Should I buy a new motherboard if lightning hit my computer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter needin4mation
  • Start date Start date
Ed said:
It was probably only a couple of seconds before I saw the strike after the
pre-charge stuff was going on. Time enough for my dog to bark.....:-). It
seemed longer, but that is not unusual when something like this happens.

A couple of seconds is probably long enough a time span to have truly been
before the actual strike (vs being a perceptual illusion).
The
amazing thing about it all is that all my home theater equipment and
computers survived without any problems. I guess the breaker box demolition
helped there.

Would seem so. That and they tripped before the strike, then acted like
spark gap suppressers, so that devices in the house had just a ground
reference rather than ground and 'something else' across them.
Living here on the high plateau of the Ozarks, we are used to
a lot of bad storms but this strike was, well, just different. I have lost
trees before, but they were usually split at the trunk or topped out by the
lightning and not exploded out of the ground.......:-)

Yeah. Exploded out of the ground pretty is impressive even for a lightning
strike.
 
I talked to my electrician. I think some of the info in this thread is
inaccurate because it suggests that proper grounding will always be enough
to carry off the lightning. He said in order to handle a direct strike or
near direct strike, one would need a grounding rod or lightning rod the size
of your wrist, made of copper and the wire would need to be the same size,
feeding into a large field of some type (forgot his exact wording).

My house meets the national electric code but the NEC is not good enough to
handle direct strikes.

-g
 
Your electrician knows what is necessary per NEC - a
document about human safety. Yes, enhance grounds would be
helpful - as I believe I stated earlier. However ground wires
one wrist thick would accomplish nothing.

Inspect the ground that your AC utility installs for safety
and lightning protection of their transformers:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Why is that ground wire not so massive? Because it need not
be large as your electrician has only speculated.

Yes, enlarging the earthing system means improved
protection. After all, the protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. But enlarging does not mean larger wires
and a thicker ground rod. If we constructed buildings for
fully enhanced transistor protection, then Ufer grounds would
be standard on all new buildings. No massive wires and ground
rods as he has speculated. Not even a major expense. Earthing
is enhanced using a concept called equipotential - that an
electrician would probably not understand. Equipotential is
understood by RF engineers and high voltage transmission tower
engineers:
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

Unfortunately you must deal with the hand as dealt by the
builder. That means a major improvement in protection by
installing or enhancing the single point earth ground of 10
foot ground rods. Either you have no earthing and zero
protection. OR you install a set of earth ground rods to
provide protection for over 90% of all direct strikes. And
then we enhance significantly for the last less than 10%
improvement.

Most direct strikes are not a high energy transient that
your electrician apparently believes. For example, how many
trees struck by lightning are destroyed? Something like well
over 95% of all trees directly struck by lightning have no
appreciable indication. Most all lightning is earthed by one
ground rod. Does he think that ground rod will explode in the
earth? Obviously not. Most all lightning is quite easily
earth with no damage - even to a directly struck tree.

BTW, some see a rare exception and then assume that damage
is normal for all direct lightning strikes.

Review the earthing wire provided on a 'whole house'
protector. Using assumptions from your electrician, then that
wire would be a cable too large for the breaker box. Notice
the protector wire for 50,000 amp direct strike is not any
larger than AC electric wire used throughout the house.
Notice how many examples demonstrate that your electrician is
wrong. And yet I am still not finished.

Your earthing system is the secondary protection system.
Lightning gets earthed by more than just your ground rod.
That primary protection requires your inspection:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

If your earth is conductive, then a single earth ground rod
is more than sufficient for most direct strikes. Many don't
find that sufficient because they want protection even from
the rarely observed type of strike. For example these Ham
radio operators and industry professionals discuss the topic:
http://www.eham.net/articles/6848?ehamsid=61915ecd56a94ff1e861e080ac23c416

"Think of NEC and other codes as a MINIMUM requirement.
There is NO conflict between electrical codes and good RF
grounding!" Also notice that grounding of towers for direct
strikes is but an earth ground rod. Is that what your earthing
is? Not one defines wires and ground rods the size of a wrist
- because you electrician is educated in a code written only
for human safety. Notice how often the ground wire is only 6
AWG - again directly contradicting your electrician.

Post 1990 NEC grounding is the absolute minimum. Many
enhance that. Not by bigger wires. By how the ground is
installed such as this example of a partial halo ground:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

To better understand the concept, then read legendary
application notes from Polyphaser - an industry benchmark:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx

If still not enough, then try one day's worth of reading in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS
unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

Meanwhile, did the electrician understand something so
important such as no sharp bends in the earthing wire, no
splices, wire as short as possible, not routed adjacent to
any other non-earthing wire, and all wires run separately
until they all meet at the single point ground? Too often
electricians want to make things look neat. They ty-wrap
wires together in neat bundles with nice square bends. They
route a breaker box ground wire up over the foundation then
down to the ground rod - a big mistake. Mistakes that
undermine lightning protection. Installation techniques also
not taught in the NEC. Techniques that your electrician must
know AND 'must know why' if he is knowledgeable about earthing
for lightning protection.

Does your electrician understand the difference between wire
resistance and wire impedance? If not, then he does not even
understand a basic concept in lightning grounds. A concept
that explains why the wire cannot have sharp bends. Many
hours of reading to grasp this topic. But electricians are
too often a poor source on transistor safety. They are
educated, instead, in human safety. Transistor safety
required significant additional knowledge. Sometimes an
electrician will only speculate - due to no engineering
education - such as a ground wire as large as a wrist.
 
But enlarging does not mean larger wires
and a thicker ground rod.

I am in the Raleigh, NC area and the study was done at NC State University.
To effectively carry off a direct lightning strike (the ones they studied),
they had to use a copper rod, wrist thick, and wiring, and a large earthing
area to absorb it. My electrician told me they also did the same thing with
smaller rods and wiring and with galvinized rods (which are used
commercially, I thought he said) and they failed to divert the lightning
very well.

-g
 
I need this study. What is the title and source of that NC
State study? Who is its author? What date? Where was it
published?

Meanwhile, electricians are an unreliable source of
information on this subject. For example, define 'failed' - a
subjective term used to promoted propaganda. This is why we
demand numbers. Ask your electrician about impedance - an
important number. Many have not a clue what impedance is.
Impedance is irrelevant to human safety - but is important for
transistor safety. Exactly why we want the source and the
numbers. Hearsay not acceptable. If you have a NC State
study, then I need to read it.

Meanwhile, if you need that super duper extra special
grounding (that the cited professionals and amateur radio
people with experience did not need even in central FL), then
install it. No one and no rule is stopping you. Its
inexpensive. But you are in NC where geology more determines
the effectiveness of a lightning protection system. Did the
electrician identify your soil as good or bad for earthing?
Point remains - protection is only as effective as its earth
ground - involving principles that most electricians don't
learn because they are only concerned with human safety.

Protection is defined and provided by the earth ground.
Plug-in protectors can even provide a transient with
additional destructive paths through the adjacent appliance
because they don't have the less than 10 foot earthing
connection. Protection is not found in plug-in protectors.
Protection is single point earth ground. Protection is not
found in that plug-in UPS. The UPS neither provides nor
claims effective protection because, well, where is its
dedicated connection to earth? Earthing connection does not
exist and manufacturer hopes you never ask. No earth ground
means that UPS provides no effective protection. Everything
to enhance the earthing system means improved protection.

Where is that study found?
 
w_tom said:
Your electrician knows what is necessary per NEC - a
document about human safety. Yes, enhance grounds would be
helpful - as I believe I stated earlier. However ground wires
one wrist thick would accomplish nothing.

Oh really? Please, do explain why a large conductor 'accomplishes nothing'
vs a small conductor. Use "numbers."

Inspect the ground that your AC utility installs for safety
and lightning protection of their transformers:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Why is that ground wire not so massive?

Because it isn't intended to handle the total power of a direct strike and
its connected to multiple others through lovely power line conductors.
Because it need not
be large as your electrician has only speculated.

That's because the question posed was what would it take to fully handle
direct strikes.
Yes, enlarging the earthing system means improved
protection. After all, the protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. But enlarging does not mean larger wires
and a thicker ground rod. If we constructed buildings for
fully enhanced transistor protection, then Ufer grounds would
be standard on all new buildings. No massive wires and ground
rods as he has speculated. Not even a major expense. Earthing
is enhanced using a concept called equipotential - that an
electrician would probably not understand. Equipotential is
understood by RF engineers and high voltage transmission tower
engineers:
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

Unfortunately you must deal with the hand as dealt by the
builder. That means a major improvement in protection by
installing or enhancing the single point earth ground of 10
foot ground rods. Either you have no earthing and zero
protection. OR you install a set of earth ground rods to
provide protection for over 90% of all direct strikes. And
then we enhance significantly for the last less than 10%
improvement.

Most direct strikes are not a high energy transient that
your electrician apparently believes.

Yeah? And what "numbers" would that be?
For example, how many
trees struck by lightning are destroyed? Something like well
over 95% of all trees directly struck by lightning have no
appreciable indication. Most all lightning is earthed by one
ground rod. Does he think that ground rod will explode in the
earth? Obviously not. Most all lightning is quite easily
earth with no damage - even to a directly struck tree.

For someone who loves to trot out the "give me numbers" mantra every time
you feel like slandering people, which seems to be at least once per
paragraph, they are remarkably absent from your posts which rely, instead,
on nonsensical analogies.

One thing that tends to help protect trees is if they're wet as the
lightning will prefer the outer wet path to the higher resistance trunk.
And, in case you hadn't noticed, lightning is often accompanied by copious
amounts of rain.

So tell us, just how many megavolts at how many kiloamps does it take to
'destroy' a tree and how does whether the typical 100 megavolts, 30
kiloamperes, 500 megajoules negative lightning bolt 'destroys' a tree, or
not, relate to the survivability of a 3 volt breakdown, 100 picoamp die
MOSFET in a computer system? Or anything else, for that matter.
BTW, some see a rare exception and then assume that damage
is normal for all direct lightning strikes.

Review the earthing wire provided on a 'whole house'
protector. Using assumptions from your electrician, then that
wire would be a cable too large for the breaker box. Notice
the protector wire for 50,000 amp direct strike is not any
larger than AC electric wire used throughout the house.
Notice how many examples demonstrate that your electrician is
wrong.

And notice that the 'examples' are completely devoid of any useful numbers
beyond the 50,000 amps, such as at what pass through voltage? 'Only' a
thousand, or so? That would be 50,000 amps through only 20 milliohms total
earth impedance, including the surge protector impedance, and assuming an
instantaneous turn on.
And yet I am still not finished.

Your earthing system is the secondary protection system.
Lightning gets earthed by more than just your ground rod.

Right. Which is why the power pole protection generally survives and why
the 'whole house' protector generally survives and why pass through is
usually much less than with a direct strike. Primary protection dissipates
a significant amount and power line resistance limits the surge current
into the home protection system. Which, btw, is why internal local device
surge protectors don't need 50,000 amp capacity. The surge is further
limited by interior wiring resistance.

But then the question posed was what would handle direct strikes and not
what will handle a remote strike after first being dissipated into 'primary
protection' and then current limited by the power line resistance into the
home surge protection.
That primary protection requires your inspection:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

If your earth is conductive, then a single earth ground rod
is more than sufficient for most direct strikes.

"Sufficient" for WHAT? To keep the house from catching fire? Protecting
sensitive electronic equipment? And FROM what? The typical remote strike?

But the question posed was direct strikes.
Many don't
find that sufficient because they want protection even from
the rarely observed type of strike.

And if someone asked you what it took to handle direct lightning strikes
why in the world would you assume they don't care about the 10 times larger
300 kiloamperes average positive lightning strikes?
For example these Ham
radio operators and industry professionals discuss the topic:
http://www.eham.net/articles/6848?ehamsid=61915ecd56a94ff1e861e080ac23c416

"Think of NEC and other codes as a MINIMUM requirement.
There is NO conflict between electrical codes and good RF
grounding!" Also notice that grounding of towers for direct
strikes is but an earth ground rod. Is that what your earthing
is? Not one defines wires and ground rods the size of a wrist
- because you electrician is educated in a code written only
for human safety.

So the electrician is 'wrong' because he's only thinking about what would
keep humans 'safe'?
Notice how often the ground wire is only 6
AWG - again directly contradicting your electrician.

Notice they have a different problem than the typical house what with a
lovely 30 foot lightning rod, called an antenna, exponentially increasing
the odds of an honest to god direct strike, directly connected to their
transmitter/receiver and are talking about multiple grounds.

That's because there's not a rat's chance in hell any single protector,
'whole house' or not, is going to keep pass through low enough to protect
things so multiple staged protection is needed.
Post 1990 NEC grounding is the absolute minimum. Many
enhance that. Not by bigger wires. By how the ground is
installed such as this example of a partial halo ground:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

To better understand the concept, then read legendary
application notes from Polyphaser - an industry benchmark:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_ptd_home.aspx

If still not enough, then try one day's worth of reading in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS
unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" at:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

Meanwhile, did the electrician understand something so
important such as no sharp bends in the earthing wire, no
splices, wire as short as possible, not routed adjacent to
any other non-earthing wire, and all wires run separately
until they all meet at the single point ground? Too often
electricians want to make things look neat. They ty-wrap
wires together in neat bundles with nice square bends. They
route a breaker box ground wire up over the foundation then
down to the ground rod - a big mistake. Mistakes that
undermine lightning protection. Installation techniques also
not taught in the NEC. Techniques that your electrician must
know AND 'must know why' if he is knowledgeable about earthing
for lightning protection.

Does your electrician understand the difference between wire
resistance and wire impedance? If not, then he does not even
understand a basic concept in lightning grounds. A concept
that explains why the wire cannot have sharp bends. Many
hours of reading to grasp this topic. But electricians are
too often a poor source on transistor safety. They are
educated, instead, in human safety. Transistor safety
required significant additional knowledge. Sometimes an
electrician will only speculate - due to no engineering
education - such as a ground wire as large as a wrist.

Your slanderous babble hasn't illuminated one blessed thing and other than
"50,000 amps" there's not a single useful number relating to electronics or
protection in the entire mess.
 
w_tom said:
I need this study. What is the title and source of that NC
State study? Who is its author? What date? Where was it
published?

Meanwhile, electricians are an unreliable source of
information on this subject. For example, define 'failed' - a
subjective term used to promoted propaganda. This is why we
demand numbers. Ask your electrician about impedance - an
important number. Many have not a clue what impedance is.
Impedance is irrelevant to human safety - but is important for
transistor safety. Exactly why we want the source and the
numbers. Hearsay not acceptable. If you have a NC State
study, then I need to read it.

Meanwhile, if you need that super duper extra special
grounding (that the cited professionals and amateur radio
people with experience did not need even in central FL), then
install it. No one and no rule is stopping you. Its
inexpensive. But you are in NC where geology more determines
the effectiveness of a lightning protection system. Did the
electrician identify your soil as good or bad for earthing?
Point remains - protection is only as effective as its earth
ground - involving principles that most electricians don't
learn because they are only concerned with human safety.

Protection is defined and provided by the earth ground.
Plug-in protectors can even provide a transient with
additional destructive paths through the adjacent appliance
because they don't have the less than 10 foot earthing
connection. Protection is not found in plug-in protectors.
Protection is single point earth ground. Protection is not
found in that plug-in UPS. The UPS neither provides nor
claims effective protection because, well, where is its
dedicated connection to earth? Earthing connection does not
exist and manufacturer hopes you never ask. No earth ground
means that UPS provides no effective protection. Everything
to enhance the earthing system means improved protection.

Still haven't figured out that no destructive potential across a device
means it's protected, regardless of where earth is, I see.
 
Back
Top