situation. They show how
a lighting strike to the utility lines near a home creates
a surge at the appliance and they show a tiered
protection strategy that would have prevented the above damage
that you had. That strategy includes the use of multi-port,
plug-in surge protectors.
Also note that nowhere does that IEEE guide
written by several industry engineers who are experts
in the field say that 6 feet of wire will stop the typical
destructive surge, that plug-in surge protectors are useless, etc.
Did 6 ft stop your surge? Good grief.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 11:14:11 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:12:47 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> > I've been buying the cheapest power strips I can find for 30 years and
>
> > have never had a problem with a power "surge" and I leave my system on
>
> > 24/7. I did have lightening strike once and it blew the shit out of a
>
> > radio and computer and clock, fried a couple breakers, etc. No surge
>
> > protector would have stopped that motha.
>
>
>
> The computer club guy was discussing protectors that do not claim to protect from destructive surges.

The first lie. How do you know what some guy at a computer
club was or wasn't talking about? Were you there?

> Plugin types that costs dollars to make while selling for tens or 100 dollars.

Imagine that. By the time a product goes from manufacturing
to being bought in a store, there is considerable markup along
the way.

He is right about best protection damped out in the first six feet. But only if a completely different device (also misleadingly called a surge protector) exists there.
>

Good grief. There was no mention of ANY surge protector. The
"computer club guy", we are told, said just 6 ft of wire is all
that's needed period.

>
> One incoming wire already connects to earth. So a destructive surge is damped out in the first feet. Other AC wires are only earthed if a 'whole house' protector makes that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point ground. Only then are surges made completely irrelevant in the first feet.

The IEEE guide disagrees. They clearly show the need for
multi-port surge protectors to protect appliances connected
to more than just the AC, eg a TV or PC connected to cable,
phone, Ethernet, etc.

> If that completely different device ('whole house' protector) does not exist, then surges are inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.
>
>
>
> Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. In your case, apparently once in thirty years. Those cheap power strips did exactly what they claim - no protection from destructive surges.

If it's just a power strip with no surge protection, then
it's true that it has no surge protection. It doesn't claim to
have surge protection either.

Why do so many recommend replacing power strip protectors every couple years? Because advertising says so. Most who recommend plug-in protectors are educated by advertising. And not by hard facts.
>
>

Now you've conflated power strip type SURGE PROTECTORS, ie power
strips that are rated for surge protection with the above ones
that are not surge protectors and don't claim to be.

>
> Daily surges that so many fear are only noise - made completely irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance - even dimmer switches.

I don't know what "many fear" or think about surges.
I've always been primarily concerned about surges
originating on the utility lines.

> Effective protection means destructive surges (even direct lightning strikes) are damped out when connection low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.
>
>

Still waiting all these years for an answer as to if no
protection is possible without a 10 ft low impedance connection
to earth, how are avionics protected in aircraft?

>
> Routine is protection from direct lightning strikes when a protector connects low impedance to earth. And the numbers that say so. Direct lightning strikes are typically about 20,000 amps. So a minimal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Because unlike power strips, one 'whole house' protector is protection for all types of surges including direct lightning strikes.
>
>

Of course as has been pointed out by Bud a zillion times now,
the chance of that 20,000 amps making it to a surge protector
is very small. That much energy arcs over and most of the
energy in a lightning strike gets dissipated before it even
gets to the surge protector.

>
> "No surge protector would have stopped that motha". Correct. Any protector that stops, blocks, or absorbs a surge is a scam.

Strawman detected. Strawman rejected. Perhaps you'd like to
show us a surge protector from a major manufacturer that says
their product "absorbs" a surge.

Why is a 'whole house' protector so effective? It works like a wire. It connects hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly to earth outside the building. Then even power strip protectors (that only claim to absorb hundreds of joules) are protected.
>
>

Why are avionics on airplanes protected without a direct wire
to earth?

>
> Another probably has posted the usual cut and paste myths. With text to keep you confused. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8 shows how plug-in protectors even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Nothing protects once a destructive surge is all but invited inside. Somehow adjacent protectors must somehow block or absorb a surge. Nothing stops or blocks destructive surges.

It's unbelievable that you have the balls to actually keep
bringing this up and trying to use it to lie. Does the IEEE
say what you claim, that the surge protector on TV1 "caused"
the damage on TV2? No. They show the surge protector on
TV1 working, TV1 having no damage. TV2 without a surge protector
they show being damaged. And then they clearly state:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"
That statement is the last line of the paragraph that's part of fig 8.

That is 180 deg opposite of what you claim. Also, on the page
before, they show another example of a plug-in surge protector
being used to protect a TV from a destructive surge. Everyone
can see it for themselves:

pages 32 and 33,

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

Two examples of plug-in protectors being used, right
in the IEEE guide. Now, who should we believe? The
IEEE expert engineers, or you? Where are YOUR references?

Therefore every facility that cannot have damage always connects destructive surges to earth outside the building - either by a wire or via a 'whole house' protector. Only then is one surge every seven years or one surge every 30 years made irrelevant. That superior solution (because is does not stop surges) also costs tens or 100 times less money.
>
>

And all those "facilities", eg telcos, also use a tiered
strategy, just like the IEEE recommends. They don't rely
on just a surge protector on the
lines where they enter the building. Telephone line cards
for example, have surge protection on them too.

>
> Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate.

If that's all that's required, then the lightning strike at
the utility line 200 ft from the house won't cause any
problems inside the house, right? Because that's where
the hundreds of thousands of joules is dissipated, ie
where the lightning strike was. Only a small fraction of
that energy makes it to the house, to the appliance, etc.

Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). Or destructively via appliances. Surge damage is determined by decisions made by a homeowner. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - since nothing an stop a surge.
>
>

Are those airplanes connected with a 6 ft wire to earth?

>
> Why do companies with better integrity manufacturer 'whole house' protectors?

The problem here is your faulty definition of "better integrity".
You claim any company that makes plug-in surge protectors is
a scam. Yet there are companies like GE making them. And I
believe Bud has shown you examples where companies that make
whole house types also talk about using plug-ins too. Just
like IEEE.

Do you want protection. Or do you want to enrich them for selling a $3 power strip with ten cent protector parts for $25 or $80? Better is to put your money into real world protection. That means a 'whole house' protector (a completely different device) from companies such as Leviton, Syscom, Siemens, Polyphaser, Intermatic, ABB, General Electric, Square D, or Cutler-Hammer - to name but a few. An effective Cutler-Hammer solution was selling in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Then grossly undersized power strip protectors need not create house fires.

Better take GE off that list. They sell plug-ins. Also another
question asked and never answered all these years. Where is the
link to that surge protector at HD that is rated at 50K amps for
$50?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 9:44:59 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:48:38 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
>
> > protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.
>
>
>
> The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.

Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

They show two separate instances of how to protect appliances, the
only two in fact, and both show the use of plug-in surge protectors.

Only a liar would turn that into:

"The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground."


Therefore nearby appliances were damaged by 8000 volts. How can this be since you claim a surge can be inside the house and never cause damage. Oh.

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

> You are attacking the messenger because you have no facts.
>
>

I have the IEEE guide. It's quite obvious you have no credible
references at all that agree with your assertions. That's why
you have to take the IEEE guide and totally misrepresent and lie
about what it actually says. They show one TV protected from
a surge by a plug-in. The second TV, with no plug-in protector,
gets damaged. The IEEE guides states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

And you try to turn that into plug-in surge protectors being
useless, can't work because they have no earth ground, cause
damage, etc?

Good grief!

>
> Protection means a surge current is not inside the house.

Again, 180deg opposite the IEEE guide.

Any protector that would stop or absorb that current at the appliance is ... well where is that manufacturer spec number that claims protection? Oh. You never provided one for one good reason.

Here's an example from APC:

https://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=P6BMP4


Output
Number of Outlets

6


Receptacle Style

NEMA 5-15R


Input

Nominal Input Voltage

120V


Input Frequency

50/60 Hz +/- 5 Hz (auto sensing)



Input Connections

NEMA 5-15P NEMA 5-15P



Maximum Line Current per phase

15A



Cord Length

1.83 meters


Surge Protection and Filtering

Surge energy rating

490 Joules


eP Joule Rating

1080



EMI/RFI Noise rejection (100 kHz to 10 MHz)

20 dB


Peak Current Normal Mode

10 kAmps


Peak Current Common Mode

20 kAmps



Let Through Voltage Rating

< 330



Physical


Net Weight

0.45 KG

Maximum Height

292.00 mm

Maximum Width

57.00 mm

Maximum Depth

38.00 mm



Happy now?

Even the manufacturer does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. So you attack the messenger rather than post facts.
>
>

Of course the manufacturer's claim that they protect from
typical surges.

>
> Even the IEEE Guide shows what happens when a surge is not properly earthed by one 'whole house' protector. Appliances damaged by 8000 volts. Page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8.

What the IEEE guide actually shows is a diagram with two
TV's. TV1 is protected by a plug-in surge protector and
has no damage. TV2 has no surge protector and is damaged.
IEEE then states:

[Oren]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>> > Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
>>
>> > protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.
>
>Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
>In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
>surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
>The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
>is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:
>
>"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone
lines, PC and garage door opener.

<see why I told him who I could trust?>

That boy likes a good spanking here :-\

[tra...@optonline.net]

Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective
surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,
he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the
thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on
an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?
In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there
was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.

>
> <see why I told him who I could trust?>
>
>
>
> That boy likes a good spanking here :-\

What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the
diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors
being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge
protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one
is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge
protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly
state right there below fig 8:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required
to protect TV2"

Now that level of deception is something you don't see here
that often.

[Oren]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>>
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Good grief. Read the IEEE guide. If you had decent surge
>>
>> >> > protectorion, all that damage could have likely been prevented.
>>
>> >> The IEEE Guide shows that good protector too far from earth ground.
>>
>> >Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
>>
>> >In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
>>
>> >surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
>>
>> >The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
>>
>> >is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:
>> >"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"
>>
>>
>> I think westom wants a lightning rod on every appliance, cable / phone
>>
>> lines, PC and garage door opener.
>>
>
>Yeah, he does say that you can't have any effective
>surge protection without a direct earth ground. But,
>he's not consistent. I don't remember who started the
>thread a couple weeks ago about a surge protector on
>an outside AC compressor. I think it might have been you?
>In that thread, Tom agreed that the surge protector there
>was OK. Yet that one has no earth ground.
>

<many blank lines snipped because of Google>

It was me. I had two threads: 1) would a whole house surge protector
interfere with the (SPD ) at my AC disconnect box. In the thread I was
shown a breaker to fit my breaker panel. 2) I just posted about a
(SPD) receptacle for a wall mount TV panel. I recall it was stated
that the cable box / etc. also needed surge protection.

>> <see why I told him who I could trust?>
>>
>> That boy likes a good spanking here :-\
>
>What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the
>diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors
>being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge
>protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one
>is damaged. From that he concludes that plug-in surge
>protectors actually cause damage, when the IEEE clearly
>state right there below fig 8:
>
>"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required
>to protect TV2"
>
>
>Now that level of deception is something you don't see here
>that often.

They guy is playin' games to avoid answering you and bud-.

I had a work computer network of 70 nodes - BANG - it took a hit from
a "brownout". Yes, I had the system protected. I supervised when it
was built.

Not one lightning rod present.

[westom]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
> In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
> surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
> The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
> is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:

It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2. If you need a power strip protector on TV2, then you need one on every appliance including every clock, furnace, dishwasher, clock radio, etc. How do you put a protector on each GFCI? Why would anyone spend over $2500 on plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector does more for only $1 per protected appliance? Because naysayers who never did this stuff recommend the scam.

So you advocate 8000 volts inside a building as acceptable? Why is that type of transient never acceptable in any facility that cannot have damage? It is called hearsay. Many automatically believe hearsay without any doubts, questions, or a demand for how it works. Protection is always about a surge current earthed outside the building. So that 8000 volts is not hunting for earth destructively via any appliance. For superior protection that costs tens or 100 times less money.

Plug-in protectors do virtually no protection from typically destructive surges. They are for another surge that typically does no damage. Plug-in protectors are implemented only after a 'whole house' protector is installed (by people who actually do this stuff). Plug-in protectors even need to be protected by a 'whole house' protector. Since fire is another outgoing problem with those undersized and high profit SPDs.

The IEEE Guide says what effective protectors must do:
> 2.2 Surge Protective Device Ratings
> There are three requirements of the service entrance SPD. They
> are as follows:
>1) To suppress the larger surges from the outside environment
> to levels that would not be damaging to equipment at the
> service entrance, or to equipment (air conditioning, wired-in
> appliances) directly connected to the branch circuits.
> 2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs
> (including multiport SPDs).
> 3) To stop the large lightning currents from passing into
> the house wiring system and damaging the wiring or inducing
> large voltages that would damage electronic equipment.

That is what effective surge protection does. That is never accomplished with any plug-in protector. Attacking the messenger may convince the naive. But it does not prove a power strip does any protection from a typically destructive surge.

Then the Guide says what effective protectors do and what a power strip protector never does:
> 2.3.1 Grounding
> An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical
> for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge
> currents impinging on a power distribution system
> having a relatively high grounding resistance can
> create enormous ground potential rises(see Section
> 4 beginning on page 30), resulting in damage.
> Therefore, an evaluation of the service entrance
> grounding system at the time of the SPD
> installation is very important.

What do you ignore because you never did this stuff? Earth ground. Those educated by advertising never discuss the most important component in every protection system: single point earth ground.

A protector (SPD) is only as effective as its earth ground. Intentionally ignoring IEEE Guide paragraphs that you do not understand does not prove you have higher intelligence. Attacking the messenger while ignoring what the Guide really says you are easily manipulated by sales myths.

The IEEE Guide says things you ignore to remain deceived. The only solution used in every facility that cannot have damage is earthing. With low impedance (another phrase you intentionally ignore) connection to that ground via a wire or 'whole house' protector. Some facilities ban power strip protectors due to a fire risk and other problems. And because a properly earthed 'whole house' solution does over 99.5% of the protection.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:29:40 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
>
> > In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
>
> > surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
>
> > The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
>
> > is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:
>
>
>
> It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

It protects TV1 by clamping the voltages on all the cables going
into TV1.

If you need a power strip protector on TV2, then you need one on every appliance including every clock, furnace, dishwasher, clock radio, etc.

Per IEEE, you definitely need multi-port ones on appliances that connect
to more that just AC, eg TV, computer, DVR, etc. because a whole house
surge protector is not sufficient. Additionally, a plug-in can provide
additional protection for any appliances that are particularly sensitive
and costly. Again, the concept here is tiered protection. A whole house
protector is the first line of defense, but not necessarily sufficient
by itself.

As I just pointed out, in a thread last week, Oren asked if he could
have a whole house surge protector as well as one that is already
installed on his outdoor AC unit. Eventually you replied that, yes,
it was OK. I didn't see you saying that the one on the AC unit is
worthless, will cause damage, etc because it has no direct connection
to earth ground of it's own. That, again, is a similar example of tiered
protection.

> How do you put a protector on each GFCI?

No one would because if a GFCI is damaged by a surge, it
can be replaced for $10. It's impractical to protect and
not worth it. The $1500 TV, the $400 DVR, are worth protecting
and easily done.

Why would anyone spend over $2500 on plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector does more for only $1 per protected appliance? Because naysayers who never did this stuff recommend the scam.
>
>

So the engineering professionals that wrote the IEEE guide are
scamming naysayers? From the IEEE guide:

"For complete protection, plug-in protectors
should be used in conjunction with the panel protectors described here. These
SPDs are normally located at the protected equipment and are discussed in
Section 5 of this Guide."

>
> So you advocate 8000 volts inside a building as acceptable?

Apparently you yourself do. You like whole house surge protectors,
right? Where do they typically go? Many, probably the vast majority,
are at the panel. Again, referring back to Oren's question last week,
that is where his was going. Still with me? In the previous post,
you claimed that a lightning strike presents a typical surge of 20K amps.
And that the minimum rating for a whole house surge protector should
be 50K amps. Let's say that short, direct connection to earth ground
has a resistance of just 1 ohm. V = IR. You have 20,000 volts right
there at the panel, inside the house. And that is just using a resistance
of 1 ohm. I actuality, since it's a fast rise time surge, the impedance
of that ground connection is going to be significantly higher than 1 ohm.

Note that I don't believe for a second that 20K amps is going to make
it to the panel. The main energy of a lightning strike will almost
never make it into the house itself. But, I'm just using YOUR claims
to show that it doesn't add up. If what you say is true, then you have
20K volts, 50K volts, right there at the panel.

Why is that type of transient never acceptable in any facility that cannot have damage? It is called hearsay. Many automatically believe hearsay without any doubts, questions, or a demand for how it works. Protection is always about a surge current earthed outside the building. So that 8000 volts is not hunting for earth destructively via any appliance. For superior protection that costs tens or 100 times less money.
>
>

Again, the concept is TIERED protection. That is exactly what facilities
like Telcos do. They don't just rely on surge protection at the point of
entry. They supplement it with additional protection, eg on the linecards,
to deal with the part of the surge that can make it past the first line
of defense.

IEEE:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

"For complete protection, plug-in protectors
should be used in conjunction with the panel protectors described here. These
SPDs are normally located at the protected equipment and are discussed in
Section 5 of this Guide."

>
> Plug-in protectors do virtually no protection from typically destructive surges. They are for another surge that typically does no damage. Plug-in protectors are implemented only after a 'whole house' protector is installed (by people who actually do this stuff). Plug-in protectors even need to be protected by a 'whole house' protector. Since fire is another outgoing problem with those undersized and high profit SPDs.
>
>

Back to the fire nonsense.

>
> The IEEE Guide says what effective protectors must do:
>
> > 2.2 Surge Protective Device Ratings
>
> > There are three requirements of the service entrance SPD. They
>
> > are as follows:
>
> >1) To suppress the larger surges from the outside environment
>
> > to levels that would not be damaging to equipment at the
>
> > service entrance, or to equipment (air conditioning, wired-in
>
> > appliances) directly connected to the branch circuits.
>
> > 2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs
>
> > (including multiport SPDs).
>
> > 3) To stop the large lightning currents from passing into
>
> > the house wiring system and damaging the wiring or inducing
>
> > large voltages that would damage electronic equipment.
>
>
>
> That is what effective surge protection does. That is never accomplished with any plug-in protector. Attacking the messenger may convince the naive. But it does not prove a power strip does any protection from a typically destructive surge.
>
>

You left out this part of the IEEE guide that specifically addresses
plug-in surge protectors:




IEEE:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

"For complete protection, plug-in protectors
should be used in conjunction with the panel protectors described here. These
SPDs are normally located at the protected equipment and are discussed in
Section 5 of this Guide."

Note that they don't say they start fires, are ineffective, cause
damage, etc.

>
> Then the Guide says what effective protectors do and what a power strip protector never does:
>
> > 2.3.1 Grounding
>
> > An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical
>
> > for the successful operation of an SPD. High surge
>
> > currents impinging on a power distribution system
>
> > having a relatively high grounding resistance can
>
> > create enormous ground potential rises(see Section
>
> > 4 beginning on page 30), resulting in damage.
>
> > Therefore, an evaluation of the service entrance
>
> > grounding system at the time of the SPD
>
> > installation is very important.
>
>
>
> What do you ignore because you never did this stuff? Earth ground. Those educated by advertising never discuss the most important component in every protection system: single point earth ground.
>
>

Why do you only pay attention to the part of the IEEE guide
that talks about whole house surge protectors and completely
ignore and lie about what they actually do say about plug-in
surge protectors?

>
> A protector (SPD) is only as effective as its earth ground.

Still waiting for an answer:

How are aircraft avionics protected against surges without
a direct earth ground?

How were you OK with Oren having a surge protection device on
his outdoor AC unit, when it has no direct, short connection to earth
ground?

How can surge protection inside all appliance, which you claim is
effective, work? The appliance has no direct short connection
to earth ground. It's operating under exactly the same limitations
that a plug-in surge protector has.

Intentionally ignoring IEEE Guide paragraphs that you do not understand does not prove you have higher intelligence. Attacking the messenger while ignoring what the Guide really says you are easily manipulated by sales myths.
>
>

LOL. It's quite obvious to everyone here who's ignoring
what the IEEE guide says.

>
> The IEEE Guide says things you ignore to remain deceived. The only solution used in every facility that cannot have damage is earthing.

That's a lie. Are you denying that a central office for a telephone
company, for example, does not also have surge protection inside the
facility, in the actual equipment racks, on the linecards? They use
a tiered strategy, exactly as the IEEE discusses.

With low impedance (another phrase you intentionally ignore) connection to that ground via a wire or 'whole house' protector. Some facilities ban power strip protectors due to a fire risk and other problems. And because a properly earthed 'whole house' solution does over 99.5% of the protection.

Yes, low impedance. Let's pretend it's just 1 ohm. You say a big
old honking lightning bolt sends 20K amps through that whole house
surge protector into the low impedance ground connection. V = IR.
You now have 20K volts at the panel. Again, that is just using your
numbers, your assumptions, which neither I nor, nor Bud, nor the IEEE,
etc believe is true. But using your numbers, we now have 20K volts
at the circuit breaker panel inside the house and you're going
to tell us that won't present a damaging surge to the TV inside the
house? Good grief!

[Oren]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 05:29:40 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
>> In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
>> surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
>> The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
>> is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:
>
> It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2. If you need a power strip protector on TV2, then you need one on every appliance including every clock, furnace, dishwasher, clock radio, etc. How do you put a protector on each GFCI? Why would anyone spend over $2500 on plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector does more for only $1 per protected appliance? Because naysayers who never did this stuff recommend the scam.

<shakes head>

Have you read the instructions AND warranty on a whole house surge
protector? Thought so.

They are warranted to prevent damage to items like motors and such.
Specially, items like a computer or TV is not covered.

Therefore: "plug-in protectors".

[bud--]

On 10/1/2013 6:29 AM, westom wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:10:33 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Nonsense it shows it by the TV and protecting the TV in fig 7.
>> In fig 8, it clearly shows two TV's. One uses a plug-in multi-port
>> surge protector and it's protected from the destructive surge.
>> The other TV, TV2 without a plug-in protector in the same diagram
>> is damaged by the surge. The IEEE guide then states:
>
> It protects TV1 by earthing the surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

Voltage at TV2 without a protector at TV1 - 10,000V.
Voltage at TV2 with a protector at TV1 - 8,000V.
Never explained - how does the protector at TV1 damage TV2.

And
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where
his service panel protector does not protect.

And
- Why does the IEEE guide say in this example "the only effective way of

protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

And other real simple questions westom never answers:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" 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
protector]"?
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

>

> A protector (SPD) is only as effective as its earth ground.

It is westom's religious belief - immune from challenge. If westom could
read and think he could find out how plug-in protectors work in the IEEE
surge guide starting page 30. It is not primarily by earthing the surge.

Still missing - anyone who agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do
not work.

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

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>>
>
>

>What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the
>diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors
>being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge
>protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one
>is damaged.

That's been posted a couple times. It refers to "diagrams". So is
this just a pictorial representation of some guys opinion of how these
surge protectors would hopefully work? I would have expected
something more along the lines of photos and measurements showing the
surge that was sent on the wire to the TV's and the quality of the
electric power coming out of the "protection" as well as whether the
TV actually survived the surge or not.

Nothing I've seen presented by those of you who seem to be in love
with surge protectors seems to be documentation of damage to actual
stuff inside houses without surge protection compared to the lack of
damage from the same surge to houses with surge protection.

[Ashton Crusher]

And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged
protection? You don't. We had several brownout and transformer blow
ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we
had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of
network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a
lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff
was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were
mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to
be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were
daisy chained....

[tra...@optonline.net]

So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At
home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical
gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors
don't work?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 2:52:39 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, September 30, 2013 12:54:00 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:10:33 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >What's really bizarre is how *he* keeps bringing up the
>
> >diagrams in the IEEE guide that show plug-in protectors
>
> >being used effectively. Fig 8 shows that TV1, with a surge
>
> >protector, is not damaged. It shows that TV2 without one
>
> >is damaged.
>
>
>
> That's been posted a couple times. It refers to "diagrams". So is
>
> this just a pictorial representation of some guys opinion of how these
>
> surge protectors would hopefully work?

Proving once again that despite making several posts now, you won't
even look at the diagram in the IEEE guide
that's being discussed. Both Bud and I have given the link, the
page references, many times now.

It's not a diagram of "some guy's opinion". It's a diagram in an IEEE
(Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineeers) guide on
surge protection written by a panel of experts on surge protection.

"Background and Acknowledgments
The IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee (SPDC) has been writing
Standards for lightning and surge protection for more than 30 years. The current
versions of the IEEE C62 Family of Standards represent the state of the art in
these areas.
This application guide was written to make the information developed by the
SPDC more accessible to electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical
engineers who were not protection specialists.
Many people aided in this process. François Martzloff and Don Worden provided
much of the initial inspiration. Chrys Chrysanthou, Ernie Gallo, Phil Jones, Chuck
Richardson, François Martzloff, and Steven Whisenant lent their expertise and
guidance at the beginning of this project. Duke Energy and Steven Whisenant
provided the resources for drawing the figures, and George Melchior of Panamax
created the cover art. Many other people within the IEEE SPDC actively
supported the project. We thank Yvette Ho Sang and Jennifer Longman, of the
IEEE Standards Information Network, for their creativity in finding a niche for
this work and managing it through the editorial process."

> I would have expected
>
> something more along the lines of photos and measurements showing the
>
> surge that was sent on the wire to the TV's and the quality of the
>
> electric power coming out of the "protection" as well as whether the
>
> TV actually survived the surge or not.
>
>

It's a guide for electricians, homeowners, businesses, etc on
surge protection. It's based on these experts decades of experience
which includes studying the surges that typically reach appliances,
etc. A lot of the studies, tests, experiments that form the basis
of knowledge would be available in other technical papers
at IEEE and similar, if you want that level of detail.

>
> Nothing I've seen presented by those of you who seem to be in love
>
> with surge protectors seems to be documentation of damage to actual
>
> stuff inside houses without surge protection compared to the lack of
>
> damage from the same surge to houses with surge protection.

This isn't some new field. Surge protection has been of vital
importance to power companies, utilities, businesses with major
installations of electronic equipment for a very long time.
Every major installation
of electronic equipment that relies on incoming AC power, incoming
communication lines uses surge protection. A prime example
would be a telephone company central office. They have tiered
surge protection starting at where the lines enter the building.
They have additional surge protection on the line cards in the
switch, where the phone lines terminate. Do you think these folks
spend a lot of money on it because it's not needed? That they would
do that if 6 ft of ordinary wire is all that's needed to stop a surge,
as your computer club guy claimed? That the IEEE just makes up stuff
just for the hell of it?

In my own house about 15 years ago, there was a lightning storm
one day while I was away. I had most everything electronic of
importance plugged into surge protectors. One thing I did
not have plugged in to one was a Tivo. The modem on it stopped working
that day. Can I prove with 100% certainty that it was blown by
a surge? No, but it's about 99.9% certain that it was.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 10/2/2013 7:59 AM, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:00:27 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 12:03 PM

*10 steps to a Fascist America*


By Naomi Wolf.
*

· *Naomi Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning
to a Young Patriot will be published by Chelsea Green
in September.



From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there
are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take
to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi
Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking
them all.

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The
leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather
systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a
sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had
been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law,
sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over
radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press,
tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists
into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along.
If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially
a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship.
That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less
bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always
effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and
sustain a democracy - but history shows that closing one down
is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10
steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you
are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already
been initiated today in the United States by the Bush
administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a
hard time even considering that it is possible for us to
become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations.
Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our
system of government - the task of being aware of the
constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership
to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and
professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances
that the founders put in place, even as they are being
systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much
about European history, the setting up of a department of
"homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the
word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might
have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush
and his administration are using time-tested tactics to
close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing
to think the unthinkable - as the author and political
journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here.
And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American
authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at
the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to
understand the potential seriousness of the events we see
unfolding in the US.
*

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy*

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a
state of national shock. Less than six weeks later,
on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by
a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many
said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were
told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a
"global war" against a "global caliphate" intending
to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other
times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on
civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when
Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world
war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens
were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of
the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented:
all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum
was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is
defined as open-ended in time and without national
boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battle-
field. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no
defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat - hydra-like, secretive,
evil - is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation
of a communist threat to the nation's security, be
based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has
faced calls for his dismissal because he noted,
among other things, that the alleged communist
arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was
swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of
the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional
law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or
the terrifying threat can be based, like the
National Socialist evocation of the "global
conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a
severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather
that the language used to convey the nature of the
threat is different in a country such as Spain -
which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks -
than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that
they face a grave security threat; what we as
American citizens believe is that we are potentially
threatened with the end of civilisation as we know
it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept
restrictions on our freedoms.
*

2. Create a gulag*

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is
to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as
Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre
at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") -
where torture takes place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by
citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies
of the people" or "criminals". Initially, citizens
tend to support the secret prison system; it makes
them feel safer and they do not identify with the
prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders -
opposition members, labour activists, clergy and
journalists - are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-
democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany
in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups
of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for
closing down an open society or crushing a pro-
democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of
course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are
abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and
without access to the due process of the law,
America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and
his allies in Congress recently announced they
would issue no information about the secret CIA
"black site" prisons throughout the world, which
are used to incarcerate people who have been
seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming
ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly
and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts,
photographs, videos and government documents that
people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured
in the US-run prisons we are aware of and
those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee
abuses involve only scary brown people with whom
they don't generally identify. It was brave of
the conservative pundit William Safire to quote
the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had
been seized as a political prisoner: "First they
came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand
yet that the destruction of the rule of law at
Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals
that deny prisoners due process tends to come early
on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set
up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too,
set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the
judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely,
often in isolation, and tortured, without being
charged with offences, and were subjected to show
trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a
parallel system that put pressure on the regular
courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi
ideology when making decisions.
*

3. Develop a thug caste
*

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift"
want to close down an open society, they send para-
military groups of scary young men out to terrorise
citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian country-
side beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged
violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary
force is especially important in a democracy: you need
citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs
who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for
America's security contractors, with the Bush admin-
istration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally
fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth
hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for
security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq,
some of these contract operatives have been accused of
involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists
and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to
regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US adminis-
trator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are
immune from prosecution

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after
Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security
hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security
guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy
Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having
fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural
disaster that underlay that episode - but the adminis-
tration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for
what are in effect privately contracted armies to take
on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men,
dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll
workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are
reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need
for "public order" on the next election day. Say there
are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election;
history would not rule out the presence of a private
security firm at a polling station "to restore public
order".
*

4. Set up an internal surveillance system*

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist
East Germany, in communist China - in every closed
society - secret police spy on ordinary people and
encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi
needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under
surveillance to convince a majority that they
themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau
wrote in the New York Times about a secret state
programme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their
emails and follow international financial trans-
actions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that
they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as
being about "national security"; the true function
is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their
activism and dissent.
*

5. Harass citizens' groups*

The fifth thing you do is related to step four - you
infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be
trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister
preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found
itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue
Service, while churches that got Republicans out to
vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law,
have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil
Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary
American anti-war, environmental and other groups
have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon
database includes more than four dozen peaceful
anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American
citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious
incidents". The equally secret Counterintelligence
Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of
Defense has been gathering information about
domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political
activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential
terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary US citizen
activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined
activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism".
So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to
include the opposition.
*

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release*

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse
game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the
investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the
Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe
pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei
Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times.
In a closing or closed society there is a "list"
of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are
targeted in this way once you are on the list,
and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security
Administration confirmed that it had a list of
passengers who were targeted for security searches
or worse if they tried to fly. People who have
found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged
women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal
Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela's
government - after Venezuela's president had
criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US
citizens.

Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton
University; he is one of the foremost constitutional
scholars in the nation and author of the classic
Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated
former marine, and he is not even especially
politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he
was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I
was on the Terrorist Watch list".

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of
people from flying because of that," asked the
airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so
marched but had, in September 2006, given a
lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the
web, highly critical of George Bush for his
many violations of the constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support
the constitution? Potential terrorist. History
shows that the categories of "enemy of the people"
tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain
at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling
classified documents. He was harassed by the US
military before the charges against him were
dropped. Yee has been detained and released
several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon,
was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist.
His house was secretly broken into and his computer
seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation
against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that
once you are on the list, you can't get off.
*

7. Target key individuals
*

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with
job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went
after the rectors of state universities who did
not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph
Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi;
so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese
communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy
students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking
a fascist shift punish academics and students with
professional loss if they do not "coordinate", in
Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants
are the sector of society most vulnerable to being
fired by a given regime, they are also a group that
fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich
Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil
Service was passed on April 7 1933.


Bush supporters in state legislatures in several
states put pressure on regents at state universities
to penalise or fire academics who have been critical
of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush
administration has derailed the career of one military
lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees,
while an administration official publicly intimidated
the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by
threatening to call for their major corporate clients
to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a
closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was
stripped of the security clearance she needed
in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight US
attorneys for what looks like insufficient political
loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service
in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too,
a step that eased the way of the increasingly
brutal laws to follow.
*

8. Control the press*

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East
Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s,
the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s,
China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships
and would-be dictators target newspapers and
journalists. They threaten and harass them in
more open societies that they are seeking to
close, and they arrest them and worse in
societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests
of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf
(no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has
been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn
over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland
Security brought a criminal complaint against
reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened
"critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer
were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana.
Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush
administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished
in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in
a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to
war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam
Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger.
His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy
- a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though,
compared with how the US is treating journalists
seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased
way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has
documented multiple accounts of the US military
in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon
unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and
camera operators from organisations ranging from
al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may
question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should
pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as
the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have
been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry
Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press
in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military
and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations
were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted
by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed
Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his
claim that terrorists had been about to attack the
nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on
forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America -
it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich
and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady
stream of lies polluting the news well. What you
already have is a White House directing a stream
of false information that is so relentless that it
is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth.
In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count
but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real
news from fake, they give up their demands for
accountability bit by bit.
*

9. Dissent equals treason*

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'.
Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates
laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of
speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor".
When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times,
ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times'
leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while
Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged
with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets
kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as
Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty
for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat
that attack represented. It is also important
to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused
the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of
treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it
is important to remind Americans that when the
1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked,
during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist
activists were arrested without warrants in
sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five
months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured
and threatened with death", according to the
historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent
was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies
of the people". National Socialists called those
who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors".

And here is where the circle closes: most Americans
do not realise that since September of last year -
when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the
Military Commissions Act of 2006 - the president
has the power to call any US citizen an "enemy
combatant". He has the power to define what "enemy
combatant" means. The president can also delegate
to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the
right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she
wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we
turn out to be completely innocent of what he has
accused us of doing, he has the power to have us
seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow,
or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you
or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation,
possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged
isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis
in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why
Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's,
in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most
brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We US citizens will get a trial eventually - for
now. But legal rights activists at the Center for
Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration
is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get
around giving even US citizens fair trials. "Enemy
combatant" is a status offence - it is not even
something you have to have done. "We have absolutely
moved over into a preventive detention model - you
look like you could do something bad, you might do
something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a
spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder:
it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every
closing society, at a certain point there are some
high-profile arrests - usually of opposition leaders,
clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet.
After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts,
TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There
just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If
you look at history, just before those arrests is where
we are now.
*

10. Suspend the rule of law*

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007
gave the president new powers over the national
guard. This means that in a national emergency -
which the president now has enhanced powers to
declare - he can send Michigan's militia to
enforce a state of emergency that he has declared
in Oregon, over the objections of the state's
governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's
meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna
Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialised
about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon
in Washington is that laws that strike to the
heart of American democracy have been passed in
the dead of night ... Beyond actual insurrection,
the president may now use military troops as a
domestic police force in response to a natural
disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack
or any 'other condition'."

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse
Comitatus Act - which was meant to restrain the
federal government from using the military for
domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator
Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president
to declare federal martial law. It also violates
the very reason the founders set up our system of
government as they did: having seen citizens
bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were
terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of
militias' power over American people in the hands
of an oppressive executive or faction.
*

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable* to
the violent, total closing-down of the system that
followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's
roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic
habits are too resilient, and our military and
judiciary too independent, for any kind of
scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment
in democracy could be closed down by a process of
erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist
shift you see the profile of barbed wire against
the sky. In the early days, things look normal on
the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest
festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping
and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on,
as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere -
while someone is being tortured, children are
skating, ships are sailing: "dogs go on with their
doggy life ... How everything turns away/ Quite
leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping
tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the
foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded.
Something has changed profoundly that weakens us
unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions,
independent judiciary and free press do their work
today in a context in which we are "at war" in a
"long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield
described as the globe, in a context that gives the
president - without US citizens realising it yet -
the power over US citizens of freedom or long
solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under
the foundation of all these still- free-looking
institutions - and this foundation can give way
under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such
an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs".

What if, in a year and a half, there is another
attack - say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The
executive can declare a state of emergency.
History shows that any leader, of any party, will
be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the
crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional
checks and balances, we are no less endangered by
a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani -
because any executive will be tempted to enforce
his or her will through edict rather than the
arduous, uncertain process of democratic
negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were
charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing
effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year?
What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would
the newspapers look like the next day? Judging
from history, they would not cease publishing; but
they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to
hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us -
staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights,
who faced death threats for representing the
detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme
Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties
Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll
back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of
a new group called the American Freedom Agenda.
This small, disparate collection of people needs
everybody's help, including that of Europeans and
others internationally who are willing to put
pressure on the administration because they can
see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at
home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs".
For if we keep going down this road, the "end of
America" could come for each of us in a different
way, at a different moment; each of us might have
a different moment when we feel forced to look back
and think: that is how it was before - and this is
the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... is
the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We
still have the choice to stop going down this road;
we can stand our ground and fight for our nation,
and take up the banner the founders asked us to
carry.





The Guardian

Tuesday April 24, 2007



--
Ends

>> And how do you know it wouldn't have survived without the alleged
>>
>> protection? You don't. We had several brownout and transformer blow
>>
>> ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we
>>
>> had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of
>>
>> network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a
>>
>> lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff
>>
>> was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were
>>
>> mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to
>>
>> be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were
>>
>> daisy chained....
>
> So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At
> home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical
> gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors
> don't work?

Some people don't "get" logic. Might be the same people who don't trim
excess text? But, that's life.



.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Oren]

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 00:00:27 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>

The protection I stated is not "alleged".

No need to take a chance on a $250,000,00 (1996) system that tax
payers paid for. I did not write the government contracts - I just
executed the build locally. ISTR the unit wrote a log file. Of
interest was the volts that surged.

These buildings were vintage WWII Air Force housing billets.

> We had several brownout and transformer blow
>ups where I used to work and we didn't have anything damaged and we
>had lots of computers and electronic equipment, three closets full of
>network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a
>lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff
>was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were
>mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to
>be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were
>daisy chained....

I think daisy chaining is silly.

[Oren]

When I was a kid, you might hear: "unplug the TV" during a lightning
storm. Told never to take a shower or wash dishes (metal fixture
pipes) - things like that.

I've felt tingles in my bare feet from a distant strike.

[k...@attt.bizz]

So do I but sometimes one doesn't have a lot of choice. My cube at
work has *one* duplex outlet. I have four laptops plugged in, along
with several monitors, four lights, and a variety of test equipment -
probably 25 plugs. They don't care enough to fix the situation so I
don't either. BTW, I'm only one of a hundred or so engineers who have
such a kludge under their desk (some more, some less).

[k...@attt.bizz]

"I felt tingles run up my leg when Obama was elected."

[Stormin Mormon]

On 10/2/2013 6:41 PM, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
>>> network equipment for a 70,000 sf lab. All that ever happened was a
>>> lot of reboots. The only protection was that most, but not all, stuff
>>> was plugged into the typical commercial surge power strips that were
>>> mostly 10 or more years old, you know, the ones that are supposed to
>>> be replaced every couple years or after each event. And some were
>>> daisy chained....
>>
>> I think daisy chaining is silly.
>
> So do I but sometimes one doesn't have a lot of choice. My cube at
> work has *one* duplex outlet. I have four laptops plugged in, along
> with several monitors, four lights, and a variety of test equipment -
> probably 25 plugs. They don't care enough to fix the situation so I
> don't either. BTW, I'm only one of a hundred or so engineers who have
> such a kludge under their desk (some more, some less).
>

I'd like to see someone make a 25 recepticle outlet strip. Would come in
handy, for example, the house where the power was on and sign out front
"yes we have power, yes you may charge your cell phone". Or for
Kirwatt's desk.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"

No, some had some cheap surge protectors and some didn't. And nothing
got damaged. At home the tree next to the house was hit by lighting
and a couple things were damaged, not surprisingly since it melted a
circuit breaker. My point was and is that in my decades of not
worrying about using the usual store bought surge protectors I've seen
zero evidence that they do the slightest good or that they are needed.

[tra...@optonline.net]

Take it up with the IEEE and all the various companies and
industries that deploy surge protection to protect their
equipment. The physics behind surge protection is sound
and well established. If you had a properly installed whole house surge protector at your panel, it's very likely that breaker would not have been fried and that some of the equipment that was damaged would have survived.. If you had multi-port plug-ins on the appliances like TVs that are connected to more than the AC, likely they would have survived too.

I'd like to see any credible reference that agrees with your
position that surge protection is useless and that 6 ft of
ordinary house wire will stop a surge. Apparently it didn't
stop yours.

[westom]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:25:12 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> François Martzloff and Don Worden provided much of the initial inspiration.

And so Francios Martzloff says in his IEEE paper what is also demonstrated by page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8. The figure shows damage when a surge is permitted inside the building. And when a plug-in protector is used without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector. 8000 volts connects to earth destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage even to one not connected to that protector - TV2.

Martzloff defines damage to appliances created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
>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.

For over 100 years, protection has always been about connecting to earth BEFORE a surge can enter a building. So that hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside. That requirement has never changed despite so many denials here. Every facility that cannot have damage ALWAYS earths surge harmlessly in earth. Connecting that current to earth low impedance either by a wire or a 'whole house' protector.

In some facilities, an employee might even be fired for using plug-in protectors. Even a fire risk from plug-in protectors is too great and unacceptable.

Most important in every facility that cannot have surge damage is the most critical component of every protection system - earth ground. I believe the US military's manual "Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding for Electronic Equipments and Facilities" requires that ground for equipment protection to be inspected annually. Because it is that essential to surge protection.

IEEE Guide even says this repeatedly. Another paragraph from the Guide that requires a short (low impedance) connection to earth:
> These large currents can only be dealt with by a direct
> connection to the building or power panel ground. The
> NEC/CEC are very explicit in requiring this connection,
> and it has been required for many years. The NEC/CEC
> specifically forbid using separate ground rods for individual
> lines/equipment/protectors, unless the ground rods are
> connected (bonded) to the building ground (NEC Art. 800.40). ...

Plug-in protectors does not provide this and will not discuss this. Effective protection is defined by and requires single point earth ground. That means the better and less expensive solution - one 'whole house' protector.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"

The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap
regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge
protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer
into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had
anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle
lightning strikes. And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked
for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that
for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against
you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension
cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring
between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge
you were protected anyway. My experiences going thru many "power
events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector
suggest to me that he was correct.

[bud--]

On 10/3/2013 7:53 AM, westom wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:25:12 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> François Martzloff and Don Worden provided much of the initial inspiration.
>
> And so Francios Martzloff says in his IEEE paper what is also demonstrated by page 33
> (Adobe page 42) figure 8. The figure shows damage when a surge is permitted inside the
> building. And when a plug-in protector is used without properly earthing a 'whole house'
> protector. 8000 volts connects to earth destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage
> even to one not connected to that protector - TV2.

Voltage at TV2 without a protector at TV1 - 10,000V.
Voltage at TV2 with a protector at TV1 - 8,000V.
Never explained - how does the protector at TV1 damage TV2.

And
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where
his service panel protector does not protect.

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

>

> Martzloff defines damage to appliances created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
>> Conclusion:

Simple question:
- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this

paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

And other real simple questions westom never answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?

- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

Why should anyone believe you if you can't even answer simple questions?

It is the same drivel from the village idiot. He just repeats the same
lies and totally misconstrues what Martzloff and the IEEE say.

[tra...@optonline.net]

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Whole house
surge protectors are not just limited to surges from lightning
strikes, though lightning surges are the most common source.
Yet from the start, you apparently didn't realize that.
When I referred you to the IEEE guide, you said that was
about lightning, not surges. Lightning
most often creates the surges that cause the destruction of
appliances. And if plug-in multi-port surge protectors are useless, why does the
IEEE guide show them being used? Where is your credible
referrence that says they are useless?

And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked
>
> for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that
>
> for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against
>
> you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension
>
> cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring
>
> between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge
>
> you were protected anyway.

And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
protection. I'd like you to explain to us the physics
behind 6 feet of ordinary wiring stopping a typical destructive
surge that comes into a house via AC, cable, phone lines, etc.
What physics describe that miracle? Did it stop the surge
that destroyed all the stuff in your house?

My experiences going thru many "power
>
> events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector
>
> suggest to me that he was correct.

You told us that at your house you had no surge protection
and a whole bunch of stuff was blown up from a surge caused
by lightning. THAT experience? Presumably you had a lot
more than 6 ft of wire, yet a lot of stuff got fried. Go
figure.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 9:53:45 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:25:12 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > François Martzloff and Don Worden provided much of the initial inspiration.
>
>
>
> And so Francios Martzloff says in his IEEE paper what is also demonstrated by page 33 (Adobe page 42) figure 8. The figure shows damage when a surge is permitted inside the building. And when a plug-in protector is used without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector. 8000 volts connects to earth destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage even to one not connected to that protector - TV2.
>

The lie repeated. The IEEE diagram shows TV1 with a plug-in surge
protector protected from damage from that surge entering the
building. It shows TV2 with no surge protector being damaged.
It then states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2."

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

document page 33

>
> Martzloff defines damage to appliances created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
>
> >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.
>
>

Show us where he said that the appliance that was protected
by a multi-port surge protector was damaged. I'd like to see
the full context of what you've excerpted above. Given how
you continue to misrepresent what the IEEE guide says,
I'd like to see the reference for the above quote please
so we can read the whole thing. I wouldn't be surprised that
the next paragraph talks about using plug-in surge protectors.

>
> For over 100 years, protection has always been about connecting to earth BEFORE a surge can enter a building. So that hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside. That requirement has never changed despite so many denials here. Every facility that cannot have damage ALWAYS earths surge harmlessly in earth. Connecting that current to earth low impedance either by a wire or a 'whole house' protector.
>

No one here has said that the *first* line of defense is
stopping the surge before or shortly after it's entered
the building. A whole house surge protector serves that
purpose. What *you* are denying is that experts in the
field, the IEEE, industry, etc all agree that alone is
not sufficient. That a tiered strategy is necessary.
And the IEEE guide, among others, shows multi-port plug-in
surge protectors being used as part of that tiered stategy.

I even turned your own silly math against you. You claimed
a 20,000 amp surge could arrive at your "one stop" surge
protector at the panel. Let's assume for the purposes here
that it's true. If the grounding rod to earth connection
has just 1 ohm resistance, then when that 20K amps flows
through it, you're going to have 20K volts present between
the panel and ground. You think *that* isn't going to
still result in a substantial surge in the wiring in the
rest of the building? And that's with a ground rod resistance
of just 1 ohm. In the real world, code doesn't require
anything that low. If you're lucky, it's probably more like
5 ohms. And that's resistance. Factor in impedance, and
you're going to have one hell of a lot of voltage across
that surge protector. Meaning, there is still surge left
to be dealt with.

>
> In some facilities, an employee might even be fired for using plug-in protectors. Even a fire risk from plug-in protectors is too great and unacceptable.
>

Sure, if you were running the facility. At some facility,
somewhere, at some time, anything is possible.

>
> Most important in every facility that cannot have surge damage is the most critical component of every protection system - earth ground. I believe the US military's manual "Grounding, Bonding, and Shielding for Electronic Equipments and Facilities" requires that ground for equipment protection to be inspected annually. Because it is that essential to surge protection.
>
>

Those same facilities also use a tiered surge protection
strategy and do not just rely on surge protection where
the lines enter the building. I've told you about a zillion
times now that telcos for example have surge protection
devices, MOVs, right on the line cards in the CO switch
where the phone lines terminate. I've showed you app notes
from the makers of these components. But, none of it sinks
in. You can't admit it because those linecards have no direct
earth ground, so according to you, protection is impossible.

>
> IEEE Guide even says this repeatedly. Another paragraph from the Guide that requires a short (low impedance) connection to earth:
>
> > These large currents can only be dealt with by a direct
>
> > connection to the building or power panel ground. The
>
> > NEC/CEC are very explicit in requiring this connection,
>
> > and it has been required for many years. The NEC/CEC
>
> > specifically forbid using separate ground rods for individual
>
> > lines/equipment/protectors, unless the ground rods are
>
> > connected (bonded) to the building ground (NEC Art. 800.40). ...
>
>

And they also say right there in that guide:


"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2."

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf

document page 33

>
> Plug-in protectors does not provide this and will not discuss this.

And you end with a whopper of a lie. They do discuss
plug-in protectors, how they are used, they show
them being used in two diagrams. The reference is right
above that anyone who cares can view.

Also, you're single minded fetish assumes that everyone can
just go put in a whole house surge protector. How about if
you can't? You live in an apartment or rental property.
Then what?

[Ashton Crusher]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>>
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap
>>
>> regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge
>>
>> protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer
>>
>> into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had
>>
>> anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle
>>
>> lightning strikes.
>
>There are none so blind as those that will not see. Whole house
>surge protectors are not just limited to surges from lightning
>strikes, though lightning surges are the most common source.
>Yet from the start, you apparently didn't realize that.
>When I referred you to the IEEE guide, you said that was
>about lightning, not surges. Lightning
>most often creates the surges that cause the destruction of
>appliances. And if plug-in multi-port surge protectors are useless, why does the
>IEEE guide show them being used? Where is your credible
>referrence that says they are useless?
>
>
>

Never said it was. I said my comments were not directed toward whole
house surge protectors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

>
>
>
>
> And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked
>>
>> for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that
>>
>> for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against
>>
>> you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension
>>
>> cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring
>>
>> between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge
>>
>> you were protected anyway.
>
>And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
>friend is wrong.

Are either of you working for a company that makes and sells surge
protectors?

But more importantly, you have the IEEE
>surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
>protection. I'd like you to explain to us the physics
>behind 6 feet of ordinary wiring stopping a typical destructive
>surge that comes into a house via AC, cable, phone lines, etc.
>What physics describe that miracle? Did it stop the surge
>that destroyed all the stuff in your house?
>
>

All I can tell you is my experience and it doesn't support the need
for power strip surge protectors. YMMV

>
>
>
> My experiences going thru many "power
>>
>> events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector
>>
>> suggest to me that he was correct.
>
>
>You told us that at your house you had no surge protection
>and a whole bunch of stuff was blown up from a surge caused
>by lightning. THAT experience? Presumably you had a lot
>more than 6 ft of wire, yet a lot of stuff got fried. Go
>figure.

Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,
is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected
against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep
bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.

I would also point out that many standards settings organizations are
full of representatives of MANY industries and manufacturers and the
results of their work are not necessarily the best "reality" of the
customers needs but may also reflect the desire of those members to
protect the products made by their industry. So the fact that a
standard may suggest the need for something is not always meaningful.
They may also reflect a "we aren't sure if this is needed but lets be
safe and include it anyway and not piss off 20% of our members."
Having served on some of these committees I"ve see how it works.

[westom]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
> friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
> surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical
> engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
> protection.

IEEE papers even say plug-in protectors alone (no properly earthed 'whole house' protector) can make damage to appliances easier. I even quoted Martzloff's paper that says that. Unlike you, I did this stuff even decades ago as an EE. Not just educated. Also have experience doing this. We learned even from mistakes. We traced surges earthed by power strip protectors destructively through hardware. Traced paths for that current. And then replaced each semiconductor in that path to make all computers functional.

Every damaged part was in a path from an ineffective plug-in protector to earth ground. Computers never failed again when replaced as obsolete. Why? We earth a 'whole house' protector to make future surges irrelevant. So that all types of surges no longer caused damage.

Calling bud an EE is bogus. He did not even know many concepts taught in first semester EE courses. He did not even know about wire impedance. Did not know difference between normal mode and longitudinal mode currents. He did not even know all phone lines already had 'whole house' protectors. He did not know concepts that must be known to understand what protectors really do. He claimed that a protector somehow makes energy just disappear.

A 'whole house' protector is protection from all types of destructive surges - from lightning down to surges that even do not harm appliances. Plug-in protectors can contribute only if the always required earthing and a 'whole house' protector exist. He was an electrician who became a sales promoter of surge protectors. So he posts insults rather than quote facts and numbers from Martzloff and other industry professional. He does not even know that most of protection is always provided by earthing and 'whole house' protectors.

Never once does he or you post a single plug-in protector specification numbers that defines protection from typically destructive surges. For good reason. No manufacturer makes that numeric claim.

In every case, what do professionals define as essential for protection? Earth ground.

IEEE Guide repeatedly says why effective protector are earthed. Page 33 figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through nearby appliances ... because that surge was not earthed BEFORE entering the building. That protector earthed a surges on the best path - 8000 volts destructively through TV2. It was doing what the manufacturer said it would do.

Paragraphs after paragraph from that Guide are quoted here defining earth ground as essential for protection. You ignore those paragraphs to continue promoting protectors that have no earth ground? You even thought bud was an EE? Please. He did not even know concepts taught to first semester engineers.

Scary is that you actually think bud has electrical engineering training. He does not even understand basic EE concepts that electricians are never taught and need not know. He even thought impedance and resistance were same.

[westom]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,
> is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected
> against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep
> bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.

He never reads to understand. He often reads to misrepresent and attack. Or to avoid discovering what he did not know.

Once a surge is earthed, then every foot of wire after that earthed protector INCREASES protection. Telcos want their equipment up to 50 meters separated from protectors. Because that separation increases protection AFTER a surge is connected to earth.

Even demonstrated in Category A, B, and C diagrams. Protectors closest to the service entrance must be most robust since a shorter wire means less impedance. However if a surge is not earthed at the service entrance, then protectors even most distant from an earthed 'whole house' protector no longer have additional protection afforded by longer wire.

Once a surge is earthed, then longer wire means better protection. If not properly earthed, then wire length no longer increases protection.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, October 3, 2013 7:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 05:53:18 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
>
> >>
>
> >> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The only thing I have ever referred to was the typical clap trap
>
> >>
>
> >> regarding the tremendous need we are all alleged to have for the surge
>
> >>
>
> >> protected power strips that so many people buy to pull their computer
>
> >>
>
> >> into. I specifically said earlier that none of my comments had
>
> >>
>
> >> anything to do with whole house surge protectors intended to handle
>
> >>
>
> >> lightning strikes.
>
> >
>
> >There are none so blind as those that will not see. Whole house
>
> >surge protectors are not just limited to surges from lightning
>
> >strikes, though lightning surges are the most common source.
>
> >Yet from the start, you apparently didn't realize that.
>
> >When I referred you to the IEEE guide, you said that was
>
> >about lightning, not surges. Lightning
>
> >most often creates the surges that cause the destruction of
>
> >appliances. And if plug-in multi-port surge protectors are useless, why does the
>
> >IEEE guide show them being used? Where is your credible
>
> >referrence that says they are useless?
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> Never said it was. I said my comments were not directed toward whole
>
> house surge protectors. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
>
>

Why is it so hard for you and Tom to understand that the IEEE
surge protection guide ia also not specifically directed to whole
house surge protectors. Probably because you haven't even read it.
They show the need for plug-in surge protectors as part of a tiered
protection strategy. Yet you are here claiming they are a scam.
THAT is the issue.

Your post said:

"My vote is for crap, not just for him but for the whole bloody
nonsense about surge protectors. It's a giant industry to protect you
from something that basically none of you have to worry about.

(non specificity as to any type of surge protector noted)

There was a guy in my computer club many years ago who worked for one
of the main companies that built surge protectors. He said it's all
nonsense as far as anyone really needing them. The transient spikes
are damped out in just a few feet of house wiring, I think he said 6
feet. So unless you have really crappy wiring in your house with bad
grounds and such and the outlet your computer is plugged into is the
same outlet as your 40 year old refrigerator uses that draws 20 amps
to start and dims the lights then repeats 6 times before finally
starting, you are chasing a mirage. About the only thing you might
need to worry about is lightening striking but if it does your little
surge strip isn't going to protect anything anyway. "


The IEEE guide, written by respected EE's that are surge experts
show plug-in surge protectors being used to protect against surges,
particularly those caused by lightning strikes.
The two diagrams that have been discusses a zillion times now
both show plug-in surge protectors being used. No where does that
IEEE guide say that 6 ft of wire does anything to stop surges.

>
> > And my long ago friend who was an EE and worked
>
> >>
>
> >> for a surge protection company was very clear in his statements that
>
> >>
>
> >> for the kind of stuff the power strips are going to protect against
>
> >>
>
> >> you can get the same protection by sticking in a six foot extension
>
> >>
>
> >> cord, or understand that if there was six+ feet of house wiring
>
> >>
>
> >> between your computer plug and the source of the NON-Lighting surge
>
> >>
>
> >> you were protected anyway.
>
> >
>
> >And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
>
> >friend is wrong.
>
>
>
> Are either of you working for a company that makes and sells surge
>
> protectors?
>

No, but are you related to WTom? That's one of his usual silly
accusations that he's made over the years against anyone that shows
he's wrong. In over a decade,
you're the first person I've seen who agrees with him and now you're
starting to use his tactics.

>
>
> But more importantly, you have the IEEE
>
> >surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
>
> >protection. I'd like you to explain to us the physics
>
> >behind 6 feet of ordinary wiring stopping a typical destructive
>
> >surge that comes into a house via AC, cable, phone lines, etc.
>
> >What physics describe that miracle? Did it stop the surge
>
> >that destroyed all the stuff in your house?
>
>
> All I can tell you is my experience and it doesn't support the need
>
> for power strip surge protectors. YMMV
>
>

You experience was that you had no surge protection and a lot of
electronic gear was blown up in your house. Go figure. You would
think that if you are incapable of explaining the simple physics, that you
would listen to electrical engineers expert in the field, read and
understand the IEEE guide written by those people.
But then there are none so blind as those that will not see.

>
> > My experiences going thru many "power
>
> >>
>
> >> events" without worrying about having a power strip surge protector
>
> >>
>
> >> suggest to me that he was correct.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >You told us that at your house you had no surge protection
>
> >and a whole bunch of stuff was blown up from a surge caused
>
> >by lightning. THAT experience? Presumably you had a lot
>
> >more than 6 ft of wire, yet a lot of stuff got fried. Go
>
> >figure.
>
>
>
> Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,
>
> is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected
>
> against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep
>
> bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.
>
>

It's not a strawman.
What do you think is the most common source of surges that
surge protectors are there to protect against? What does that
IEEE guide that obviously you still won't read, say? Lightning
hits a utility pole down the block. A surge enters your house.
That is what surge protection is there for and 6 ft of wire
won't stop it, regardless of what your idiot friend says.
Even Tom isn't making that silly claim.

>
> I would also point out that many standards settings organizations are
>
> full of representatives of MANY industries and manufacturers and the
>
> results of their work are not necessarily the best "reality" of the
>
> customers needs but may also reflect the desire of those members to
>
> protect the products made by their industry. So the fact that a
>
> standard may suggest the need for something is not always meaningful.
>
> They may also reflect a "we aren't sure if this is needed but lets be
>
> safe and include it anyway and not piss off 20% of our members."
>
> Having served on some of these committees I"ve see how it works.

Sure, reject the advice of the IEEE, grounded in science, all the published work covering better part of a century and go by what your dope of a friend told you. If 6 ft of wire is all that's required to prevent surges, it should
be easy to find all kinds of credible references saying exactly that on the internet. But you can't and won't find it, because it's pure BS and not supported by physics.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:15:58 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> > Which, as I've said many times now, and which you conveniently ignore,
>
> > is that I've never claimed LIGHTNEING strikes will be protected
>
> > against by 6 feet of wire. That's just a strawman that you keep
>
> > bringing up so you can ignore what I have said.
>
>
>
> He never reads to understand. He often reads to misrepresent and attack. Or to avoid discovering what he did not know.
>
>
>
> Once a surge is earthed, then every foot of wire after that earthed protector INCREASES protection. Telcos want their equipment up to 50 meters separated from protectors. Because that separation increases protection AFTER a surge is connected to earth.
>

According to you, once a surge is earthed by that one surge protector
at the panel, there is no more surge. End of story.
So, why now is there a need for additional wire between that surge
protector and eqpt? In a desperate attempt to recruit a friend here,
you're now shooting holes in your own sunken boat.

>
> Even demonstrated in Category A, B, and C diagrams. Protectors closest to the service entrance must be most robust since a shorter wire means less impedance. However if a surge is not earthed at the service entrance, then protectors even most distant from an earthed 'whole house' protector no longer have additional protection afforded by longer wire.
>
>

What? You've been telling us for years now that the only protection
possible is with a direct earth ground. And that is ALL that is required.
There was no further protection possible. Now suddenly you're talking about
"protectors more distant"? Good grief, you're confused.

And if you want to support you're new buddy Ashton, help him find a
credible reference that says 6 ft of house wiring is effective as
surge protection and that it's a good form of surge protection. Is
that in the IEEE guide? Or even anywhere, including maybe a kook
website?

>
> Once a surge is earthed, then longer wire means better protection. If not properly earthed, then wire length no longer increases protection.

BS. Wire has capacitance, resistance and inductance. Yes, that
will have an effect on an waveform (surge) that goes through it.
But it has an effect on the surge and it doesn't know the source
of the surge. It will tend to diminish any surge. It doesn't know
if the surge going through it is one that has already been partially
earthed somewhere else or not. And 6 ft of
wire is going to reduce a surge by such a tiny amount that it
isn't going to protect anything. All the various electronic gear
that is damaged everyday that is at the end of 50 or 100 ft of
AC wire, TV coax, etc proves that.

[westom]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:16:59 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> According to you, once a surge is earthed by that one surge protector
> at the panel, there is no more surge. End of story.

Again you read only enough to misrepresent, misunderstand, or just confuse others. I never said that. You fear to admit that advertising myths had easily manipulated you.

All appliances already contain significant protection. A surge (ie lightning, utility switching, squirrel) properly earthed before entering a building is then so tiny as to not overwhelm protection already inside appliances. An earthed surge is so tiny as to be noise.

A surge properly earthed BEFORE entering a building means wire separation between protector and appliances further increases protection. Therefore telcos want their $multi-million computers located something less than 50 meters distant from 'whole house' protectors. Why do telcos suffer maybe 100 surges per storm without damage? Every incoming wire is earthed. Separation between computer and protector increases protection. Then a surge is so tiny as to never damage switching computers.

Page 33 figure 8 - damage because the surge was not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Once earthed, then separation between appliance and protector increases protection.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 8:57:28 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:16:59 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > According to you, once a surge is earthed by that one surge protector
>
> > at the panel, there is no more surge. End of story.
>
>
>
> Again you read only enough to misrepresent, misunderstand, or just confuse others. I never said that. You fear to admit that advertising myths had easily manipulated you.

Here you are saying it:

" Routine is protection from direct lightning strikes when a protector connects low impedance to earth. And the numbers that say so. Direct lightning strikes are typically about 20,000 amps. So a minimal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Because unlike power strips, one 'whole house' protector is protection for all types of surges including direct lightning strikes.

"Therefore every facility that cannot have damage always connects destructive surges to earth outside the building - either by a wire or via a 'whole house' protector. Only then is one surge every seven years or one surge every 30 years made irrelevant."

" It works like a wire. It connects hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly to earth outside the building. Then even power strip protectors (that only claim to absorb hundreds of joules) are protected. "

" Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Either harmlessly in earth (damped out in the first six feet). "

" Protection means a surge current is not inside the house"

"The only solution used in every facility that cannot have damage is earthing."

>
>
> All appliances already contain significant protection.

According to you, that's impossible because you claim no surge
protection is impossible without an earth ground. Does that TV
have it's own built-in earth ground? Then how can it be that the
MOVs inside the TV work, but those inside a plug-in surge protector
that are of far higher capacity, can't because they have no earth
ground? That question has been asked for years, but never answered.

Which would you rather have handle most of a surge that shows up
at an appliance? The small MOV inside the $1500 TV, or the ones
an order of magnitude larger in the $15 plug-in surge protector
BEFORE the TV? MOVs have a limited life. I'd rather replace the
$15 surge strip than the $1500 TV.

> A surge (ie lightning, utility switching, squirrel) properly earthed before entering a building is then so tiny as to not overwhelm protection already inside appliances. An earthed surge is so tiny as to be noise.

STill waiting for an answer to that one too. You claimed here in this
thread that a lightning surge showing up at the whole house surge protector
is 20K amps. You know Ohm's Law? What do you think the typical resistance
from that surge protector to earth is, ie through it's connection via a
ground round? Let's assume it's 1 ohm, which is ridiculously low, not
easily achievable, not required by code. V=IR. You now have 20K volts
at the panel. How is that not going to be "so tiny" that it's just noise?
And that assumes 1 ohm of resistance. The resistance is going to be higher,
the surge is fast rising, so the impedance is going to be much higher.
How does 20K amps through impedance generate just "tiny noise"?
Another very basic question added to the list

>
>
>
> A surge properly earthed BEFORE entering a building means wire separation between protector and appliances further increases protection.

As explained but ignored previously, any surge with or without an
earth surged protector is going to be diminished the longer the
wire run because the wire has capacitance, inductance and resistance.
The problem is that the "reduction" is what's "very tiny" and Ashton's
6 ft of wire stopping a surge is pure BS.

> Therefore telcos want their $multi-million computers located something less than 50 meters distant from 'whole house' protectors.

Now it's less than 50M? Good grief. I thought farther was better.
Why don't they make it 500M?
What have they done forever with a SLIC or similar piece of eqpt?
A SLIC is similar to a mini-switch, it terminates circuits from a
few hundred homes, puts them on a T1 or similar, ie concentrating
them before they get to a CO? That kind of gear sits in a refrigerator
size cabinet, at the side of the road. There is no 50M, yet it's
protected. Clue: They use a tiered protection strategy, exactly
as recommended by all those knowledgable in the industry. Same
tiered concept as shown in the IEEE guide, which you ignore.

> Why do telcos suffer maybe 100 surges per storm without damage? Every incoming wire is earthed. Separation between computer and protector increases protection. Then a surge is so tiny as to never damage switching computers.
>
>

See the above. They use a tiered strategy, just like the IEEE guide
shows. That strategy includes surge protection on the line cards in
the switch itself. How is that possible, if no protection is possible
without direct earth ground? Always asked, never answered.

Here's one to add to your list. Why do major manufacturers of
electrical gear, the big names you cite who make whole house type
surge protectors also sell other surge protecting devices that they
recommend be used as part of a tiered strategy. You know,
like the one Oren has on his AC unit, that you finally said was OK.
How can they work, with no direct earth ground of their own? Why
do some of those same manufacturers, eg GE, also sell plug-ins?

>
> Page 33 figure 8 - damage because the surge was not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Once earthed, then separation between appliance and protector increases protection.

Page 33 fig 8 shows a lot of wire running through the house to
TV2, maybe 50 or 100 ft, not just 6 ft. It still gets damaged by
a surge. TV1, with a plug-in surge protector is not damaged. Then
the IEEE guide states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

Your references? Oh, you have no references.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:15:58 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:

Explain the new physics where a given length of wire only attenuates
a surge if and only if a surge is earthed. Another foot of wire is
always going to reduce any surge by a very tiny, insignificant amount.
It's just that 6ft of wire is going to reduce a surge by such a small
amount that for all practical purposes, it's immaterial. It's *not*
surge protection. Do you see the IEEE saying it is?

[bud--]

On 10/4/2013 5:05 PM, westom wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
>> friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
>> surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical
>> engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
>> protection.
>
> IEEE papers even say plug-in protectors alone (no properly earthed 'whole
> house' protector) can make damage to appliances easier. I even quoted
> Martzloff's paper that says that.

With minimal intelligence westom would understand what the sources were
saying - use a multiport protector where all wires go through the protector.

Simple question:
- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

Still not answered.

>
> Calling bud an EE is bogus. He did not even know many concepts taught
> in first semester EE courses. He did not even know about wire impedance.

Westom can't read anything that violates his simple ideas of protection.
If he could he would have read the explanation of why the energy at a
plug-in protector is quite small. I have repeated the explanation (which
comes form research by Martzloff) many times. One of the reasons is the
impedance of the branch circuit wiring.

> He did not know concepts that must be known to understand what protectors really do.

Westom can't figure out what plug-in protectors do - even when it is
clearly explained in the IEEE surge guide starting page 30.

> He claimed that a protector somehow makes energy just disappear.

I explain (from Martzloff's research) where the energy goes.

Since it violates westoms very simple ideas he can't understand, and
thinks it is magic.

>
> Plug-in protectors can contribute only if the always required earthing and
> a 'whole house' protector exist.

Nonsense.

> So he posts insults rather than quote facts and numbers from Martzloff and
> other industry professional.

What a joke.

I quote Martzloff and industry professionals, like the IEEE surge guide.
All say plug-in protectors are effective.

Other simple questions westom never answers:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?

>

> Never once does he or you post a single plug-in protector specification
> numbers that defines protection from typically destructive surges.

Many people have posted specs. Always ignored by westom. Then westom
always repeats his lie.

> For good reason. No manufacturer makes that numeric claim.

Nonsense.

Some manufacturers even have protected equipment warranties.

>
> In every case, what do professionals define as essential for protection? Earth ground.

Everyone is in favor of earthing electrical systems.

The question is whether plug-in protectors are effective. Both the IEEE
and NIST say they are.

>
> IEEE Guide repeatedly says why effective protector are earthed. Page 33
> figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively
> through nearby appliances ... because that surge was not earthed BEFORE entering
> the building. That protector earthed a surges on the best path - 8000 volts
> destructively through TV2.

Repeating for the 3rd time:

Voltage at TV2 without a protector at TV1 - 10,000V.
Voltage at TV2 with a protector at TV1 - 8,000V.
Never explained - how does the protector at TV1 damage TV2.

And
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where
his service panel protector does not protect.

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

Westom still has no answers for simple questions.

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

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do
NOT work. There are none.

[bud--]

On 10/5/2013 6:57 AM, westom wrote:
> On Saturday, October 5, 2013 12:16:59 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> Page 33 figure 8 - damage because the surge was not earthed by a 'whole house' protector.

Never explained - how a service panel protector would provide *any*
protection from a surge that is between cable and power wiring.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Friday, October 4, 2013 7:05:50 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 11:22:13 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > And you have two EE's here, Bud and myself, telling you you're
>
> > friend is wrong. But more importantly, you have the IEEE
>
> > surge protection guide that was written by not just electrical
>
> > engineers, but a half dozen or so who are experts in surge
>
> > protection.
>
>
>
> IEEE papers even say plug-in protectors alone (no properly earthed 'whole house' protector) can make damage to appliances easier. I even quoted Martzloff's paper that says that.

See, this is how it works. You've already taken the IEEE guide to
surge protection and completely misrepresented what it actually says.
You took two figures that show plug-in surge protectors being used
successfully for surge protection and tried to turn it 180 deg opposite
of what it really says. So, I've asked for the link, the reference so
that we can all see what Martzloff actually says, in context. Does he
say plug-in surge protectors cannot and should not be used as part
of a tiered surge protection strategy? That they are useless because
they have no earth ground? I've asked for the link, but so far all
we have are crickets.

> Unlike you, I did this stuff even decades ago as an EE. Not just educated. Also have experience doing this. We learned even from mistakes.

I'm sure there were plenty of those.....

> We traced surges earthed by power strip protectors destructively through hardware.

LOL. I'm sure that was a fair, impartial and unbiased evaluation.
When you start with all the faulty premises you've outlined here
and a religious war against surge protectors, I could tell you where
you'd end up before you even started.

Traced paths for that current. And then replaced each semiconductor in that path to make all computers functional.
>
>
>
> Every damaged part was in a path from an ineffective plug-in protector to earth ground.

Of course it was, because it's that way by definition, according to you.

Computers never failed again when replaced as obsolete. Why? We earth a 'whole house' protector to make future surges irrelevant. So that all types of surges no longer caused damage.
>
>
>
> Calling bud an EE is bogus. He did not even know many concepts taught in first semester EE courses. He did not even know about wire impedance. Did not know difference between normal mode and longitudinal mode currents. He did not even know all phone lines already had 'whole house' protectors. He did not know concepts that must be known to understand what protectors really do. He claimed that a protector somehow makes energy just disappear.
>

I've seen Bud post here for many years now on a wide array of
home repair topics, mostly EE related. The above is yet another lie.
I've never seen Bud say any of the nonsense you attribute to him.
His advice, knowledge has always been sound. And when needed, he
backs it up with links. Just like he's done here. Where are your
links that say plug-in surge protectors can't provide any protection?

You on the other hand, I've asked a simple question about Ohm's
Law generating a massive voltage difference right at your whole
house surge protector that takes the 20K amp hit, your own number.
Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of how that 20K+ volts
doesn't still present a serious surge to the wiring in the building.

>
> A 'whole house' protector is protection from all types of destructive surges - from lightning down to surges that even do not harm appliances. Plug-in protectors can contribute only if the always required earthing and a 'whole house' protector exist.

Not true. The IEEE guide shows it on page 33.

> He was an electrician who became a sales promoter of surge protectors.

Now you're really off into cuckoo land.

So he posts insults rather than quote facts and numbers from Martzloff and other industry professional. He does not even know that most of protection is always provided by earthing and 'whole house' protectors.
>
>
>
> Never once does he or you post a single plug-in protector specification numbers that defines protection from typically destructive surges. For good reason. No manufacturer makes that numeric claim.
>
>

Sigh, there you go lying again. You've asked that over and over. The
last time was maybe a week ago. I gave you the specs and a link.
Here is another example from APC:


http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=P8GT

Output
Number of Outlets
8

Receptacle Style
NEMA 5-15R

Input
Nominal Input Voltage
120V

Input Frequency
50/60 Hz

Input Connections
NEMA 5-15P NEMA 5-15P

Cord Length
1.83 meters

Maximum Input Current
15A

Surge Protection and Filtering
Surge energy rating
2160 Joules

EMI/RFI Noise rejection (100 kHz to 10 MHz)
58 dB

Peak Current Common Mode
144 kAmps


NM Surge Response Time (ns)
1 ns

Data Line Protection
RJ-11 Modem/Fax protection (two wire single line)

Let Through Voltage Rating
< 400

>
> In every case, what do professionals define as essential for protection? Earth ground.
>
>
>
> IEEE Guide repeatedly says why effective protector are earthed. Page 33 figure 8 show a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through nearby appliances ... because that surge was not earthed BEFORE entering the building. That protector earthed a surges on the best path - 8000 volts destructively through TV2. It was doing what the manufacturer said it would do.
>
>

That diagram shows TV1 with a plug-in protected from a surge.
It shows TV2, with no plug-in damaged by the same surge.
IEEE then states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

Only a village idiot would conclude that the the IEEE is saying
that the surge protector on TV1 "caused" the damage on TV2. Or that
the IEEE position is anything other than endorsing the use of plug-in
surge protectors as part of surge protection.

>
> Paragraphs after paragraph from that Guide are quoted here defining earth ground as essential for protection. You ignore those paragraphs to continue promoting protectors that have no earth ground? You even thought bud was an EE? Please. He did not even know concepts taught to first semester engineers.
>
>

Again, no one here has said that a properly earthed whole house surge
protector is not effective, that it's not the best FIRST LINE of defense.
What you ignore that is right there in the IEEE guide is that plug-in
surge protectors can be used as part of a tiered strategy. They are
essential to protect appliances, eg TV, PC, that are connected to more
wiring than just AC.

>
> Scary is that you actually think bud has electrical engineering training. He does not even understand basic EE concepts that electricians are never taught and need not know. He even thought impedance and resistance were same.

I'm an electrical engineer myself and you've accused me of some of
the same things you're accusing Bud of. You don't even believe the
half dozen authors of the IEEE surge protection guide. In fact, you
lie and distort what they actually say. Is that what they taught you
in science and engineering?

[westom]

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> Here you are saying it:

So again you misquote the solution. Propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context to intentionally distort really. How curious that you also forget to include paragraphs where I define protection as routine inside all appliances. Oh. That means you might have to learn how protection works. And has been success for over 100 years. Nobody likes admitting to manipulation only by advertising myths. bud's job is protect profits by promoting those myths. Where did you get your education and experience? Obviously not by doing this stuff. Apparently by ignoring spec numbers. And by intentionally misreading what professionals have said for over 100 years.

A surge current incoming to a plug-in protector is simultaneously outgoing into an attached or nearby appliance. Why is a grossly undersized power strip protector destroyed? While appliances is undamaged by that current? Well, if a surge is too massive, then the 8000 volts earthed through that appliance (page 33 figure 8) means protection inside TV2 was overwhelmed. That 8000 volts does not exist when a 'whole house' protector is protecting all appliances AND power strip protectors.

The naive only speculate. Naive assume internal appliance protection means MOVs. Nonsense. That wild speculation also identifies one with insufficient electrical (and no design) knowledge. Appliances had internal protection long before PCs existed; as defined by international design standards. Protection that means transients (except a rare and typically destructive one) cause no damage. Anything a power strip might do is often done better inside appliances.

And so IEEE Standards even define an earthed protector as 99.5% of the protection. Leaving a plug-in protector to also do protection - maybe 0.2% of that protection. Specification numbers that the naive never post to recommend that plug-in protector as 100% protection. When will you post a power strip specification number that claims to protect from all types of surges? You never do for one reason - those numbers do not exist.

How do we make typically destructive surges irrelevant? Earth before that current enters a building. Then protection inside appliances makes any residual (tiny) current irrelevant. Then a surge is so tiny as to not even damage undersized plug-in protectors. 'Whole house' protector is even essential for protecting plug-in protectors.

What happens when a surge is too large (ie no earthed 'whole house' protector)? Schneider Electric admits their APC protectors cause house fires. Fires that our sales promoter insists have never happened. Some plug-in protectors are so dangerous that it should be disposed of this minute. How dangerous? Most have been used for decades and still did not cause fire. And yet are so dangerous that even APC (under pressure) now admits the threat. Other protectors are also so dangerous as to be immediately disposed. Or we significantly reduce the threat by earthing one 'whole house' protector. To even protect power strip protectors.

How often do protectors caused house fires (that bud repeatedly said have never happened? Well, how often are surges so massive as to overwhelm protection already inside each appliance? A surge too tiny to harm an appliance may also destroy an undersized and dangerous protector. Protector failure means a potential fire.

Surge protection is about an anomaly that occurs once in many years or a decade. Protectors that can completely fail (a potential fire) may occur with surges too tiny to damage appliance. Effective surge protection (properly earthed) makes such surges irrelevant.

Earthing a 'whole house' protector would help to protect a house from plug-in protector fires. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A small reality that explains why many high reliability facilities solve this problem another way. They do not use plug-in protectors. Instead they earth 'whole house' protectors so that protection inside electronics is not overwhelmed. And they upgrade what does the protection - earth ground - to make all 'whole house' protectors even more effective.

[Oren]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Surge protection is about an anomaly that occurs once in many years or a decade. Protectors that can completely fail (a potential fire) may occur with surges too tiny to damage appliance. Effective surge protection (properly earthed) makes such surges irrelevant.
>
> Earthing a 'whole house' protector would help to protect a house from plug-in protector fires. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A small reality that explains why many high reliability facilities solve this problem another way. They do not use plug-in protectors. Instead they earth 'whole house' protectors so that protection inside electronics is not overwhelmed. And they upgrade what does the protection - earth ground - to make all 'whole house' protectors even more effective.

Not once has anyone said an earth ground is not needed.

What you miss; obviously, is that plug-in protectors DO WORK.

They work in conjunction with earth ground, a "whole house" SPD (surge
protector device) at the electric panel (breaker type or SPD).

I've stated earlier an SPD at the electric panel will not warranty a
sensitive device like a computer, television, etc.

Show us where an anomaly only happens in terms of "years" or a
"decade".

<crickets>

[bud--]

On 10/6/2013 12:49 PM, westom wrote:
>
> Propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context to intentionally
> distort really.

Westom knows because it is what he does all the time.

> That means you might have to learn how protection works.

Westom can't figure out how plug-in protectors work.

Anyone with minimal mental abilities can find out in the IEEE surge
guide, starting page 30.

> bud's job is protect profits by promoting those myths.

If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie.

Notice how he never explains how what I write is wrong.
He just ignores it.
Just like he ignores simple questions.

> Why is a grossly undersized power strip protector destroyed?

Westom thinks all protectors are grossly undersized.
He ignores an investigation by the NIST surge guru that showed the
energy that can make it to a plug-in protector is surprisingly small -
35 joules worst case. That is for power line surges up to the maximum
that has any reasonable probability of occurring. One of the reasons the
energy is so small is the impedance of the branch circuit wiring - that
the village idiot says I don't know anything about.

> Well, if a surge is too massive, then the 8000 volts earthed through
> that appliance (page 33 figure 8) means protection inside TV2 was
> overwhelmed. That 8000 volts does not exist when a 'whole house'
> protector is protecting all appliances AND power strip protectors.

Simple question - never answered:

- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where

his service panel protector will not protect. The surge is not on the
power wiring.

Another simple question:

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

>

> Appliances had internal protection long before PCs existed; as
> defined by international design standards.

Cite.

>
> And so IEEE Standards even define an earthed protector as 99.5%
> of the protection.

The 99.5% figure comes from the IEEE "Green" book. It is for lighting
rods. It has nothing to do with surge protectors.

As westom said "propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context
to intentionally distort really."

>

> Schneider Electric admits their APC protectors cause house fires.

Cite.

>
> How often do protectors caused house fires (that bud repeatedly said have never happened?

Cite.

> Well, how often are surges so massive as to overwhelm protection already
> inside each appliance? A surge too tiny to harm an appliance may also
> destroy an undersized and dangerous protector.

Poor westom suffers from hallucinations. His post is full of them.

> Protector failure means a
> potential fire.

UL1449 required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs in 1998.
With no valid technical arguments westom is forced to use scare tactics.

Westom can't even answer really simple questions - like:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?

- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

[bud--]

On 10/6/2013 1:54 PM, Oren wrote:
>
> I've stated earlier an SPD at the electric panel will not warranty a
> sensitive device like a computer, television, etc.

SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[protectors] at the point of use."

>
> <crickets>

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 2:49:06 PM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Saturday, October 5, 2013 10:33:25 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > Here you are saying it:
>
>
>
> So again you misquote the solution. Propaganda experts are trained in quoting out of context to intentionally distort really. How curious that you also forget to include paragraphs where I define protection as routine inside all appliances.

I forgot it? Good grief. It's on the list of questions that
have been asked for years, including in this very thread.

How can surge protection be effective inside an appliance when
Tom claims that protection is only as good as it's direct connection
to earth ground? How can surge protection using MOVs work inside
appliances, yet even more robust surge protection inside plug-in
power strips, not work?

Oh. That means you might have to learn how protection works. And has been success for over 100 years. Nobody likes admitting to manipulation only by advertising myths. bud's job is protect profits by promoting those myths. Where did you get your education and experience? Obviously not by doing this stuff. Apparently by ignoring spec numbers. And by intentionally misreading what professionals have said for over 100 years.
>
>

I don't ignore spec numbers or what professionals say. Neither does
Bud. We continue to refer you to the IEEE Guide for surge protection.
It shows plug-in surge protectors being used and doesn't say they are
ineffective, cause damage, etc, which is what you claim.

Also, you just claimed specs don't exist for plug-in surge protectors.
I posted the specs for a typical one from APC.

>
> A surge current incoming to a plug-in protector is simultaneously outgoing into an attached or nearby appliance. Why is a grossly undersized power strip protector destroyed? While appliances is undamaged by that current?

Well, assuming your part of your premise is correct, that the plug-in is damaged or destroyed, while the appliance is not, then it would be
because the plug-in worked. Good grief!

Well, if a surge is too massive, then the 8000 volts earthed through that appliance (page 33 figure 8) means protection inside TV2 was overwhelmed. That 8000 volts does not exist when a 'whole house' protector is protecting all appliances AND power strip protectors.
>
>

Sigh. The last sentence that is part of fig 8 says:

""A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

I mean this is quite amazing. But it does show that you can't find
any reference that agrees with you. You have to resort to taking a
section of the IEEE guide that says exactly the opposite of what you
claim and try to lie and make it into say otherwise.

>
> The naive only speculate. Naive assume internal appliance protection means MOVs. Nonsense. That wild speculation also identifies one with insufficient electrical (and no design) knowledge.

From a datasheet of a manufacturer of MOVs:

http://www.ibselectronics.com/ibs/cmpnts/rgaco/catalog/D/MetalOVD2_16-opt.pdf

Metal Oxide Varistors

Applications
• Surge Protection in consumer electronics
– industrial electronics
– telephone and telecommunication systems
– automobile equipment
– measuring and controller systems
– electronic home appliances
– gas and petroleum appliances

From Littlefuse, another manufacturer:


APPLICATION EXAMPLE TYPICAL SERIES SELECTED
†
TV/VCR/White Goods
Office Equipment
ZA, LA, UltraMOV, “C” III, CH, MA
and ML Series

Appliances had internal protection long before PCs existed;

What exactly does a PC have to do with MOVs, except of course
that they are an another example of where they are used.

as defined by international design standards. Protection that means transients (except a rare and typically destructive one) cause no damage. Anything a power strip might do is often done better inside appliances.
>
>
>
> And so IEEE Standards even define an earthed protector as 99.5% of the protection. Leaving a plug-in protector to also do protection - maybe 0.2% of that protection.

Speaking of standards and specs, where is the reference for the
above claim?

Specification numbers that the naive never post to recommend that plug-in protector as 100% protection.

Strawman detected. Strawman rejected.
I haven't seen anyone here claim that.

When will you post a power strip specification number that claims to protect from all types of surges? You never do for one reason - those numbers do not exist.
>
>

I posted a complete spec for a typical APC plug-in. I've
done it a couple times now. You ignore it. Of course it doesn't
claim to "protect from all types of surges". Neither does the
spec sheet from any of the whole house surge protectors. Including
the mythical one that you keep claiming handles 50K amps and is
available at HD for $50. Link please.

>
> How do we make typically destructive surges irrelevant? Earth before that current enters a building. Then protection inside appliances makes any residual (tiny) current irrelevant. Then a surge is so tiny as to not even damage undersized plug-in protectors. 'Whole house' protector is even essential for protecting plug-in protectors.
>
>

I'm still waiting for an explanation to another great question that
I've asked 6 times now. You claimed a 20K amp surge arrives at the
panel protected by a whole house surge protector. Assuming the resistance
from the surge protector to ground is only 1 ohm, a ridiculously low
number and just using Ohm's law, you have 20K volts generated right there
at the panel between the surge protector and earth. Explain how that
does not still present significant surge problems to appliances,
particularly ones connected to more than just the AC? The IEEE guide
shows exactly that. Also, manufacturers of your beloved point of entry
protectors also sell surge protectors to place further inside buildings
to protect equipment and those SPDs don't have a direct connection to
earth ground. Are they running a scam too?

>
> What happens when a surge is too large (ie no earthed 'whole house' protector)? Schneider Electric admits their APC protectors cause house fires. Fires that our sales promoter insists have never happened. Some plug-in protectors are so dangerous that it should be disposed of this minute. How dangerous? Most have been used for decades and still did not cause fire. And yet are so dangerous that even APC (under pressure) now admits the threat. Other protectors are also so dangerous as to be immediately disposed. Or we significantly reduce the threat by earthing one 'whole house' protector. To even protect power strip protectors.
>

I'd like to see your reference where Schneider says that the products
they are selling now, that they've been selling the last decade, cause
house fires. There was a problem with surge protectors decades ago,
but AFAIK, they all now have fuses that open in the event of overheating.
And even the ones that did cause a fire, compared to the enormous number
out there, I'll bet they were no more likely to cause a fire than many
other electrical devices in homes.

>
>
> How often do protectors caused house fires (that bud repeatedly said have never happened?

Why are you asking us that? You should have the numbers.

Well, how often are surges so massive as to overwhelm protection already inside each appliance? A surge too tiny to harm an appliance may also destroy an undersized and dangerous protector.

Total nonsense. The MOVs inside the typical surge protector can
handle far more surge current than those inside an appliance.
Open an appliance and look. Open a surge protector and look.

Protector failure means a potential fire.
>

Oven failure, dishwasher failure, TV failure, means potential fire.
See how that works?

>
> Surge protection is about an anomaly that occurs once in many years or a decade. Protectors that can completely fail (a potential fire) may occur with surges too tiny to damage appliance.

Explain the physics whereby a surge too tiny to damage an appliance
is going to make a plug-in surge protector fail.

Effective surge protection (properly earthed) makes such surges irrelevant.
>
>

The IEEE and NIST disagree.

>
> Earthing a 'whole house' protector would help to protect a house from plug-in protector fires. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate.

Explain how aircraft are protected from surges. Planes are
fly-by-wire now. They use electronics to move the flight surfaces.
Yet they have no direct earth ground that dissipated hundreds of
thousands of joules.

A small reality that explains why many high reliability facilities solve this problem another way. They do not use plug-in protectors. Instead they earth 'whole house' protectors so that protection inside electronics is not overwhelmed. And they upgrade what does the protection - earth ground - to make all 'whole house' protectors even more effective.

They use a tiered protection approach. Exactly like NIST, IEEE,
major manufacturers of electrical gear, etc all agree on. A similar
tiered strategy for homes, as outlined by the IEEE guide that you
keep misrepresenting, clearly shows plug-ins being used for that
way too.

[Oren]

Correct. I bet westom will claim this fact is propaganda <g>

[Tekkie®]

k...@attt.bizz posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

>
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:34:56 -0700, Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
> >On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT), "tra...@optonline.net"
> ><tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >>So, at work, you had surge protectors and equipment wasn't damaged. At
> >>home you chose to have no surge protectors and a bunch of electrical
> >>gear was destroyed. And from that, you conclude that surge protectors
> >>don't work?
> >

> >When I was a kid, you might hear: "unplug the TV" during a lightning
> >storm. Told never to take a shower or wash dishes (metal fixture
> >pipes) - things like that.
> >
> >I've felt tingles in my bare feet from a distant strike.
>
> "I felt tingles run up my leg when Obama was elected."

So did the rest of us. Funny thing he wasn't even
close to me. Maybe that's covered in Oslamakare?

--
Tekkie

[Ashton Crusher]

I have no doubt in my mind it's the product of SquareD company lawyers
wanting to make sure they can point to it when someone's stuff gets
damaged. "Look, we warned you!!!! and you failed to have a Plug-in.
And now go sue the Plug-in people because they were the LAST line of
defense so if your product was damaged is was THEM not US."

Were you born yesterday???

[westom]

On Monday, October 7, 2013 10:41:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
> SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic
> equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
> [protectors] at the point of use."

And then numbers that sales promoters fear to provide. A 'whole house' protector does maybe 99.5% of the protection. Then a power strip protector can do an additional 0.2%. To be closer to 100% protection, spend another $2500 on plug-in protectors for an additional 0.2% protection. Why do you always make claims by forgetting to include the numbers? Subjective claims (lies) can manipulate the naive. Ignoring numbers to take statements out of context is a classic sales promoter stunt.

A power strip protector needs protection by earthing and a 'whole house' protector. A 'whole house' protector doing over 99% of the protection does not need a power strip to protect it - to even avert fire. Use power strips to add maybe 0.2% protection - to get closer to 100%.

Catastrophic power strip failure is a problem traceable to undersized protectors that do not disconnect from a surge fast enough. How do hundreds of joules in a power strip somehow block or absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Why do sales promoters never have an answer for questions that include those damning numbers? For the last ten years, your only reply has been <crickets>. Honestly is not what they hired you to do.

[westom]

On Sunday, October 6, 2013 3:54:09 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
> What you miss; obviously, is that plug-in protectors DO WORK.

Quite the contrary. They work ... on one type of surge that is typically not destructive. And then I also added perspective - the numbers. A 'whole house' protector does maybe 99.5% of the protection. Leaving a power strip protector to add maybe another 0.2% protection.

Big buck, plug-in protector warranty promotes a myth. Those warranties are so full of exemptions as to not be honored. Many have filed claims to learn that reality the hard way. Why does it hype a big buck warranty? They are selling to the naive who assume a big warranty means a better product. Reality from the free market: products hyping a biggest warranty are usually inferior. Since GM cars have a best warranty, then GM cars must be superior to Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai? Nonsense.

Warranties are hyped to deceive the naive. A more honest answer says where hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly absorbed. Plug-in protectors ignore that question since it does not protect from that type of surge. Will not say how their near zero joules make destructive surges (hundreds of thousands of joules) irrelevant.

Well they do admit to many exemptions so that warranty is not honored. But that is in fine print that naive consumers never read - until they learn about that warranty the hard way. Even the warranty works - to increase sales.

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 3:22:48 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:37:19 -0700, Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 09:40:33 -0600, bud-- <nu...@void.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>On 10/6/2013 1:54 PM, Oren wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I've stated earlier an SPD at the electric panel will not warranty a
>
> >>> sensitive device like a computer, television, etc.
>
> >>
>
> >>SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic
>
> >>equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
>
> >>[protectors] at the point of use."
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Correct. I bet westom will claim this fact is propaganda <g>
>
>
>
> I have no doubt in my mind it's the product of SquareD company lawyers

You're unbelievable. It's been pointed out to you
that the use of plug-ins is consistent with recommendations
from the IEEE, NIST, industry. It's based on basic
physics. You haven't even read the IEEE guide we've directed
you too ten times now, where that physics is explained.
A guide written by degreed engineers,
expert in surge protection. Instead, you rely on nonsense
unsupported by anything other than your flapping gums.

Speaking of which, we're still waiting for the explanation of
how 6 ft of ordinary wire is effective surge protection. Does
the IEEE, NIST say that? Does Square D? Anyone? No, just some
buffoon that you heard at a computer club. And given your penchant
for learning that you've now demonstrated, who knows what the guy
actually even said vs what you think you heard. IF that guy is
right, that 6 ft of wire is effective surge protection, why can't
you find some references to back it up? It should be easy.

>
> wanting to make sure they can point to it when someone's stuff gets
>
> damaged. "Look, we warned you!!!! and you failed to have a Plug-in.
>
> And now go sue the Plug-in people because they were the LAST line of
>
> defense so if your product was damaged is was THEM not US."
>
>
>
> Were you born yesterday???

No, but apparently you were. That advice is not
limited to plug-in surge protectors. You seem to have
the same fetish that WTom has. You're focused exclusively
on plug-in surge protectors. Those major companies like Square D
also sell similar surge protection devices that are used downstream,
inside a facility to protect equipment, that are not specifically
plug-ins. They may install in
an additional sub-panel, equipment rack, etc. They use the
same devices and work under the same conditions, ie no direct
connection to earth ground, that plug-in surge protectors
operate under. So, there goes the "pointing the finger at
someone else theory". And so does the theory that all that's
ever needed is protection at the point of building entry.
GE for example is on that list.
GE has been making all kinds of electrical gear for over
a hundred years. Their product line includes all types of
surge protection devices, whole house type, downstream devices
of various types, including actual plug-ins.

Even WTom gave the green light to Oren's question about having
a whole house surge protector at the panel and another surge
protection device installed on his outdoor AC compressorunit. He can't
explain that contradiction. How can the device on Oren's AC
be effective, but a plug-in cannot? The central claim of
WTom is that any surge protector is only effective if it has
a direct, short connection to earth ground. So, of course
he won't answer the question of how the one on Oren's AC
can work. Maybe you can. But your position is that he
doesn't need one on the AC compressor at all, as long as it
has 6 ft of wire connecting it, right?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 8:28:25 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2013 10:41:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>
> > SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic
>
> > equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
>
> > [protectors] at the point of use."
>
>
>
> And then numbers that sales promoters fear to provide. A 'whole house' protector does maybe 99.5% of the protection.

We've asked for a reference to support that number 10 times now.
Why do you keep repeating it with no cite?

Then a power strip protector can do an additional 0.2%. To be closer to 100% protection, spend another $2500 on plug-in protectors for an additional 0.2% protection.

A good example of your gross distortions. I don't know of anyone
that has $2500 worth of plug-in surge protectors, nor anyone that has
enough of the typical electronic gear, ie PC, TV, Fax, Stereo that
one would justify anything approaching that amount.

> Why do you always make claims by forgetting to include the numbers?

LOL. I've seen Bud back up his numbers with cites, when needed.
You on the other hand, have repeatedly used that 99.5% number that
you just used again. IS that what you call "including numbers"?
We've ask for the cite many times and have yet to see it.

Here, I'll include numbers for you:

You claimed that a whole house surge protector can take a 20K amp
surge hit and that is all that is required to protect everything
in the house. That the entire surge is then harmlessly diverted
to ground. OK, so let's assume the path through that surge protector
to earth ground is just 1 ohm. That's ridiculously low, it's going
to be much higher. And let's just use resistance and ignore
impedance, which will be even higher. You have 20K amps flowing
through 1 ohm. That generates 20KV. How can a 20KV potential
difference between the lines at the panel and earth not still
present a significant surge potential to equipment inside the
building? Same question asked many times, but never answered.
There are some numbers for you.

Subjective claims (lies) can manipulate the naive. Ignoring numbers to take statements out of context is a classic sales promoter stunt.
>
>

Exactly what you do almost every post with the IEEE surge guide
where you take two diagrams that show how to use plug-in surge
protectors and then claim that it says they cause damage and
should not be used. You even have the balls to keep doing that
when the diagram shows TV1 with a plug-in being undamaged and
it stating:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"





>

> A power strip protector needs protection by earthing and a 'whole house' protector. A 'whole house' protector doing over 99% of the protection does not need a power strip to protect it - to even avert fire. Use power strips to add maybe 0.2% protection - to get closer to 100%.
>

So which is it? You've told us over and over that plug-ins
can't work at all, because they have no direct earth ground.
You've told us right here in this thread, that THEY CAUSE DAMAGE.
Now they are actually good to add "maybe .2%" protection. Besides
it you completely contradicting yourself, please give us a cite
for that .2% number. You did rant above about how people don't
cite numbers, right? Numbers only count if you have something to
back them up, not if you just make them up as you go.

>
> Catastrophic power strip failure is a problem traceable to undersized protectors that do not disconnect from a surge fast enough. How do hundreds of joules in a power strip somehow block or absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Why do sales promoters never have an answer for questions that include those damning numbers? For the last ten years, your only reply has been <crickets>. Honestly is not what they hired you to do.

All those have been answered dozens of times by Bud, by me, by others.
It's just that you then pretend they were not. You just claimed
again that plug-in surge protectors are subjected to hundreds of
thousands of joules. Bud answered that many times, complete with
references. It's simple, very basic science that even a high school
physics student can understand. That much energy from a lightning
strike doesn't make it to a surge protector at a TV or PC. Even if
worst case, lightning hits the service wires where they enter the
building, which is a small percentage of the surge possibilities,
with that much energy there is going to be arcing, with most of
the energy finding direct paths to ground. Bud gave you the numbers
that showed studies that showed that the surges that do most
of the damage to appliances are many orders of magnitude less than
your "hundreds of thousands" and are well within the range of
the plug-in surge protectors ratings.

[bud--]

On 10/8/2013 6:28 AM, westom wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2013 10:41:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>> SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic
>> equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
>> [protectors] at the point of use."
>

> A 'whole house' protector does maybe 99.5% of the protection.

Lie repeated for the 3rd time.

99.5% is for lightning rods. It has nothing to do with surge protection.

>
> How do hundreds of joules in a power strip somehow block or absorb
> surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules? Why do sales
> promoters never have an answer for questions that include those
> damning numbers? For the last ten years, your only reply has
> been<crickets>.

Explained often.
Westom just ignores anything that does not fit his very simple beliefs.

> Honestly is not what they hired you to do.

Dishonesty of the village idiot is apparent above.


Still never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the IEEE example "the only effective

way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why does SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector

"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing

plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?


Still never seen - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in
protectors do not work.

[bud--]

On 10/8/2013 6:44 AM, westom wrote:
> On Sunday, October 6, 2013 3:54:09 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>> What you miss; obviously, is that plug-in protectors DO WORK.
>
> Quite the contrary. They work ... on one type of surge that is typically
> not destructive.

Only in hallucinations by the village idiot.

> A 'whole house' protector does maybe 99.5% of the protection.

Lie repeated for the 4th time.

99.5% is for lightning rods. It has nothing to do with surge protection.

No answer for Oren's question:

- Why does SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector
"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing
plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

Note that SquareD does not make plug-in protectors.

Still never answered - simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the IEEE example "the only effective
way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

[bud--]

The SquareD connected equipment warranty $ is double when the service
panel protector �is used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge
protective device.�

The NIST surge guide, written by someone who has researched surges and
surge protection (with many published papers), suggests that most
equipment damage is from high voltage between power and cable/phone/...
wiring. A service panel protector does not, by itself, limit that
damage. The quotes from SquareD are consistent with what is written in
the IEEE and NIST surge guides. They come from electrical engineering.

[bud--]

On 10/8/2013 7:23 AM, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 8:28:25 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
>> On Monday, October 7, 2013 10:41:53 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>>
>>> SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic
>>
>>> equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
>>
>>> [protectors] at the point of use."
>>
>>
>>
>> And then numbers that sales promoters fear to provide. A 'whole house'
> protector does maybe 99.5% of the protection.
>
> We've asked for a reference to support that number 10 times now.
> Why do you keep repeating it with no cite?

Because if he provided a cite you might read it.

From the IEEE "Green" book: "IEEE Recommended practice for grounding of
industrial and commercial power systems".

3.3 Lightning Protection Grounding
3.3.3 Requirements for Good Protection
"3.3.3.1 Protection Principles. Lightning cannot be prevented; it can
only be intercepted or diverted to a path that will, if well designed
and constructed, not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5 - 99.9% protection. Complete protection can be
provided only by enclosing the object in a complete metal (or metal
mesh) encapsulation. For example, a person in a metal-topped, closed
automobile is safe from lightning strike injury. Still, a 99.5%
protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one
stroke per 30 years [normal in the keraunic level of 30 for a 100 ft (30
m) square, 30 ft (9.1 m) high structure] to one stroke per 6000 years,
while 99.9% protection will reduce the incidence to one stroke per
30,000 years."
later in the same paragraph "Suitable protection is nearly always
provided by the installation of air terminals, down conductors, and
grounding electrodes."

3 paragraphs later - same section
"(Sensitive electronic equipment, such as computers, may require a
higher level of protection. (See chapter 5 for recommendations for the
protection of sensitive electronic equipment.)"

"3.3.3.2 Practices for Direct Protection. Fundamentally, direct
lightning protection (lightning-protection systems) consist of placing
air terminals or diverter elements suitably at the top of the structures
to be protected, and connecting them by adequate down conductors to
grounding electrodes (earth)."

"5 Sensitive Electronic Equipment Grounding"
is only about grounding, nothing about "protectors"

The green book used to be on-line (10.5MB). I might still have a URL.

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment") is the appropriate one for
surge protection.

[tra...@optonline.net]

I would just add that the IEEE guide is not just written by just one pro.
It's written by a panel of five and it cites the contributions of many others as well.

"The IEEE Surge Protection Devices Committee (SPDC) has been writing
Standards for lightning and surge protection for more than 30 years. The current
versions of the IEEE C62 Family of Standards represent the state of the art in
these areas.
This application guide was written to make the information developed by the
SPDC more accessible to electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical
engineers who were not protection specialists."

[Oren]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:22:48 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>

Who do you think gives guidance to the lawyers about the devices;
about what limitations they have?

If congress passes a law for agency x, y, or z do you think a lawyer
can change the intent of the law?

> Were you born yesterday???

No. I was born on a Tuesday.

I'll read any citation you or westom provide that SPDs do not work!

[Oren]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 05:44:50 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, October 6, 2013 3:54:09 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>> What you miss; obviously, is that plug-in protectors DO WORK.
>
>Quite the contrary.

Citation requested.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:22:48 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>

OMG, I really thought your argument was going to be that bud-- worked
for SquareD.

> Were you born yesterday???

That is indeed a good question.

[westom]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:08:42 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:

> The NIST surge guide, written by someone who has researched surges and
> surge protection (with many published papers), suggests that most
> equipment damage is from high voltage between power and cable/phone/...
> wiring. A service panel protector does not, by itself, limit that
> damage.

Telephone and cable already have properly earthed protection required by code and installed for free. bud did not even know about a telco 'installed for free' 'whole house' protector until I described it. He even tried to denied it existed.

Telephone and cable wires already have 'whole house' protection (when properly installed). But AC electric does not. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means every incoming wire should have protection defined by the Guide as necessary. So that 8000 volts need not find earth ground destructively via a plug-in protector and TV2 - page 33 figure 8.

Protection was always about connecting that current to earth so that hundreds of thousands of joules are not hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Only solution always implemented in any facility that cannot have damage.

So what happens to a 35 joule surge? So tiny that the power supply converts that to electricity that powers electronics. 35 joule surges are hyped as destructive to sell grossly undersized protectors. Sales scams promote protection from near zero (35 joules) surges for $25 or $80 per appliance. Protectors that completely ignore another type of surge (ie hundreds of thousands of joules) that occurs infrequently (maybe once every seven years). And that overwhelms existing protection inside appliances.

Informed homeowners properly earth one 'whole house' protector (ie at least 50,000 amps) so that destructive surges do turn power strip protectors into a potential house fire. So that existing protection inside appliances is not overwhelmed. So that wires that typically have no protection (AC electric) are no longer the incoming surge path to all household appliances.

bud's favorite guru even said why plug-in protectors can make damage "occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." His exact words in his IEEE paper describing damage due to protectors too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. As also demonstrated on page 33 figure 8.

Informed homeowners spend less money to protect everything - by earthing one 'whole house' protector. Then existing 'whole house' protection on telephone, satellite, and cable wires is not bypassed. Then high voltage does not exist between power and cable/phone wiring. Did he again forget to mention existing protection on cable/phone wiring as required by code?

What is a most common path of destruction when a 'whole house' protector is not installed? A direct lightning strike far down the street is incoming to every appliance on AC mains. The outgoing path is via cable/phone wiring because that already has 'whole house' protection. The high voltage exists because a 'whole house' protector on AC mains did not earth that current BEFORE it could enter the building. That destructive and high voltage does not exist when earthed BEFORE entering the building. Facilities that cannot have damage always implement the 'whole house' solution.

[westom]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:04:02 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> It's written by a panel of five and it cites the contributions
> of many others as well.

That explains why they say on page 22:
> An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical for
> the successful operation of an SPD.

Then say:
> To achieve optimum overvoltage protection, the connecting
> leads between the SPDs and the panel or protected
> equipment should be as short as possible and without
> sharp 90-degree bends.

Plug-in protectors do not have that 'as short as possible' earth ground connection and have connections with numerous 90 and 180 degree bends. Why do you ignore what professionals have been saying for generations?

They also provide numbers that say why plug-in protectors do not protect from that typically destructive type of surge:
> For 20 inch (50 cm) leads, the extra voltage from the
> inductance of the leads is almost 600 V for the 10 kA
> impulse, almost doubling the limiting voltage of the
> protector itself.

Then show on page 33 figure 8 how a plug-in protector can earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance.

They also say what an effective protector must do:
> three requirements of the service entrance SPD. ...
> 1) To suppress the larger surges from the outside
> environment ...
> 2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs ...
> 3) To stop the large lightning currents from passing
> into the house wiring system ...

All accomplished only by earthing a 'whole house' protector. Not accomplished by plug-in protectors that (as point 2 notes) need to be protected by one properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Need we discuss fires created when a plug-in protector was not protected by an earthed 'whole house' protector?

[westom]

On Monday, October 7, 2013 10:34:16 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>> Protector failure means a potential fire.
>
> UL1449 required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs in 1998.

Schneider Electric has listed numerous APC protectors that are potential house fires. Those are only some from one manufacturer. Others with that thermal fuse also do not disconnect fast enough. The thermal fuse is necessary especially when a protector is grossly undersized. A problem seen on numerous protectors. And even described by a NC fire marshall.
> Recent fires involving multiple outlet devices toted as
> surge suppressors raised attention at the Gaston County
> Fire Marshal's office primarily when one such fire
> occurred in a fire station. Investigation of a fire
> that started behind a desk in an office revealed the
> ignition source was a surge suppressor. ...
> Within that firehouse, three separate surge suppressors
> were recovered and examined. Each had failed, the one
> caught on fire, another suppressor ceased working, while
> the third continued working but later was found to have
> failed internally. These findings, coupled with
> suspicion of suppressor involvement in other fires,
> prompted in-depth examination of possible reasons.

bud has claimed for years that power strip protectors never cause fires. It is his job to protector sales by any means possible.

Power strip protectors need to be protected by earthing a 'whole house' protector. Some are so grossly undersized and dangerous as to be disposed of immediately.

[westom]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:13:27 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
>>> What you miss; obviously, is that plug-in protectors DO WORK.
>
>> Quite the contrary.

Only a nasty person like bud would completely misquote text to intentionally misrepresent.

An honest post would have quoted what was posted:

> Quite the contrary. They work ... on one type of surge that
> is typically not destructive.

They do work - on transients that typically cause no damage.

Why does your quote and what I actually wrote say two completely different things? Oh. You also believe a scam about plug-in protectors providing 100% surge protection. Now take cheapshots by intentionally misquoting and misrepresenting text. I thought you were more adult than bud. bud uses such tactics and liberally insult; to promote sales of plug-in protectors. It is his job. Why would you demean yourself using similar tactics?

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:50:56 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 12:04:02 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > It's written by a panel of five and it cites the contributions
>
> > of many others as well.
>
>
>
> That explains why they say on page 22:
>
> > An effective, low-impedance ground path is critical for
>
> > the successful operation of an SPD.
>
>
>
> Then say:
>
> > To achieve optimum overvoltage protection, the connecting
>
> > leads between the SPDs and the panel or protected
>
> > equipment should be as short as possible and without
>
> > sharp 90-degree bends.
>
>
>
> Plug-in protectors do not have that 'as short as possible' earth ground connection and have connections with numerous 90 and 180 degree bends. Why do you ignore what professionals have been saying for generations?
>
>

Again, very selective about what you choose to cite. This discussion
was about plug-in surge protectors and whether they are effective
and should be used as part of a tiered surge protection strategy.
So, why don't you instead cite the very previous page of that IEEE guide,
page 21 where they specifically talk about that?:

"2.2.4 Coordination with Downstream SPDs
As stated above, the service entrance SPD has the primary job of intercepting
large incoming surges and disposing of them into the building ground. However,
some of the surge will be conducted downstream to the appliances in the building,
and to other SPDs, either hard-wired or plug-in protectors. “Coordination” is the
term used to describe the way in which an incoming surge is apportioned between
the first SPD and the downstream SPDs. "


Right there, they talk about using plug-in surge protectors.
Further in the document, there are two examples showing plug-ins
being used.

>
> They also provide numbers that say why plug-in protectors do not protect from that typically destructive type of surge:
>
> > For 20 inch (50 cm) leads, the extra voltage from the
>
> > inductance of the leads is almost 600 V for the 10 kA
>
> > impulse, almost doubling the limiting voltage of the
>
> > protector itself.
>
>

Your conflating a whole house surge protector with a downstream
SPD. How many times here have I said the IEEE recommends a
"tiered protection strategy". How many times have I said that is
what is done at industrial facilities, eg telcos?

>
> Then show on page 33 figure 8 how a plug-in protector can earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance.
>
>

Incredible that you'd bring up this lie yet again. It's like using
Elvis Presley's death certificate and claiming it says he's alive.
Right there in that figure they show two TV1 and TV2. TV1 is protected
using a plug-in. It is not damaged by the surge. TV2 has no plug-in
and it is damaged. The IEEE guide then states:

"A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"





>

> They also say what an effective protector must do:
>
> > three requirements of the service entrance SPD. ...
>
> > 1) To suppress the larger surges from the outside
>
> > environment ...
>
> > 2) To reduce the surge current to the downstream SPDs ...

WHAT? Downstream SPDs? How is that possible? You claim in
every post that no protection is possible without a direct
earth ground. Those downstream SPDs have no direct earth
connection of their own. So, if what you claim is true,
why is that the IEEE says to use them?

Of coure anyone who reads the guide can understand that they
are saying to use a tiered approach, with the whole house protector
and other downstream SPDs. They specifically state that those
downstream SPDs include PLUG-INS.

>
> > 3) To stop the large lightning currents from passing
>
> > into the house wiring system ...
>
>
>
> All accomplished only by earthing a 'whole house' protector. Not accomplished by plug-in protectors that (as point 2 notes) need to be protected by one properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Need we discuss fires created when a plug-in protector was not protected by an earthed 'whole house' protector?

And one more time, it's *not* all accomplished by just a whole
house protector. Effective strategy is a tiered approach.

[Oren]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 07:28:09 -0700 (PDT), westom <wes...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Stop making stuff up. I said plug-in protectors DO work. You said they
do not. I asked for a cite to support your claim that they do NOT
work. Now you imply plug-in devices do work.

Why do you demean yourself by desperately lying?

bud-- and trader got your goat and it pisses you off, because you are
a skunk!

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 9:34:36 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:08:42 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>
> > The NIST surge guide, written by someone who has researched surges and
>
> > surge protection (with many published papers), suggests that most
>
> > equipment damage is from high voltage between power and cable/phone/...
>
> > wiring. A service panel protector does not, by itself, limit that
>
> > damage.
>
>
>
> Telephone and cable already have properly earthed protection required by code and installed for free. bud did not even know about a telco 'installed for free' 'whole house' protector until I described it. He even tried to denied it existed.
>
>
>
> Telephone and cable wires already have 'whole house' protection (when properly installed). But AC electric does not. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means every incoming wire should have protection defined by the Guide as necessary. So that 8000 volts need not find earth ground destructively via a plug-in protector and TV2 - page 33 figure 8.
>
>
>
> Protection was always about connecting that current to earth so that hundreds of thousands of joules are not hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Only solution always implemented in any facility that cannot have damage.
>
>

Lie after lie. How many times have I told you now that Telco for
example, do not just rely on surge protection at the point of entry?
They have surge protection, MOVs on the linecards at the switch. I've
shown you app notes for the actual components. You denied appliances
use MOVs for surge protection. Again, I supplied you with datasheets
and app notes, eg the one just provided from Littefuse, that shows the
MOVs they make for consumer electronics.

The question still unanswered after all these years. If surge protection
is impossible without a direct earth ground, how can those MOVs in
an appliance work? They have no earth ground. And if they work, then
how can you claim that the ones in the surge protector outside the
appliance can't work?

>
> So what happens to a 35 joule surge? So tiny that the power supply converts that to electricity that powers electronics. 35 joule surges are hyped as destructive to sell grossly undersized protectors. Sales scams promote protection from near zero (35 joules) surges for $25 or $80 per appliance. Protectors that completely ignore another type of surge (ie hundreds of thousands of joules) that occurs infrequently (maybe once every seven years). And that overwhelms existing protection inside appliances.
>

Surges are not just 0 to 35 joules or then magically hundreds of
thousands. As Bud has explained to you a zillion times now, the
hundreds of thousands of joules of energy from a lightning strike
can't make it to the appliance. That much energy is going to arc
over and most of it is going to find other, closer paths to ground.

That leaves you with a lower distribution of surges that can make
it to an appliance. That is what the plug-in surge protectors are
there for. And even if a MOV inside a TV can take a 35 joule hit,
which would you rather have take that hit? The small one in the $1500 TV
or the one with the 3000 joule rating in the $20 plug-in surge protector?
And suppose instead of 35 joules, it's several hundred? Good grief.

>
> Informed homeowners properly earth one 'whole house' protector (ie at least 50,000 amps) so that destructive surges do turn power strip protectors into a potential house fire. So that existing protection inside appliances is not overwhelmed. So that wires that typically have no protection (AC electric) are no longer the incoming surge path to all household appliances.
>
>
>
> bud's favorite guru even said why plug-in protectors can make damage "occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." His exact words in his IEEE paper describing damage due to protectors too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. As also demonstrated on page 33 figure 8.
>

The lie repeated. Same figure says:

""A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"





>

> Informed homeowners spend less money to protect everything - by earthing one 'whole house' protector. Then existing 'whole house' protection on telephone, satellite, and cable wires is not bypassed. Then high voltage does not exist between power and cable/phone wiring. Did he again forget to mention existing protection on cable/phone wiring as required by code?
>
>

The IEEE says a single whole house protectors is *not* sufficient.
And what about all the people living in apartments, rental properties,
etc? They can't put in a whole house SPD, have no control whatever of
the grounding system, etc. Clearly for them plug-ins offer some decent
protection, given that your disasterous hundreds of thousands of joules
will virtually never get to a TV.

>
> What is a most common path of destruction when a 'whole house' protector is not installed? A direct lightning strike far down the street is incoming to every appliance on AC mains. The outgoing path is via cable/phone wiring because that already has 'whole house' protection. The high voltage exists because a 'whole house' protector on AC mains did not earth that current BEFORE it could enter the building. That destructive and high voltage does not exist when earthed BEFORE entering the building. Facilities that cannot have damage always implement the 'whole house' solution.

The facilities that cannot have damage always implement a tiered solution.
The major manufacturers of electrical eqpt that make surge protection
devices usually have types that are used at the point of entry, eg at the
panel. They also have SPD that are used DOWNSTREAM, just like the IEEE
guide says. Some of those manufacturers, eg GE even sell plug-ins for
that purpose.

[bud--]

On 10/9/2013 7:34 AM, westom wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:08:42 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>> The NIST surge guide, written by someone who has researched surges and
>> surge protection (with many published papers), suggests that most
>> equipment damage is from high voltage between power and cable/phone/...
>> wiring. A service panel protector does not, by itself, limit that
>> damage.
>
> Telephone and cable already have properly earthed protection required
> by code and installed for free. bud did not even know about a telco
> 'installed for free' 'whole house' protector until I described it. He
> even tried to denied it existed.

More hallucinations from the village idiot.

The clear explanation of how plug-in protectors work in the IEEE surge
guide (starting page 30) has a code required cable entry ground block.
In this case the ground block is too far from the power service, which
is the case in many houses.

Why does the IEEE guide say when that happens "the only effective way of

protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

Answer still missing.

>
> So that 8000 volts need not find earth ground destructively via a plug-in
> protector and TV2 - page 33 figure 8.

Lie repeated for the 6th time?

Voltage at TV2 without a protector at TV1 - 10,000V.
Voltage at TV2 with a protector at TV1 - 8,000V.

Simple questions never answered:
- How does the protector at TV1 damage TV2.
- Why does the IEEE guide say in this example "the only effective way of

protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

And the best question - never answered:

- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in this
example? It wouldn't. The village idiot's favorite example is one where

his favored service panel protector does not protect.

>
> So what happens to a 35 joule surge? ... Protectors that completely

> ignore another type of surge (ie hundreds of thousands of joules) that
> occurs infrequently (maybe once every seven years). And that overwhelms
> existing protection inside appliances.

The village idiot can't figure out that Martzloff's investigation used
the worst surge that has any reasonable probability of occurring. The
highest energy at the plug-in protector was not even for the worst surge.

But the village idiot just ignores anything that does not fit his very
limited beliefs about surge protection.

>
> Informed homeowners properly earth one 'whole house' protector
> (ie at least 50,000 amps) so that destructive surges do turn power
> strip protectors into a potential house fire.

The fire scare tactic again.

Service panel protectors are a real good idea.
But from the 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."

Service panel protectors do not by themselves prevent high voltages from
developing between power and phone/cable wires. The IEEE surge guide
example, starting page 30, show an example where a service panel
protector would provide no protection.

>
> bud's favorite guru even said why plug-in protectors can make
> damage "occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices
> are present at the point of connection of appliances." His exact words
> in his IEEE paper describing damage due to protectors too close to
> appliances and too far from earth ground.

- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

Still never answered.

The village idiot misconstrues what the IEEE and NIST and Martzloff say.

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

Of course still never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?

- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the IEEE example "the only effective
way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?

- Why does SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector

"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing

plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

And still never seen - any source that agrees with the village idiot

[bud--]

On 10/9/2013 8:08 AM, westom wrote:
> On Monday, October 7, 2013 10:34:16 AM UTC-4, bud-- wrote:
>
>> UL1449 required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs in 1998.
>
> Schneider Electric has listed numerous APC protectors that are potential house fires.

Gee, a whole line of protectors from one manufacturer recalled. Do you
suppose it is an engineering defect.

(And almost half are from before 1998.)

> Those are only some from one manufacturer. Others with that thermal fuse also
> do not disconnect fast enough. The thermal fuse is necessary especially when
> a protector is grossly undersized.

Of course the village idiot believes all plug-in protectors are "grossly
undersized".

> A problem seen on numerous protectors.

Where is the massive record of failures. Still missing.

> And even described by a NC fire marshall.

The text says “More modern surge protectors are manufactured with a
Thermal Cut Out mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is
intended shut the unit down overheating occurs.” It conspicuously does
not say the failed protector had thermal links, which have been required
by UL since 1998.

The text also says “Less expensive units typically have a single MOV”.
UL requires MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. I believe UL has always required 3
elements.

>
> Power strip protectors need to be protected by earthing a 'whole house'
> protector.

Funny, the IEEE and NIST surge guides don't say anything about that.
Another hallucination from the village idiot.


What a surprise, still never answered - simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?

- Why did Martzloff say in this paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
protector]"?

- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in the IEEE example "the only effective
way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- Why does SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector
"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing
plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

Still never seen - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in