Lightning and computer?

[w_tom]

Impedance has little to do with the size of an AC electric
conductor. Anyone with an EE degree would have known that.
Impedance is determined by wire length, number of sharp bends,
wires splices, and other factors. Even though a 50' AC
electric wire is less than 0.2 ohms resistance, the same wire
would be about 120 ohms impedance to typically destructive
transients. Wire resistance between 6 AWG and 12 AWG is
major. Wire impedance between these two wires - trivial.
This is first year EE stuff.

Lets assumes Leythos $100 UPS will earth a trivial 100 amp
transient down that 50 foot wire (back to circuit breaker
box). Therefore the UPS is at less than 12,000 volts (100
amps times 120 ohms). Will that 100 amps travel down a 12,000
volt wire? Of course not. At 12,000 volts, the transient
will find other and destructive paths through adjacent
electronics. Again, this was old and well understood even in
the 1930s. I asked Leythos to describe how that UPS could
even provide protection because I suspect he did not even
understand why wire impedance dictates a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground.

Meanwhile, electronic appliances already have effective
internal protection. Protection that assumes a transient had
been earthed before entering the building. What does Leythos
forget to mention? That phone line already has a 'whole
house' protector installed by the telco. A protector so
inexpensive and so effective that the telco installs it for
free. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A
protector that made him think the UPS had provided the
protection.

Some foolishly think that wall receptacle safety ground is
earth ground. How with upwards of 130 ohms impedance in that
wire? Wire impedance is just one of so many reasons
electrical why plug-in protector are not effective AND why the
'whole house' protector (that costs tens of times less money
per protected appliance) is so effective.

In the meantime, if his UPS was earthing transients, then
that ground wire bundled with other wires would induce
transients on those other wires and other household
appliances. What kind of protection is that? Induced
transients: one more reason why his UPS is not effective. The
earthing wire also must be routed separate from other wires.
Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are so
effective.

Leythos says his home meets 1972 code. But does it meet
post 1990 code? A house only meeting 1972 code may not have
sufficient earthing. Again, even a 'whole house' protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. Not the safety ground
that Leythos confuses with earth ground - due to lack of
pragmatic experience tempered by the principles. Homes built
in 1972 may still require earthing enhancements (upgrades to
the 1990 code) so that a 'whole house' protector can be
effective. We do earthing because protection has always been
about protection even from direct lightning strikes.

Again appliances contain internal protection. But those
typically destructive transients such as lightning are the
primary purpose of protectors and earthing. Earth the
destructive transient so that internal appliance protection is
not overwhelmed. Damage even from direct lightning strikes
need not occur.

So what does that UPS claim to accomplish? What already
exists inside appliances makes that UPS protector
ineffective. But then an adjacent protector can even
contribute to damage of the appliance, especially if the
'whole house' protector and proper earthing is not installed.

Don't start with this bottom posting nonsense. I post to be
easier to read as called for by RFC1885. This post conforms
to those standards. I have no interest in authoritarian
imposing bottom posting dictatorship so that posts are harder
to follow. Just like in those IEEE papers that EEs routinely
read - the new information is on top. Any reference to
previous posts, citations, bibliographies, and footnotes at at
the bottom - if someone need them. Should you choose to post
harder to read, then so be it. Its your choice. Top posters
are flexible and pragmatic - and don't make these silly
intolerant complaint that bottom poster do. I also don't
criticized you for foolishly believing the myths promoted by
APC. But that changes when you promote the lies and myth
from APC and from a perversion of RFC1885 upon others. But
again, you are doing the complaining while I am citing the
standards. RFC1885.

That UPS has all but no earth ground. It did not provide
the protection you speculated. But then the telco provided
'whole house' protector - that would have provided the
protection. Why? Fundamental fact: the protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. 120 ohms impedance? That
protector had all but no earth ground. No earth ground means
no effective protection. Numbers provided above demonstrate
that fact.

You disagree? Put up impedance numbers for that 6 AWG and
12 AWG wire. How many posts later and you still provide no
numbers to even demonstrate 1st year EE knowledge. And still
no way around this fact: the protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - and connection to that ground. The all so
standard 'less than 10 foot' connection.

 

[Galen]

In w_tom <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

A UPS adjacent to that ten foot earth ground rod would
provide effective protection. Building wide UPSes typically
includes the 'whole house' protector. Protection not found
inside plug-in protectors. Somehow, these plug-in
manufacturers want you to believe that $100 item does what a
$5000 item does.

<snip>

Two things combined from all sorts of posts...

UNPLUGGING the PC from the wall in it's entirety WILL protect the PC from
damage should there be a spike. No if's and's or but's about it except in a
few rare exceptions... I may be mis-reading but I think it was you (the
person I'm replying to) who said that this is not the case. I'm probably
mis-reading something so don't take this personal please I just want to
clarify some few things and put them in basic English for all to understand.
Should the device be completely disconnected a strike from lightning will
not harm it (assuming this includes phone line disconnection) unless it
burns the house down or there's something called "ball lightning" which
should happen to pass through it directly. (It may very well do so as it's
going to "see" the held current in the monitor for instance and go to it as
it's the least resistance.)

*I double checked*

Comparing this:

"Ham radio operators would disconnect the antenna and suffer
damage. They would disconnect the antenna, put the lead
inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. Then they
connected the antenna to an earth ground. Not just any
ground. Earth ground. No more damage. Disconnection is not
an effective solution."

I'm sorry but a PC hasn't got an antenna running into a dedicated room via
wires that would carry electricity into the room. Well, not true... I
suppose should this be one of the rare WiFi Broadband solutions (not popular
yet) or a satellite connection there's some risk but both are surely
grounded according to code in every state that I'm aware of. Comparing the
technology of the 60's and 70's to today is hardly going to equate properly.
Bear with me here and don't for one minute think that I'm disagreeing with
you.... I'm saying that the odds are so slim that it's a simple step that
they, the OP, can and should take to add an additional layer of security...
Beyond that, if there's ball lightning tooling through their office then the
PC is the last of their concerns...

The OP, in this question, is 99.9% likely to not be in this situation. If
they were in this situation there's still some slim chance that you're 100%
correct in that lightning could follow said lines and then after reaching
the end of direct conductivity arc to the nearest device with stored
electricity. Even still, in today's world, disconnection of the devices
should in a million to one chance work properly considering that the
lightning *SHOULD* follow the laws (danged non-law obeying lightning) and
take the path of least resistance and head straight for the ground which
should, in all cases, be Earth ground to a properly seated copper rod. (I've
heard advocation for various alloys that conduct better than copper and once
read a white paper on such but copper will, for all intents and purposes,
give as much protection as anyone is going to need in anything but a
non-fault situation in which much stricter methods should be used.)

Now to carry on... In one of my posts I mentioned having had to have my
whole house protected. I have MOSTLY passive solar with a half dozen panels
to provide electricity and a home designed to gain the benefits from the Sun
for heat and electricity. Living in the extreme environment that I do
requires this for the most part as the Sun, believe it or not, is much more
reliable during the Winter than the electricity provided by the power
company. People do expect their $100 dollar devices to act as mine. I'm
sorry but w_tom is completely correct. It cost me nearly $11,000 total to
create a stable power system here and most of that was equipment. The
electrician who installed it did it as much for free as he could (beer and
food plus his normal hourly wage divided by what ever seemed good at the
moment) to add an additional panel and a very large box that does stuff
that, to be honest, I have no idea what it does. I know it's big... I know
it tells me my current voltage in from BOTH the batteries and from the power
lines. It tells me which one I'm using at that specific point in time if I
can remember the buttons to press. It tells me how much it's corrected
itself by. It has a SCSI port on it so I'm told I can actually hook it to a
number of devices. Even with this device I use a UPS... I'm JUST a
home-user... If it was mission critical my sytem would be laughed at.
(Err... Actually? I don't truly know about that... It might be ALMOST
acceptable as I've a minimal of 72 additional hours from a generator that
kicks on when the wattage from both devices meets a certain level OR, if on
battery AND the telco power's out, will kick on at 50% if the house is
drawing who knows how much... I really need to read manuals...)

I'm sorry but w_tom's correct. You CAN'T get that for $100... You can't get
it for $50 at Wal-Mart... It doesn't work that way... Are MOST user's
adequately protected for the 99 percentile? Yes... If they follow a few
basic steps... Don't shirk on power supplies and the like... Get 'em with
an insurance policy... No matter what though you can't be 100% certain even
with ground fault interupters, UPS, $200 surge protection, and sacrificing a
dead chicken while burning black candles. The options is ONLY to learn the
choices, decide how much protection you want, know that you'll NEVER be 100%
certain, find your budget, and design accordingly.

Remember... Get 'em with an insurance policy, keep the warranty, read it and
register it if it's required to use said warranty. That's the only way to
get even close to 100%...

<climbs off soapbox>

Galen

 

[w_tom]

The effective protector never tries to absorb or block
destructive transients. After all, do you really believe 1"
devices inside a power strip or UPS will stop what miles of
sky could not? Unfortunately, that is plug-in protectors must
do to protect. Reality - they don't even claim to do that.
They just forget to discuss that typically destructive type of
transient.

Any effective protection connected to the power cord is
already inside that appliance. Lets take the computer as an
example. It must even withstand transients generated by a UPS
in battery backup mode. This UPS outputs a modified 120V
sine wave. That is two 200 volt very square waves with up to
a 270 volt spike between those square waves. This output may
be destructive to some small motors. But to an electronic
appliance such as computers? Well below what such electronic
appliances must withstand. Electronic appliances already have
internal protection that can withstand transients even from a
plug-in UPS in battery backup mode.

BTW, this dirty UPS output is why they are called computer
grade UPSes. They output dirtier power because electronics
are so much more resilient.

Anything that would be effective in a power strip or UPS
plug-in protector is already inside that power supply. Why
are those power strips and joules so pathetically low? They
are selling an image; not effective protection. Why properly
sized the protector when myths will credit with protection
that does not exist?

But again, that internal appliance protection assumes you
have earthed the destructive transient before it can enter the
building and overwhelm internal appliance protection.
Therefore we spend about $1 per protected appliance on the
'whole house' protector; instead of upwards of $100 for
ineffective plug-in devices.

Again, notice who provides numbers. Numbers mean the facts
can be taken elsewhere to be verified. I make this challenge
often. If that UPS claims to provide such protection, then
post the numbers. I am still waiting for anyone here to even
post joules or any other manufacturer specs. Of course those
manufacturer specifications will describe protection for each
type of transient. Oh-h-h? They only claim to protect from
one type of transient? The type that typically is not
destructive? But go ahead. Cite those UPS specs that claim
this protection. Show me.

Destructive transients are rare event. For lightning,
typically once every eight years (and varies based upon
geology, region, etc). We install effective protection from
lightning and other external transients because they do the
destruction AND because protection for every appliance is so
inexpensive - about $1 per protected appliance.

Effective 'whole house' protectors come with responsible
brand names such as Square D, Leviton, Furse, Intermatic,
Polyphaser, Cutler Hammer, Erico, GE, and Siemens.
Ineffective protector hyped on myth include names such as APC,
Tripplite, Panamax, and Monster Cable. Notice the later
examples avoid all discussion about earthing. Notice the
latter group sells protectors that have too few joules -
undersized. Notice that the effective protectors make the
short (less than 10 foot) connection to earth ground. They
are more effective and cost tens of times less money per
protected appliance.

However show me. Post those joules numbers and manufacturer
specs for each type of transient. Then try to explain why
those plug-in protectors (that don't even claim to provide
that protection) cost so much money. I wish I had their
profit margins.

The one component essential to every protection system -
single point earth ground. The protector is only as effective
as its earthing. Notice which protectors will not even
discuss earthing.

 

[w_tom]

A PC typically does connect to the equivalent of antennas.
Wires atop utility poles connect directly to your PC just like
a radio antenna. Same is also true of buried power lines.
Protection of the PC is same as protection of those Ham's
equipment.

Yes if one disconnects everytime and all wires, then
increased protection is obtained. But you tell me how many
hours a day a human is available to do that. 8? Maybe less.
That assumes disconnecting repeatedly from a receptacle rated
for a limited number of connection cycling. That assumes the
human using the machine will know something is coming that
second and pull the plug - no Windows shutdown. Or your could
spend about $1 per appliance to make disconnecting
unnecessary.

The point is that with proper earthing and the 'whole house'
protector, then all that disconnecting is made completely
irrelevant. How did those Hams stop suffering damage? They
earthed. What does the 'whole house' protector provide for
you computer and smoke detector, and furnace? Earthing
without human intervention. Protection that is not dependent

 

[DevilsPGD]

(Reflowed for readability)

The effective protector never tries to absorb or block
destructive transients. After all, do you really believe 1"
devices inside a power strip or UPS will stop what miles of
sky could not? Unfortunately, that is plug-in protectors must
do to protect. Reality - they don't even claim to do that.
They just forget to discuss that typically destructive type of
transient.

Correct -- Funny, that's just what I said, they're not an effective
solution in the face of a destructive transient.

However, nor does an earth ground pretend to compensate during a
brownout -- I checked, they completely forgot to mention that an earth
ground doesn't provide brown-out support.

If I spill a cup of water on a $20 power bar, or into a device connected
to that power bar it's short protection will kill the power well before
the house's breaker will do the job.

Again, notice who provides numbers. Numbers mean the facts
can be taken elsewhere to be verified. I make this challenge
often. If that UPS claims to provide such protection, then
post the numbers. I am still waiting for anyone here to even
post joules or any other manufacturer specs. Of course those
manufacturer specifications will describe protection for each
type of transient. Oh-h-h? They only claim to protect from
one type of transient? The type that typically is not
destructive? But go ahead. Cite those UPS specs that claim
this protection. Show me.

You've just hit the nail on the head -- They don't publish the stats
because they don't claim to protect against that threat.

My UPSes don't claim protection against a lighting strike style of
transient. As a result there are no numbers to post.

However, show me one "whole house" protector which mentions it's VA
rating, or any stats showing the length of time a whole house protector
will supply a 120V stepped square wave when being fed a 75V sinewave.

Different devices, different design goals and different purposes -- They
function together, with a whole house protector handling destructive
spikes, and a UPS handling brown outs, blackouts, and smaller spikes.

 

[Al Dykes]

The effective protector never tries to absorb or block
destructive transients.

Wrong.

A surge protector, at the very minimum, has 3 MOV chips, one across
each leg part (hot, neutral, ground). These chips are rated as to the
total lifetime energy they can absorbe, measured in joules. That's
one close strike or lots of little surges.

A surge protector will have an indicator lamp that informs you when
the MOV chip is used up.

http://www.arcelect.com/lightnin.htm

The next step up in quality surge protection has a couple big
inductors to attentate the pulse.

None of this will stop anything like a driect hit.

Lightning is one of 100 ways your computer can die. Backup backup backup.

 

[Leythos]

That UPS has all but no earth ground. It did not provide
the protection you speculated. But then the telco provided 'whole
house' protector - that would have provided the protection. Why?
Fundamental fact: the protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. 120 ohms impedance? That protector had all but no earth
ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. Numbers
provided above demonstrate that fact.

Like it or not, my house has an earth ground just outside the main breaker
panel, it's that nice copper rod driven into the ground and then connected
to the nice earth ground bus in the panel - that means anything connected
to the third prong in the properly wired outlets has a connection to Earth
ground.

Now, you assert that my house is not meeting 1990 standards, and it may
well not meet them according to the NEC, but, as my REAL EXPERIENCE
indicates that the UPS's connected to my servers and workstations (and
other electronics) have save them from damage when those around me that
are not using them have damaged devices, how are you going to explain that?

This above is the part you should be addressing - while you claim that
they have no benefit, it appears, to many people, in the real world, that
they do. In my case, I have direct, first hand, experience that proves to
me that you are wrong when it comes to your incessant ranting about UPS's
not being able to protect devices.

Please explain how my USP's have NOT protected my devices yet they remain
undamaged while devices around me that don't have UPS's are damaged.

 

[Galen]

In w_tom <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

A PC typically does connect to the equivalent of antennas.
Wires atop utility poles connect directly to your PC just like
a radio antenna. Same is also true of buried power lines.
Protection of the PC is same as protection of those Ham's
equipment.

Yes if one disconnects everytime and all wires, then
increased protection is obtained. But you tell me how many
hours a day a human is available to do that. 8? Maybe less.
That assumes disconnecting repeatedly from a receptacle rated
for a limited number of connection cycling. That assumes the
human using the machine will know something is coming that
second and pull the plug - no Windows shutdown. Or your could
spend about $1 per appliance to make disconnecting
unnecessary.

The point is that with proper earthing and the 'whole house'
protector, then all that disconnecting is made completely
irrelevant. How did those Hams stop suffering damage? They
earthed. What does the 'whole house' protector provide for
you computer and smoke detector, and furnace? Earthing
without human intervention. Protection that is not dependent
on a human is clearly more reliable.

Again I'm not disagreeing with the majority of what you said in it's
entirety. My contention is that disconnection is as good a protection as any
other (and actually better than the cheap department store solutions) though
as you implied a rather ludicrous method. Will it work? Yeah if they want to
unplug the modem, the monitor, the box, the printer, etc... It will afford
them the five nine percentile score when human error doesn't interfere. The
human error comes into play at the point when we think about how often they
will forget to unplug the equipment. The OP asked, clearly, about when they
left the office... (This strikes me as ironic because, to be frank, I'd be
far more concerned about the times when they were IN the office but, hey,
that's just me.)

My contention was that HAM radio couldn't really be compared because the
antenna used had a direct wire to the receiver which was often the shortest
path. Electrical devices at the end of this path were, well, for lack of
better terminology, toast... However, had the operators gone out to the
antenna and disconnected it out there (yes, the ground's a far better
solution that's not even worth debating) they'd have been able to keep their
equipment in the 5 nine percentile for lightning strike protection. You
stated that disconnection is not an effective solution and well, truthfully,
it is but it's one of the most absurd solutions on the planet.

Mission critical, places where human safety is concerned, or places where
data and data access are an important part of business require a better
solution that relying on a human to unplug the devices when they leave the
building. Lightning is limited only by the few laws of physics and isn't
subjected to the business hours and can, and probably will, strike during
business hours. Unplugging the devices when they leave the building will
prove an effective solution though it's an entirely silly idea.

You made another excellent point in one of your posts in that the devices
that are available for most people simply can't stop lightning and nothing
that's reputable will even try to stop it but rather to HOPEFULLY divert it
to ground.

It seems that most of us are saying a few things over and over and arguing
semantics more than anything else. Heck, I only posted as I was aware that
this was a subject that I'd kept an interest in and wanted to make a single
point. No one solution is viable. Truly a combination of devices (without
shirking on price) is required or at least recommended by me. Even with my
house system is use a UPS system and individual surge protection units. I've
always had the better safe than sorry mentality.

Galen

 

[w_tom]

Yes, the antenna directly connected to HAM equipment is a
shortest path. But destructive transients will take any
shorter path; not just a shortest path. Transients are
current sources. IOW voltage will rise as necessary to
maintain current on a path to earth. That means the overhead
electrical wires (if not earthed before they get to a
computer) will still carry the trasnsient current on that
longer path.

Disconnecting works if the electronics are removed from that
path. Facilities that require even better protection make
sure sneak paths are also protected; also earthed. This radio
station demonstrated the concept by making the concrete floor
a large single point earth ground (and making that concrete
floor an ufer ground). IOW the earth beneath the equipment
was made equipotential so that even sneak paths (that might
exist whether connected or disconnected) would be eliminated
(his point is about Ufer grounding, but he has also created an
equipotential ground so that the 'sneak' paths are also
eliminated):
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

Same concept is discussed in IEEE papers.

Yes, disconnecting is effective IF the human knows in
advance when the transient will occur AND disconnects
accordingly. Why? The transient will then find other 'sneak'
paths to earth. However a better solution is to provide the
transient with a dedicated path to earth - so that, for
example, the transient need not arc across wires to obtain
earth. If the transient is not earthed, it can create up to
6,000 inside the building and still finding paths to earth.
Best earth that transient before it enters the building -
appliances connected or disconnected.

One final point. Many appliances never can be
disconnected. Smoke detector. Furnace and air conditioner
controls. GFCIs that protect humans from electrical shocks.
Dimmer switches. Burglar alarm system. Just more reasons why
disconnecting will never be a fully effective solution.

As that scott-inc.com example demonstrates, the solution
to protection starts when the footing are poured.
Unfortunately we still don't build as if the transistor
exists. So we must apply kludge solutions. We drive ground
rods into earth when the foundation's footing would be a
better solution. We don't always route utilities into the
building at a common service entrance. Then, somehow, we will
plug in solutions after the fact that will solve problems? We
will run around disconnecting in hopes the destructive
transient will only occur while we are disconnected?

Better to earth the transient before it can enter the
building. Ground rod is not a superior earth ground. But it
is the best we got and it is effective. That means installing
the 'whole house' protector and making sure that earthing
connection is as electrically short as possible. Protection
that will be there even when the people are in the office
using their electronics.

Earth the antenna - in this case AC electric wires above the
street - before an transient can enter the building. BTW,
this is also why commercial radio and TV broadcasters operate
during all T-storms without interruption and damage. Human
should spend more time earthing and less time disconnecting
for protection.

 

[w_tom]

Your house is earth grounded adjacent to the circuit breaker
box. Does every incoming utility wire make a 'less than 10
foot' connection to that earth ground? Or is the AC neutral
wire only earthed. The former is required for appliance
protection. The latter - only one wire earthed - is what most
homeowners have, which is why they suffer electronic damage.

That earth ground rod means nothing about earthing the
third prong on a wall receptacle (see a response to Al Dykes
quoting Telebyte's Reference Manual). Meanwhile numbers
demonstrating why a wall receptacle is not earth ground were
posted previously. That 'earthed' receptacle ground prong
leaves UPS and adjacent appliances at up to 12,000 volts.
Why? Wire is too long. Too much impedance. Sharp bends and
slices in that wire. Ground wire bundled with other wires to
even created induced transients. So many reasons why a plug-in
protector has no effective earth ground.

With an earth ground rod adjacent to the AC electric box,
then your 1972 house may meet post 1990 standards. Every
incoming utility wire must connect to that ground rod. Two AC
electric wires bypass that earthing to distribute destructive
transients everywhere inside the building. Do you think a
plug-in UPS will stop or absorb it? Even the UPS manufacturer
does not make that claim as made obvious in those UPS specs
not yet provided?

Meantime, my real experience tempered by both fundamental
theory (ie wire impedance) and design experience says, first,
the appliance internal protection saved those appliances.
Second, the phone line 'whole house' protector - and not the
UPS - provided protection. Third, some appliances could have
acted as a surge protector to protect that UPS.

I have even traced damage through a network of computers
where two plug-in protectors simply connected a direct
lightning strike into the network via adjacent computers, and
eventually (and destructively) to earth ground via modem and
phone line. Two adjacent appliances - a TV and VCR. One was
damaged. The other was not. Understandable once we looked at
how both were connected to earth.

Without analysis at the electronic component level, one
cannot say how something was damaged or why something was not
damaged. Others will even read a tabloid newspaper, see a
trend, and also know exactly what happened. Instead, the
devil is in the electronic details. Analysis as to why damage
does and does not happen must be that detailed. One cannot
just know from a list of what was damaged. Even in that
network, adjacent protectors at one computer caused modem
damage on another (networked) computer in another room.

Your experience means nothing without both fundamental
theory (which you disparage) and without knowledge at the
electronic component level (IC, inductor, resistor, etc).
Instead you just know because this was damaged and that was
not? Invalid reasoning made even worse numbers are ignored.
You ignore wire impedance; instead posting in terms of wire
resistance. This is exactly what a plug-in protector
manufacturer hopes the naive will do to promote their
undersized and overpriced product.

But show me. Where is that manufacturer spec that claims a
UPS protected anything? Where are the joules ratings for that
product? Where are any numbers that support your
speculations? Experience without basic electrical knowledge -
without the underlying theory - makes one his own worse enemy.

At best, you have first hand speculation. Protection exists
inside appliances. You did not even know about the protector
installed free by the telco. Somehow a wall receptacle
connected by 120 ohms wire impedance is still earthed? Using
your speculation, a UPS connected to the motherboard ground
would also be earthed. But then if the motherboard is already
earthed, why do we need a UPS for protection?

First, all appliances have internal protection. Some
devices have better protection than others. Plug-in
protectors profit on this. They put a grossly undersized
protector next to your appliance. A transient too small to
overwhelm internal appliance protection, instead, destroys the
grossly undersized protector. Then the famous proclamation.
"My protector sacrificed itself to protect the electronics".
Wrong. The protector did nothing. Why was the appliance
protected? Again, all appliances already have internal
protection. A transient too small to damage the appliance did
destroy the grossly undersized protector.

Second, some appliances make a better connection to earth
than others. Even the adjacent TV and VCR. Only the VCR was
damaged because it made a better earthing connection.
Transient found earth, destructively, via the VCR.

Why were those networked computers damaged while on power
strip protectors? A shorter path to earth ground was from
protector, through adjacent computer and eventually to earth
via phone line 'whole house' protector. Why was the TV not
damaged that had no plug-in protector? Define the destructive
paths to earth?

Third, it gets even more interesting. One house at the end
of a cul-de-sac had far more damage. Why? It was closer to a
buried long distance pipeline - geological differences. Some
buildings suffer more damage because they are connected to a
last transformer on the street. Again, why are some things
damaged and others intact? First, at the electronics and
geological levels, what are the preferred paths to earth
ground for a destructive transient? Without those specific
details, then one can only wildly speculate.

Fourth, look at manufacturer's specs for that UPS. It does
not even claim to provide protection. To work at the
appliance, a plug-in protector must stop, block, or absorb
transients. Why does the telephone switching computer work
through every thunderstorm and suffer no damage? Effective
protection means properly earthed 'whole house' type
protectors be located 50 meters (150 feet) away from
electronics. Then protection inside that switching computer
will not be overwhelmed.

I cannot say specifically what did or did not cause damage
to each appliance. Insufficient detail is provided such as
where all connections to earth ground exist, length of wires,
sharp bends and splices in each wire, what wire is bundled
with other wires, what wire is draped on other conductors such
as baseboard heat, where each house is located geologically,
how the cable TV wire (not even connected to the computer)
enters the building, and other contributing factors such as
rebar mesh in the concrete floor of some houses. But we know
from both experiences and proven concepts even before WWII; a
plug-in protector is not effective. Residential protection
begins with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to the same
(single point) earth ground - for every incoming utility.

How are your neighbor's utilities earthed? To the same
earth ground rod? Do utilities enter at different sides of
the building? The number of questions that need be answered
are hundreds before we can even begin to speculate why things
are and are not damaged.

What does a transient do when it gets to a UPS not in
battery backup mode? Goes right through the UPS. A UPS not
in battery backup mode connects computer directly to AC
mains. Where then is the protection? And again, where are
manufacturer's specs that define that protection for each type
of transient? Where are the joules number? More details
necessary to explain why some things are damaged whereas
others are not.

The analysis must include everything in a path from cloud to
earth, and then from that earthing point to electrical charges
some miles distant. That's right. In what direction did this
earthed transient leave the building?

 

[w_tom]

How many joules did Al say were in those power strips? How
big is that inductor that will stop what three miles of sky
could not?

Let's see how good those plug-in protectors are. Notice the
active components - MOVs - were even removed. The light says
that plug-in protector is still working even after the MOVs
were removed. What kind of protection is that?
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

How do these protectors fail when Al Dykes says they are so
effective?

Al selectively quote a Primer from Telebyte (arcelect.com
). But he did not appreciate nor comprehend a so critical
statement:

As previously mentioned, the connection to earth ground can
not be over emphasized.

So we look at a Telebyte product: Model 22NX. It says:

An additional screw terminal is provided to make the connection
to earth ground. This wire should be at least #12 gauge or
larger and be as short as possible.

From their model 22PX:

The Model 22PX should be installed close to the earth ground.

That dedicated earth ground: something that ineffective
plug-in protectors do not provide. Al selectively read a
Telebyte app note. He saw references to MOVs, GDTs, and
inductors. Then assumed he knew everything.

However even Telebyte tells Al that earthing is the most
critical aspect in protection. He did not read this from
Telebyte's Reference Manual 0315-0161 Rev. D:

2.2 Proper Earth Ground
Lightning protectors require a good earth ground for proper
protection of the equipment they are connected to. This is
accomplished by using a heavy-gage wire (AWG12 or heavier)
that connects the ground stud on the Protector to a
building ground. This wire should be no longer than ten feet.

What did I post repeatedly? A short earthing connection of
*less than 10 feet*. What does a plug-in protector not
provide? An earthing connection of *less than 10 feet*. Al,
selectively quoted before learning. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. Even Al's own citation does
not recommend plug-in protectors. Even Al's own citation does
not claim to absorb or block destructive transients. Al
forgot to read everything before he just knew everything.

Explain how those power strip protectors cited in
Zerosurge.com provided any effective protection. Explain how
well they stopped or absorbed destrutive transients. Explain
why the indicator light says the protector is good even when
MOVs are completely removed. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. Even Al Dykes' Telebyte
citation says same.

 

[w_tom]

Power conditioning involves numerous problems: blackouts,
brownouts, harmonics, noise, and surges. The plug-in UPS is
for blackout and extreme brownout protection - for data
protection. For example, AC voltage can drop so low that
incandescent lights would be at 40% intensity. Still the
computer must work just fine. But should the brownout become
even more extreme, then the UPS kicks into battery backup
mode. This is another form of "power conditioning" not
addressed by any surge protector.

A building wide UPS located elsewhere would address other
power conditioning problems.

Harmonics are another problem which will not be discussed
here. But harmonics are another power conditioning problem
not solved by plug-in protectors. Each type power problem has
different solution often positioned at different locations.

 

[Leythos]

At best, you have first hand speculation. Protection exists
inside appliances. You did not even know about the protector installed
free by the telco. Somehow a wall receptacle connected by 120 ohms wire
impedance is still earthed? Using your speculation, a UPS connected to
the motherboard ground would also be earthed. But then if the
motherboard is already earthed, why do we need a UPS for protection?

I listened to your incessant rantings in another group about this same
subject and found that you can't understand anything except your own
rantings.

Since I have experience that indicates a quality UPS will save devices
protected by it, while at the exact same time devices not protected by a
UPS are damaged, I don't see any way to dispute it. I've seen many
instances, first hand, where a device connected to an outlet, using a 3
wire cord, is damaged, but, the USP connected to the same outlet, had not
damage to the devices protected by it.

Here's and example. I co-worker has their computer/monitor/printer
connected to the UPS and it's connected to outlet A1. The same outlet
connects (A2) connects to a radio. During a storm, where we could see a
strike near our building, the radio was damaged, but the USP protected
devices remained undamaged. I could list about 20 other instances over the
years where I've seen this.

Now, I suppose your going to discount my experiences again, as they don't
make your assertions exactly perfect in the real work. I'm not knocking a
properly protected home/business, I'm stating, in my personal experience,
that your statements that a UPS does not protect devices is, well, if you
excuse the expression, full of horse-pucky.

So, explain how devices that are on the same circuit, those connected to a
UPS are undamaged and those not connected to the UPS are damaged (same
wire/outlet - top/bottom sockets).

 

[Richard Urban]

Instead of provoking arguments (which you are very good at), why don't you
come here to "instruct. Now, if you did this in a clear and concise way,
maybe people could learn from you. The way you sound now is like you are
about to have a nervous breakdown because people don't agree with you. Well
buddy, that's life. You can't always be "King of the Hill".

Your sentences are clipped, words appear dropped, punctuation is abysmal and
your sentence structure sucks!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[w_tom]

What do I repeatedly post? That 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground. Al Dykes quoted Telebyte without
first learning what Telebyte also demands. Telebyte also
recommends that 'less than 10 foot' connection.

So you tell me where that 'less than 10 foot' connection
exists on your plug-in UPS? No dedicated connection to earth
ground defines an ineffective protector. The protector that
you did not even know about probably provided protection that
you 'just know' was provided by a UPS. A UPS located too far
from earth ground and that did not even claim to provide that
protection. But somehow you know the UPS must have provided
the protection.

I discount anyone who claims to have an EE degree and then
does not even know the difference between resistance and
impedance. Concepts taught in the very first year - and yet
you did not even know the difference. No wonder you insist one
need not understand the underlying concepts. You don't even
have basic EE training. Why should anyone believe he who
cannot even provide the manufacturer's specs for that UPS?
How am I to believe someone who does not even know the UPS's
joules rating? How am I to believe one who just knows - and
cannot even provide one useful number. How am I to believe
someone who knows his UPS did what even the manufacturer does
not claim?

No, Leythos, I do not expect to use science and numbers to
change your opinions. You were brain washed by the
propaganda. Number mean nothing to you. You claimed to be an
EE and yet don't even have basic EE knowledge - confusing
resistance with impedance. Demonstrated to the lurker is
where plug-in protector recommendations come from. Urban
myths promoted using junk science reasoning. You only need
'feel' that UPS provided protection that a telco protector
(that you did not even know existed) provided. You never once
cite a single number with your repeated personal attacks. You
even avoid the request for that APC UPS specification.
Instead you respond with insults.

Posted were circuit descriptions for how different
appliances were and were not damaged. I simply asked for
further details to better explain your damage. You never even
post numbers let alone a single detail. To prove your
knowledge, you reply with insults. You demonstrate the kind
of people who recommend ineffective plug-in protectors. You
even lied about having an EE education. That explains why
those manufacturer specs (or any other engineering number) are
not provided.

No, this is not to convince you of anything. Your replies
are to demonstrate to lurkers why ineffective, undersized, and
grossly overpriced protector are promoted. You even lied
about having an EE degree.

 

[w_tom]

My very first posting discussed the history of protection
and what was learned including the discoveries of Franklin,
concepts discussed in 1930s research papers, and a list of
industry standard protector manufacturers. The immediate
reply was:

You can spout theory all you want, spout document after
document, but you can't disprove real-life experiences ...

The word 'spout' was used intentionaly to insult because the
poster was recommending without technical knowledge. The
poster later even tried to claim an EE degree. But he did not
even know the difference between resistance and impedance.

This thread demonstrates how the technically naive will
promote a simple observation as if proven fact, and will lie
as necessary to deny their mistakes and ignorance. Another
even selectively read a paper from Telebyte; completely
ignoring what that company insists is essential for
protection: a 10 foot connection to earth ground.

For those interested in effective protectors, a list of
responsible manufacturers was provide in that first post to
Susan some three days ago. For those interested in learning
why protectors are effective and how to better install them,
well, that was discussed in civil tones elsewhere. A long
list of manufacturer app notes, industry professional
experiences, utility recommendations, NIST figure, and other
underlying concepts (probably a full days worth of reading)
was posted in reply to H. W. Stockman in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS
unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

Provided earlier in this thread were sources for effective
'whole house' protectors - Home Depot and Lowes. Those are
protectors. One must also install or upgrade protection - the
single point earth ground. A most important point made here
(and denied by others) is one essential component in every
protection 'system' - the single point earth ground. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground which will
be made obvious by so many technical URLs in that H. W.
Stockman reply.

I did not start posting insults. I posted numbers,
citations, concepts, personal experiences with my own designs,
and the myths about plug-in protectors. Other use insults
(without any numbers) to deny. But again, this thread is not
about effective protection. That information is provided
elsewhere. This thread is about how junk scientists will even
insult to promote their myths. For facts, please visit that
30 Mar discussion.

 

[Galen]

In w_tom <[email protected]> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Yes, the antenna directly connected to HAM equipment is a
shortest path. But destructive transients will take any
shorter path; not just a shortest path. Transients are
current sources. IOW voltage will rise as necessary to
maintain current on a path to earth. That means the overhead
electrical wires (if not earthed before they get to a
computer) will still carry the trasnsient current on that
longer path.

<snipped the good stuff>

Thanks for the excellent 'oration' on this subject. You mention the ability
to use the foundation as a ground. I'm due to build an addition, this will
have deep footers though will actually rest on a pad. I'm atop a mountain
near the canadian boarder in the North East so the footers must go deep.
Could this be then used as my grounding? Would such provide adequate
protection for the ENTIRE residence after? I'd obviously consult a local
professional for this but a bit of knowledge before hand can't hurt. The
expense isn't really important as I can certainly justify any additional
expenses for this as the room's to be a dedicated computer room beyond what
I already term my lab (which is technically really just the basement though
nice and large.)

Galen

 

[Leythos]

This thread demonstrates how the technically naive will
promote a simple observation as if proven fact, and will lie as
necessary to deny their mistakes and ignorance. Another even
selectively read a paper from Telebyte; completely ignoring what that
company insists is essential for protection: a 10 foot connection to
earth ground.

That was me you're talking about, and you've still not proven how I am
wrong, in fact, you've only diverted from answering from it, which seems
to make you a troll.

Do you really search google, or other Usenet interface, looking for talks
about static just to interject your drivel?

 

[Leythos]

No, Leythos, I do not expect to use science and numbers to
change your opinions. You were brain washed by the propaganda. Number
mean nothing to you.

Wrong, numbers mean everything to me, and nothing apparently to you. You
appear to have fixated on technical data without regard to real-world
data. I related several experiences to you, based on my personal
experiences, not third party ones, where the devices were connected to the
SAME ELECTRICAL OUTLET and the ones on the UPS were undamaged while the
ones not on the UPS were damaged. You continue to dismiss that number/fact.

 

[Rick]

I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.

One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never unplugged
her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector and
left everything plugged in.

Please give your opinion.

Thanks,
Susan

Unplugging is the safest option. even that may not work if the
lightening hit is closest enough. Simply the static charge is enough to
damage some components.

rick