Lightning protection

[Bud--]

Wrong. Because your ground is at a relative impedance away
from earth ground, it does present a risk to equipment and
this is why more serious surge prevention does not only rely
on these plug-in protectors.

You have not detailed the exact risk, in your view.

You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

"Not only" - OK if combined with power service surge protection?

Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?

Why do the only 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors (note this is "how to protect your house")?

Why did the NIST surge guru, writing in the NIST guide say:
"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,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV 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."

Do you have a source that supports your view?


Protection is always a trade-off of - degree of risk - value of what you
are protecting - and cost of protection.

If I lived in very high lightning areas, like some areas of Florida USA,
I would use all the tricks - attention to the connection to earth,
"single point ground" for power and signal services, power service
suppressors, and plug-in suppressors for expensive high risk equipment,
like wide screen TVs.

 

[kony]

You have not detailed the exact risk, in your view.

You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

I don't play the "must be for home users and they aren't
important" game. If you accept that home use doesn't need
as much protection to make your argument, you must
simultaneously concede these are not effective protection
else there would be nothing "more serious" that is warranted
otherwise.

 

[w_tom]

...
You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

"Not only" - OK if combined with power service surge protection?

Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?

The only person disagreeing with the IEEE is Bud. Simpler, less
expensive and far more protective solution is found even in banks
because effective protection is necessary - as is required in homes.
Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection. And
then Bud completely ignores the one thing that the IEEE demands for
protection - earthing.

Bud's speculations might be true if things inside the building such
as wood, linoleum, concrete etc were not conductive. Those
conductive materials are why equipotential provided by earthing is
essential. Bud completely ignores equipotential - pretends it does
not even exist - to misrepresent reality and to promote plug-in
protectors.

Effective protectors make a short connection to earthing as
demonstrated even in 1930s research papers by GE and Westinghouse.
They don't even try to claim a protector becomes ground. Neither does
IEEE - in direct contradiction to what Bud posts. IEEE states quite
specifically - earthing provided the protection.

Bud spins and twists the guide to claim the plug-in protector on
Page 42 Figure 8 really did not put 8000 volts destructively through
the TV. Why does 8000 volts find earth ground destructively via the
TV? Because the protector did not have earth ground to shunt (clamp,
divert, connect) to.

Bud pretends that clamping to nothing is protection. Again he spins
a myth. Electricity requires a complete path. The surge must have a
path to earth. Clamping to nothing means electricity must find
another (and destructive) path to earth. Therefore Page 42 Figure 8
clamps destructively through a TV. Clamping to nothing, as Bud
claims, is why plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide that
protection.

However clamping to earth ground - to shunt, connect, divert - is
how protection is achieved as in IEEE Green Book (IEEE Standard 142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' :

Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

Will clamping to nothing provide a path? Of course not. Shunting
(clamping, diverting, connecting) to earth ground must create a path
which will "not result in damage". Therefore a surge on Page 42
Figure 8 will not find earth ground 8000 volts destructively through
the TV.

What happens when the plug-in protector is not properly earthed?
Bud's citation describes the problem in text on Page 42:

Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors that
does not fully protect against lightning damage because of this effect.

Then we have Figure 7:

Even with coax cable grounding that meets code requirements, if
the coaxial line enters far away from the building ground, the long
grounding wire A-B can develop very large voltages which can
damage the TV set.

Long wire means high impedance. Same earthing connection that Bud
claims is not necessary, must be short according to Bud's citation.
Otherwise "very large voltages which can damage the TV set" exist
because an earthing wire that is too long - excessively high
impedance.

Bud claims a wire that is as long as possible - also called non-
existent - provides sufficient protection. Somehow clamping to
nothing is protection. The highest impedance or non-existent wire is
not what IEEE Standards demand for protection. Earthing is necessary
for both conductivity and equipotential. Bud claims neither is
necessary for protection.

 

[Bud--]

I don't play the "must be for home users and they aren't
important" game. If you accept that home use doesn't need
as much protection to make your argument, you must
simultaneously concede these are not effective protection
else there would be nothing "more serious" that is warranted
otherwise.

As I said “protection is always a trade-off of - degree of risk - value
of what you are protecting - and cost of protection”. Home users
certainly do not need as much protection as a bank customer database.

And “more serious” are your weasel words. I asked what YOU meant. You
didn’t answer.

Or what you meant by “not only”.

And:
Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?

Why do the only 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?

Why did the NIST surge guru, writing in the NIST guide say:
"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,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV 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."

Do you have a source that supports your view (whatever your view is) ?

 

[Bud--]

Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection.

Only for people who can’t read.

And
then Bud completely ignores the one thing that the IEEE demands for
protection - earthing.

w_’s religious belief in earthing again.
Repeating:
“The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40).”

Bud's speculations might be true if things inside the building such
as wood, linoleum, concrete etc were not conductive. Those
conductive materials are why equipotential provided by earthing is
essential. Bud completely ignores equipotential - pretends it does
not even exist - to misrepresent reality and to promote plug-in
protectors.

The 6 EEs experienced in surge protection also ignore “things inside
buildings”. But of course they aren’t as smart as w_.

And I promote only accurate information against the drivel from w_. Find
out what works and use what is appropriate. Read the sources.

Bud spins and twists the guide to claim the plug-in protector on
Page 42 Figure 8 really did not put 8000 volts destructively through
the TV. Why does 8000 volts find earth ground destructively via the
TV? Because the protector did not have earth ground to shunt (clamp,
divert, connect) to.

Spins and twists? The plug-in suppressor protected the TV connected to
it. It reduced the surge voltage at a distant TV from 10kV to 8kV. The
suppressor does not damage the 2nd TV, it partially protects it. The
point of the illustration is “to protect TV2, a second multiport
protector located at TV2 is required". Because he has no valid technical
arguments w_ repeats this lie several times in his post.

Bud pretends that clamping to nothing is protection. Again he spins
a myth. Electricity requires a complete path. The surge must have a
path to earth.

If w_’s thinking was not blocked by religious fanaticism, he could read
in the IEEE guide surges do have a path to earth. It is just not
primarily through plug-in suppressors. In the illustration in the guide,
the path to earth is thorough a bond wire from a CATV entry block to the
power service. The guide further says this is the path the NEC/CEC code
writers intended.

However clamping to earth ground - to shunt, connect, divert - is
how protection is achieved as in IEEE Green Book (IEEE Standard 142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' : ...

The IEEE guide was published by the IEEE. The IEEE guide says plug-in
suppressors are effective*.

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

What happens when the plug-in protector is not properly earthed?
Bud's citation describes the problem in text on Page 42:

Gee - the IEEE thought the improper use was “One multiport protector has
been used in an attempt to protect two TV sets.” And "to protect TV2, a
second multiport protector located at TV2 is required" w_ is either
stupid or dishonest (or both).

Then we have Figure 7:

Long wire means high impedance. Same earthing connection that Bud
claims is not necessary, must be short according to Bud's citation.
Otherwise "very large voltages which can damage the TV set" exist
because an earthing wire that is too long - excessively high
impedance.

The illustration shows a CATV service point distant from the power
service - not a “single point ground”. That requires a long bond wire
which allows a large voltage drop. Many houses have signal entry points
distant from the power service allowing this hazard. In this case the
IEEE guide says “the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport
protector”. w_ is stupid/dishonest.


Read the sources. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective*.

* - for kony - subject to qualifications elsewhere in this thread.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

Never explained:
Why the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
Why the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Why IEEE Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective surge
protection device.

 

[w_tom]

Only for people who can't read.
....
w_'s religious belief in earthing again.
Repeating:
"The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40)."

Yes IEEE talks about clamping, also called shunting, connecting,
diverting, or bonding. And then they also define what it must be
clamped, shunted, diverted to. Earth ground.

Bud would even lie what EEs say because he must promote plug-in
protectors. And so he even 'half truths' what the IEEE says. A
protector must clamp that surge current to what? Bud forgets that
'what' is earth ground.

Meanwhile people with decades of experience will provide full
truths. For example:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes
is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a strike,
it was due to a strike on the power company's lines knocking
*them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes.
The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is
*myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.

Meanwhile Bud discloses his background by replying to Kony with
insults such as 'weasel words'. IOW Bud cannot defend his claims with
technical facts. Even two posted sources demand earthing for
protection - as it also defined in IEEE Standards.

And that NIST Guru he refers to even says plug-in (point of use)
protector may even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance. The
very first conclusion in Martzloff's 1994 paper entitled "Surging the
Upside-Down House: Looking into Upsetting Reference Voltages" :

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.

But again Bud made a claim that forgets what the NIST Guru noted. A
protector is as effective as its earth ground. Earthing is the
protection. Protectors without earth ground have nothing to clamp
to. So they clamp surges destructively through the adjacent TV - Page
42 Figure 8 of Bud's citation.

Bud telling half truths. Protector does clamp because it is a shunt
mode device. They connect a surge into a non-destructive path. IOW
they must clamp to what lightning seeks - earth ground. Bud
repeatedly cited the clamping. Since his plug-in protectors have no
dedicated earthing connection, then he must get you to ignore earthing
- the most essential component in any effective protection system.
Bud repeatedly caught telling half truths to promote for plug-in
protector manufacturers.

 

[Bud--]

Yes IEEE talks about clamping, also called shunting, connecting,
diverting, or bonding. And then they also define what it must be
clamped, shunted, diverted to. Earth ground.

Because of his religious belief in earthing w_ can’t understand what I
wrote above, or the same explanation of how plug-in suppressors work in
the IEEE guide. Everyone is for earth grounds. The IEEE guide explains
that is not primarily how plug–in suppressors work and that earthing
occurs elsewhere.

Meanwhile people with decades of experience will provide full
truths. For example:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

If you plan on erecting a high lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in
your yard and connecting it to electronic equipment in your house this
may be relevant. w_ has a fetish about tower antennas.

And that NIST Guru he refers to even says plug-in (point of use)
protector may even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance. The
very first conclusion in Martzloff's 1994 paper entitled "Surging the
Upside-Down House: Looking into Upsetting Reference Voltages" :

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." When he wrote the paper
multiport suppressors were very new. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST
guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective*.

A
protector is as effective as its earth ground. Earthing is the
protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Protectors without earth ground have nothing to clamp
to. So they clamp surges destructively through the adjacent TV - Page
42 Figure 8 of Bud's citation.

The lie repeated.

Bud repeatedly caught telling half truths to promote for plug-in
protector manufacturers.

Ho-hum - repeating:
"To quote w_: 'It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

w_’s post is the same pathetic drivel as usual. The issue is not
grounding - everyone is for it. The ONLY question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

Read the sources. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective*.

* - for kony - subject to qualifications elsewhere in this thread.

Then read w_’s sources. Never any that say plug-in suppressors do NOT
work. Why no sources w_?

And still never explained:
Why the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
Why the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Why IEEE Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective surge
protection device.

Or why Martzloff said in the “surging” paper "One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

w_'s religious belief in earthing again
...
The lie repeated.
...
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
...
Ho-hum - repeating:
...
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

Numerous attacks and still Bud fails to cite one numerical
specification from a plug-in protector that claims protection from the
typically destructive type of surge. Junk science means no numbers.
Numbers demonstrate why (how) a plug-in protector easily becomes
ineffective. Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates 8000 volts
destructively through a TV because the protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to that TV. Numbers from his citation that he
hopes you don't understand. His own citation even defines an
ineffective protector. Bud will post anything to deny technical
reality and the numbers.

What did the protector clamp to? IEEE and other papers are very
specific about what a protector must clamp to: the single point
earthing electrode. That protector on Page 42 Figure 8 clamped a
surge - 8000 volts destructively - through the TV to earth ground.

Bud says 'clamping to nothing' is protection.

More facts that Bud must spin myths to deflect. 'Scary pictures'
are typically of surge protectors that for twenty years have UL1449
approval:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

How great is their deception? They will not even describe what the
"OK" light reports. In a last set of 'scary pictures', protector
components (MOVs) were removed and still the light said protector was
"OK". Obviously not"OK". The light does not report a protector as
good. It can only report one type of failure created when that
protector was grossly undersized. And sometimes that failure creates
those 'scary pictures'.

Of course, Bud must reply. He cannot have you comprehend reality in
those 'scary pictures'. His objective is to dilute or confuse
issues. There is no way around what the NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, 1930s
GE and Westinghouse papers on lightning protection, what is installed
everywhere that damage is not acceptable, what is demanded in US Air
Force wiring practices, what is routine in Ham radio installations as
defined by the ARRL .... protection is defined by shunting
(clamping, connecting, diverting) a surge to earth. Earthing as even
Franklin demonstrated in 1752.

Bud claims we can clamp to nothing. He calls that protection. It
protects profit margins - not electronics. No earth ground means no
effective protection. Which type of protectors don't have that
necessary (and low impedance) earthing connection? Protectors that
Bud promotes. Bud will reply with more attacks rather than technical
numbers. Bud hopes you don't understand why his citations (Page 42
Figure 8) even shows damage created by a plug-in protector to
household appliances. Protector too far from earth ground AND too
close to electronics.

 

[Bud--]

w_tom wrote:


More of the same bullcrap from w_.

More facts that Bud must spin myths to deflect. 'Scary pictures'
are typically of surge protectors that for twenty years have UL1449
approval:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Lacking technical arguments w__ resorts to pathetic scare tactics.
For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998.

None of these links even indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL
labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with
suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors
shouldn't be used. The links actually give info on how to use plug-in
suppressors.

How great is their deception? They will not even describe what the
"OK" light reports. In a last set of 'scary pictures', protector
components (MOVs) were removed and still the light said protector was
"OK".

This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police if a
MOV theft ring is active in your area.

There is no way around what the NIST, IEEE, Martzloff,...

The NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, all say plug-in suppressors are effective.

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”

Why do you never answer w_?

No earth ground means no
effective protection.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE
guide explains that plug-in suppressors work by clamping the voltage on
all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. Earthing occurs elsewhere.

The question isn’t earthing - the only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Read the sources - links are provided.

Never seen - a source from w_ that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Only opinions based on a religious belief in earthing. No
link to even a lunatic who agrees with w_.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say -
like hanford.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[kony]

Because of his religious belief in earthing w_ can’t understand what I
wrote above, or the same explanation of how plug-in suppressors work in
the IEEE guide. Everyone is for earth grounds. The IEEE guide explains
that is not primarily how plug–in suppressors work and that earthing
occurs elsewhere.

The surge finds earth sooner or later. Without the more
direct low impedance path to earth, some of that surge finds
earth THROUGH the connected equipment unless you have a far
more elaborate surge protector than the typical
plug-in-wall-outlet, shunt type.

 

[Bud--]

The surge finds earth sooner or later.

Of course.

Without the more
direct low impedance path to earth, some of that surge finds
earth THROUGH the connected equipment unless you have a far
more elaborate surge protector than the typical
plug-in-wall-outlet, shunt type.

As I wrote in a previous post:
"As explained at the bottom of page 40, connecting the surge to earth
does not primarily occur through the plug-in suppressor. In the example,
the “vast majority” of the surge current goes through the bond wire from
a CATV entry block to the power service earth connection. The guide says
further that the (US) NEC intends the bond wire to be the path to earth,
not the path through the plug-in suppressor. The current that does flow
through the suppressor goes from the CATV entry block, through the CATV
shield to the suppressor, through the ground and neutral wire to the
power service. The protected equipment is not in the path.

"I think you have complained in the past that the ground reference level
at the plug-in suppressor is elevated. If the protected equipment has a
metal enclosure it is likely to be connected to a 3 wire plug. If the
enclosure has a path to a ground at a different potential, the ground
reference level at the equipment and suppressor would be shifted, but
the voltages would be clamped to the new reference level. If insulation
is in the path, a surge is a very short event and the voltage withstand
is much higher than normal. There are other possibilities, but in quite
a bit of reading no one has raised this as a practical problem.

"And the same concern can be raised with a "whole house" protector.
Assume the power system is earthed with only a ground rod. If you have
a very good rod-to-earth resistance of 10 ohms and a modest 1,000A surge
earth current, the voltage from the power ground bar to `absolute' earth
is 10,000V. As a general rule, 70% of the voltage drop from a ground rod
is in the first 3 feet. From the power/signal ground system to earth
beyond 3 feet will be 7,000V or more. This can show up, for instance, in
basements. Or as the IEEE guide notes, at outside pad mounted
compressor/condenser units."

You don't give examples of a likely surge path through protected equipment.

 

[w_tom]

As I wrote in a previous post:
"As explained at the bottom of page 40, connecting the surge to earth
does not primarily occur through the plug-in suppressor. In the example,
the "vast majority" of the surge current goes through the bond wire from
a CATV entry block to the power service earth connection. The guide says
further that the (US) NEC intends the bond wire to be the path to earth,
not the path through the plug-in suppressor.

Bud admits that earthing provides protection. We are not discussing
current earthed before entering a building. We are discussing
currents from other wires that are not earthed. What is the
destructive path - 8000 volts - through that adjacent TV on Page 42
Figure 8? Incoming on AC electric. Outgoing to earth ground via
adjacent 'plug-in' protector and that earthed CATV cable.

Yes, a CATV cable may earth surge current. Plug-in protector earths
AC electric surge into CATV cable - 8000 volts destructively via a TV.

Effective protection means every wire from every utility is earthed
before entering the building. AC electric in most all homes has no
earthing - no 'whole house' protector. Therefore a plug-in protector
- Page 42 Figure 8 - earths the surge destructively 8000 volts through
a TV and CATV cable.

Why must that ground be single point? If earth beneath a building
has raise potential, then everything inside that building has same
raise potential. Therefore no voltage difference exists between any
appliances; no damage. This happens when protector dumps surge
current into earth and to an earthing electrode shared by all incoming
wires. What does this? One 'whole house' protector on AC electric.
CATV cable earthed to same electrode. What defines protection? Earth
ground.

Bud is trying to have it both ways. He recommends a plug-in
protector that has no dedicated earthing wire. Now he says cable
earthed surge current. He forgets where the destructive surge on Page
42 Figure 8 comes from. Any wires not earthed means destructive
surges - in this case 8000 volts destructively through the TV. We
avoid this failure by installing and earthing one 'whole house'
protector. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. And
all incoming wire must connect to that same protection - the single
point earth ground.

Why is single point earthing so effective? It provides both
equipotential and conductivity. Both are necessary for effective
protection. Plug-in protectors with no earth ground cannot accomplish
that if the entire room is not specially reconstructed and integrated
into the protection system.

 

[Bud--]

Bud admits that earthing provides protection.

Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.
w_ has no sources that say they are NOT.

Effective protection means every wire from every utility is earthed
before entering the building. AC electric in most all homes has no
earthing - no 'whole house' protector. Therefore a plug-in protector
- Page 42 Figure 8 - earths the surge destructively 8000 volts through
a TV and CATV cable.

w_ is still repeating the lie. The plug-in suppressor protected the TV
connected to it. It did not damage the 2nd TV. It reduced the surge at
the 2nd TV from 10,000V to 8,000V. The point of the illustration is "to
protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required".

And I eagerly await w_'s explanation of how a power panel surge
suppressor would have protected TV2. It wouldn’t have made any difference.

What defines protection? Earth
ground.

The religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING, not earthing. Earthing occurs
elsewhere.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

The religious belief in earthing #2.

Why is single point earthing so effective? It provides both
equipotential and conductivity.

Everyone competent in surge protection is in favor of “single point
grounds”.
As I wrote previously:
“Many houses have signal entry points distant from the power service
allowing this hazard. In this case the IEEE guide says ‘the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
protector’. “

Both are necessary for effective
protection. Plug-in protectors with no earth ground cannot accomplish
that if the entire room is not specially reconstructed and integrated
into the protection system.

What a novel idea. To use a plug-in suppressor you have to engineer the
whole room it is in. You must write to the 5 EE authors and point out
their neglect of this issue.

The question isn’t earthing - the only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

The IEEE and NIST guides and Martzloff say plug-in suppressors are
effective. Read the sources.

Still never seen - a source from w_ that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective. Only opinions based on a religious belief in earthing.

And what a surprise - w_ still hasn’t answered:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Where did I post that plug-in surge suppressor doesn't work. It can
be made effective when located and modified to obtain earthing. And
it worked just fine earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through
the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. According to Bud, the plug-in
surge suppressor did work - since damage was acceptable.

Even Bud's citation Page 8 of 24 defines that a plug-in protector
requires earthing. Bud claims it works by clamping to nothing.
Reality - effective protector shunts (clamps, diverts) to earthing.
But that reality will not sell grossly overpriced plug-in protectors.

This only repeats what Bud denies. Bud must post his myths
incessantly to promote for plug-in protector manufacturers. Half
facts are his mantra. No earth ground means no effective protection.
That from responsible sources - including Bud's own citations.

How to install effective protection for tens (maybe hundreds) of
times less money per protected appliance. Upgrade earthing and
install a 'whole house' protector on AC electric. Tens of times less
money for effective protection. Use products from responsible
manufacturers. Therefore protection inside all appliances is not
overwhelmed. Superior protection; safer solution; less money; just
ignore Bud who will incessently post half truths, myths, and outright
lies.

 

[Bud--]

Where did I post that plug-in surge suppressor doesn't work.

Not only can w_ not figure out what I said or the guides said. He
doesn't even know what he said. Another post with the same drivel.

But still no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT
effective. Why does no sources that agree with you w_?

And still no answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”
Why no answers w_?


The IEEE and NIST guides and Martzloff say plug-in suppressors are
effective. Read the sources.


Still a bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Still attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

...
But still no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT
effective. Why does no sources that agree with you w_?
...
The IEEE and NIST guides and Martzloff say plug-in suppressors are
effective. Read the sources.
...

Again, Bud uses words such as 'drivel' and 'bizarre' as if technical
proof. Even Bud's citations show plug-in protectors are not
effective. Page 42 Figure 8 - the plug-in protector earths a surge
8000 volts destructively through a TV. Bud will post anything to
avoid that fact. Even his citations demonstrate why plug-in
protectors are not effective. Even every IEEE Standard that discusses
electronics protection (including the Emerald Book) demands earthing
for protection. Bud hopes you don't notice those realities since his
protectors have no earthing. Bud's half truths and misrepresentations
are why a plug-in protector sells so profitably to the naive when it
does not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge.

Bud claims "no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT
effective" because even his own citation - Page 42 Figure 8 - shows a
plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through
adjacent electronics. Bud calls that effective? Notice the profit
margins on a plug-in protector. Profit margin is where it is
effective. Protector often so grossly undersized as to even create
these 'scary pictures':
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Why do current technology protectors sometimes create those 'scary
pictures'? When undersized, the protector is even more profitable.
1) Costs less to manufacture. 2) When it fails catastrophically,
then the naive will recommend it to friends. When surges are earthed
safely and without human knowledge, then the naive cannot recommend a
solution they never 'saw'.

Bud is simply promoting half truths to the naive. His plug-in
protector does not even claim to protect from the typically
destructive surge. A lurker can confirm that fact himself from a long
list of manufacturer numeric specs. Where does it list each type of
surge and numbers for protection? It does not because the protector
does not even claim to be effective. Bud also 'forgets' to challenge
that reality hoping you will not go digging for those numeric specs.

Even Martzloff - a source Bud cites less often because of what
Martzloff says as the very first point in his 1996 conclusion:

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.

Point of use (plug-in) protectors have been observed creating damage
to adjacent appliances - as we saw often - as demonstrated in Page 42
Figure 8 of Bud's citation - and as Martzloff noted in his peer
reviewed 1996 IEEE paper.

That plug-in protector does not even claim in numeric specification
to provide that protection. But it certainly is profitable. Bud
calls that effective. Bud's citations even show how plug-in protectors
can damage adjacent appliances. And then those 'scary pictures' - a
problem observed by most every fire department.

This author does not need adjectives such as 'drivel'. Cited are
problems protectors that have no earthing - even quotes from Bud's
citations. Only a junk scientist would post claims without science
facts as Bud does. But then Bud must promote those plug-in
protectors. Honesty and technical facts then become irrelevant.

 

[Bud--]

Yet another post repeating the same drivel.

Still no links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT effective.
Only bizarre ideas based on religious beliefs. If plug-in suppressors
didn’t work there would be thousands of links. The other net lunatics
don’t even agree with w_.
*Why no links to sources w_?*

And still no answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”
*Why no answers w_?*

The IEEE and NIST guides and Martzloff say plug-in suppressors are
effective. Read the sources.


Still a bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
Still twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really
say -hanford, Martzloff, IEEE guide.
Still attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[kony]

Yet another post repeating

.... the same thing because the truth doesn't change.

 

[Bud--]

... the same thing because the truth doesn't change.

A masterful explanation of the physics of why why plug-in suppressors
don't work.

But you forgot links to sources that say plug-in sources are NOT effective.

And also forgot to explain:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Why did Martzloff say in the “surging” paper "One solution.
illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge
reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”

 

[w_tom]

And also forgot to explain:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?

Two examples; but only one is a plug-in protector.

Bud completely ignores a protection system, defined in his citation,
that does not contribute to damage of an adjacent TV. Figures 3 and 4
on pages 15 and 17 (of 61) (paper page 6 & 8) example 'whole house'
protection. One protector for everything. A solution required so
that a plug-in protector can be protected !

AC and signal surge protectors at the building entrance...
collect the major part of the lightning surge currents coming
in on external wiring, and direct them harmlessly into the
building ground. They also limit the surge voltages that get
inside the building, and greatly reduce the burden on the
point-of-use protectors, at the equipment.

Why does a point-of-use protectors need protection? It is
undersized. It costs how much and may still create these 'scary
pictures'?
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Yes, plug-in protectors may even require protection using one 'whole
house' protector.

Plug-in protector does not claim to protect from the typically
destructive surge. Right there in its own specs - it does not even
claim such protection. Without a properly earthed 'whole house'
protector, multiple plug-in protectors remain ineffective (and cost
tens of times more money). Those 'scary pictures'. Even Bud's
citation says a 'whole house' protector may be required to protect
'point-of-use' protectors.

Bud says this citation examples two protectors. He forgets to
mention which do and don't cause damage in that citation. The 'whole
house' solution does not contribute to damage of appliances since it
has proper earthing as demanded by NIST and IEEE as well as others
such as NFPA, British Standard 6651, FCC Part 68, TIA/EIA, Telcordia
GR-1089, NEC, IEC, etc

But then page 31 of 61 also states what is necessary for all
protection. Why does Bud routinely ignore this paragraph 2.3.1?

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, resulting in damage. Therefore, an evaluation of the
service entrance grounding system at the time of the SPD
installation is very important.

Some fear the complication of inspecting earthing. So Bud promotes
the plug-in protector as a simpler solution. That earthing must be
inspected anyway - even with ineffective plug-in protectors. Bud
forgets to mention this. He also forgets inspection of the primary
protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Bud forgets to mention many things - and not because of age.

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.

But any grounding performed by a plug-in protector is via walls full
of 90 and 180 degree bends on the safety ground wire. Bud also
forgets to mention that from page 31 of his citation.

So we arrive at Bud's "second example". That example is Page 42
Figure 8 where a plug-in protector applies 8000 volts destructively to
the TV. Text further notes:

An additional feature ... if [point-of-use protectors] are
properly used, is that all surge currents which come in
from AC wiring and signal connections are disposed of
via the AC (green wire) ground, back to the building
ground.

Bud repeatedly claimed that plug-in protectors clamp to nothing. Why
does his own citation say plug-in protector must clamp (shunt, divert,
connect) via a safety ground wire? Who is posting myths? Bud or his
citation on page 45 in Paragraph 5.0?

So how good is that grounding? Well that ground wire has so many 90
and 180 degree bends, bundled with other wires (to induce surges on
them), too long, too many splices, etc. These were listed previously
as unacceptable features for earthing a 'whole house' protector.
Grounding the plug-in protector means that surge will find other paths
to earth - such as 8000 volts destructively through the TV. Bud
denies this. But Bud's citation shows a plug-in protector 8000 volts
damaging the TV. It even says why in earlier paragraphs such as
ground wires with 90 degree turns, etc.

Bud's citation does have two examples of protectors. First is an
effective (properly earthed) 'whole house' protector that does not
contribute to appliance damage. The many installation mistakes that
would degrade a 'whole house' protector are part of the grounding for
the second example - a plug-in protector. What is the downside for
that plug-in protector? 1) A 'whole house' protector is required to
protect a plug-in protector. 2) That plug-in protector earths 8000
volts destructively through a TV. 3) According to Bud, it is only
doing what is already inside household electronics. Bud's citation
in earlier pages shows what makes a protector ineffective and then
shows the ineffective plug-in protector earthing a surge destructively
through a TV - page 42 Figure 8.

Bud hopes his IEEE citation cites two plug-in protectors as
protection. In reality, his 61 Adobe page citation shows successful
protection using a 'whole house' protector and damage created by the
many (maybe as many as 100 needed) grossly overpriced plug-in
protectors. Notice those 'scary pictures' did not put a protector
adjacent to a pile of desktop papers. Just another fact that Bud
forgets to mention.

Where does the plug-in protector even claim to protect from the
typically destructive type of surge? It does not. Bud ignores that
accusation completely to promote plug-in protectors. Bud must have
you ignore what even IEEE and NIST demand for protection. A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. Whereas Bud says clamping
to nothing is protection, well, even his own citation says a plug-in
protector must shunt (clamp, connect, divert) to earth ground.

A plug-in protector needs one properly earthed 'whole house'
protector to protect it. What kind of protection is that?
Ineffective - as demonstrated by multiple quotes from Bud's own
citation:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf

Whereas Page 42 Figure 8 is the contradiction repeatedly denied by
Bud, this post contains more 'contradictions' from paragraphs in Bud's
citation. It always comes back to the same reality. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. "Clamping to nothing" is how
ineffective protector are promoted. The only plug-in protector in
Bud's citation even earths 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. The other protector described without any such problems
is a 'whole house' protector.