Surge protector

  • Thread starter Man-wai Chang ToDie
  • Start date

Ad

Advertisements

M

Man-wai Chang ToDie

Though a small surge will not damage an MOV...
a very large surge will cause total failure of the device.
In other words, it will "blow up"

It will then need to be replaced of course

I am moving back to my old home where my old 2400bps modem was fried
during a night with thunderstorm back in 1990.

Now that I am using an internal PCI modem, I need a protection to avoid
the whole motherboard from being fried in the next thunderstorm.

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.24.2
^ ^ 23:02:01 up 9 days 13:02 0 users load average: 1.04 1.06 1.01
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
P

PeterC

I am moving back to my old home where my old 2400bps modem was fried
during a night with thunderstorm back in 1990.

Now that I am using an internal PCI modem, I need a protection to avoid
the whole motherboard from being fried in the next thunderstorm.

Please, what make/model of PCI modem are you using? Is it ADSL?
 
J

Jan Alter

As far as I am aware no surge protector will protect 100 % against every
thunderstorm if lightning happens to strike your premisis. The best
protection is to unplug equipment from the wall, including telephone.
 
Ad

Advertisements

W

w_tom

I am moving back to my old home where my old 2400bpsmodemwas fried
during a night with thunderstorm back in 1990.

So how did that surge enter the building (ignore the telco installed
surge protector)? Yes, many who recommend surge protectors don't even
know of a surge protector installed at every subscriber interface -
for free.

A protector that fails by 'blowing up' was so grossly undersized as
to provide no protection. So undersized as to violate MOV
manufacturer specifications. So undersized as to not even provide
protection. Making protectors grossly undersized gets the naive to
recommend that ineffective protector. Protector must earth a direct
lightning strike and remain functional - no damage.

How is a modem typically damaged? Trace the electric circuit. A
surge seeks earth ground. Current flows through everything in that
path. Much later, sometime in that path fails. A typical path for
modem damage involves wires highest on utility poles, most often
struck, and without effective protection where that wire enters each
building. A circuit: incoming from cloud on AC mains, through
interior wires, through computer, through modem, out phone line, and
to earth ground via that telco installed protector.

That is the circuit. What in that circuit typically fails? Weakest
point in that circuit. A most often damaged part is the (internal or
external) modem's DAA section. More specifically a transistor that
drives the off-hook relay. Damage is indicated by a classic error
message: "No Dialtone Detected". Sometimes that transistor is only
partially damaged. That modem does same as a phone off hook -
dialtone timeout.

Secondary protection means a surge is earthed before entering the
building. Your telco CO has a same problem where all overhead wires
enter and connect to their $multi-million computer. Maybe 100 surges
during every thunderstorm and no computer damage. Why? Every
incoming wire connects directly to single point earth ground. That
connection must be direct OR must be via a protector just like the
telco protector inside that NID. Either way, that earthing connection
also must be short, no sharp bends, and other requirements.

Protection is defined by earth ground. Above paragraph is secondary
protection. Also required is inspection of a primary protection
'system':
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
In every 'system', only one component is always required: single point
earth ground. Even incoming buried wires must connect to that
earthing electrode before entering a structure:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf

Does not matter whether facility has incoming antennas, incoming AC,
or incoming communication wires. Lightning seeks earth ground. If
not earthed before entering a building, then lightning will find earth
ground, destructively, via appliances - ie your 2400 baud modem. Same
principle makes Ben Franklin's lightning rods effective. Same
principles installed 100 years ago even in radio stations also apply
today. Every protection 'system' is about diverting lightning to
earth so that surge energy will be dissipated harmlessly in earth.
Otherwise surge energy will dissipate destructively inside the
building - ie appliances.

'Whole house' protectors are sold with responsible names such as
Intermatic, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, and GE. In every case,
the effective protector has a wire to make a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth. Yes, it must be short, no sharp bends, separated
from other non-earthing wires, no splices, and directly connected to
the same earthing electrode. Also required is an earthing system that
meets and exceeds post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements.
Same principles so that direct lightning strikes need not damage any
household electronics.
 
M

Man-wai Chang ToDie

I am moving back to my old home where my old 2400bps modem was fried
Please, what make/model of PCI modem are you using? Is it ADSL?

1990, no ADSL or cable modem. Internet was still an academic stuff. It's
the age of Fidonet, using dial-up modems to form something like
internet. The message and files were spread via a mechanism called
echomail and echofiles.

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.24.2
^ ^ 13:40:01 up 10 days 3:40 0 users load average: 0.00 0.00 0.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
M

Man-wai Chang ToDie

Jan said:
As far as I am aware no surge protector will protect 100 % against every
thunderstorm if lightning happens to strike your premisis. The best
protection is to unplug equipment from the wall, including telephone.

Physical separation is always the safest (and more secure) method. :)

--
@[email protected] Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.24.2
^ ^ 13:42:01 up 10 days 3:42 0 users load average: 0.01 0.01 0.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
 
P

PeterC

1990, no ADSL or cable modem. Internet was still an academic stuff. It's
the age of Fidonet, using dial-up modems to form something like
internet. The message and files were spread via a mechanism called
echomail and echofiles.

Oh, sorry, it's just that you said 'now'. I've a bit of a problem with mine
and there's no [useful] info to be found.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

bud--

..
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
A protector that fails by 'blowing up' was so grossly undersized as
to provide no protection.
..
Surge suppressors with very high ratings are readily available. In the
case of plug-in suppressors, the impedance of the branch circuit greatly
limits the surge current that can reach a plug-in suppressor, which
greatly limits the energy that may be absorbed while clamping the
voltage. That is why, with high ratings, some of them have connected
equipment warranties.
Protection is defined by earth ground.
..
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 guide
explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport
suppressors are described in both guides.
..
In every 'system', only one component is always required: single point
earth ground. Even incoming buried wires must connect to that
earthing electrode before entering a structure:
..
Not just the same electrode. Protectors for phone, cable, ... need to
connect with a *short* wire to the earthing wire at the power service.
If a strong surge is earthed, the voltage of the house ‘ground’ can rise
thousands of volts above ‘absolute earth’ potential. You want the
‘ground’ reference for power and signal wires to rise together. The
power ‘ground’ reference is at the service (US) where neutral and
‘ground’ are tied together. You want the ‘ground’ reference for phone,
cable to be tied with a short connection to that point. The author of
the NIST guide has written “the impedance of the grounding system to
‘true earth’ is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of
the various parts of the grounding system.” In many houses the entry
point for cable, phone is too far from the power service.

The NIST guide cites US insurance information that indicates equipment
most likely to be damaged by lightning is computers with modem
connection and TV related equipment - presumably with cable connection.
All can be damaged by surge voltage between signal and power wires.
'Whole house' protectors are sold .....
..
Service panel suppressors are a real good idea. If relying on them you
also need short connections between signal entrance protectors and power
service.

The NIST guide comments:
"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
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."
 
W

w_tom

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 guide
explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

It works by clamping that energy ... to earth ground. Surge energy
must be dissipated somewhere. If a protector has no earth connection,
then surge energy will be clamped (connected, shunted, diverted)
where? Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates TV damage because 1) the
protector is too far from earth ground AND 2) located adjacent to the
TV. Surge is clamped (diverted), 8000 volts destructively, through
the adjacent TV. Page 42 Figure 8 is the point of Bud's citation.
Effective protectors clamp (dissipate) energy harmlessly in earth.
Since Bud's protector has no earthing connection, then energy may be
clamped through an adjacent TV. Effective protection means that
'less than 10 foot' connection to earth. Bud's protectors has no
earthing connection.

A protector without that short earthing connection provides
numerous paths to earth destructively via the adjacent TV. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere.

Bud says his plug-in protectors do not work by earthing. He is
correct. He also claims that protector is a complete 'magic box'
solution. OK. His protector specs say that? Plug-in specs do not
even claim to provide surge protection. Bud is repeatedly challenged
to provide those numbers. He cannot. He never does. Bud routinely
ignores the question. Protector achieves high profits. It needs no
earth ground to maximize profits.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent parts. Sell it for $25 or
for $150 in Radio Shack, Best Buy, or Circuit City. With that profit
margin, why waste money on a dedicated earthing connection?

Grossly undersized is another problem with protectors built for
maximum profit. Scary pictures are from fire departments, Fire
Marshal, and others:
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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc

So where are these (Bud's) protectors located? Where fire is a
greatest threat? On a desktop of papers or on a rug?

Bud's other citation defines what an effective protector does:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

No earthing connection means no diverting to ground. 11 pages later,
Bud's citation contradicts him again:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

But Bud says his "suppressors do not work primarily by earthing".
Surge energy is eliminated by making energy disappear? So where does
Bud list protection in spec numbers? Protectors recommended by Bud
are a complete 'magic box' solution, have no earthing connection, do
not claim to provide protection, and do create massive profits. Bud
also will not admit who he promotes for.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. How to make a
protector even better? Enhance that earthing.
 
B

bud--

w_tom said:
It works by clamping that energy ... to earth ground.
..
For anyone with minimal reading and thinking ability the IEEE guide
illustration shows plug–in suppressors working by clamping the voltage
on all wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the plug-in
suppressor.

**The link to the IEEE guide is bad. Use:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
..
Surge energy
must be dissipated somewhere. If a protector has no earth connection,
then surge energy will be clamped (connected, shunted, diverted)
where?
..
In this illustration, the IEEE guide says "So the vast majority of the
incoming lightning surge current flows through" the cable entry block
`ground' wire. The guide further says that is "as the NEC/CEC writers
intended." If w_ could only read....
..
Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates TV damage because 1) the
protector is too far from earth ground AND 2) located adjacent to the
TV. Surge is clamped (diverted), 8000 volts destructively, through
the adjacent TV.
..
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.
..
Page 42 Figure 8 is the point of Bud's citation.
..
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long (as in my previous post). The IEEE guide
says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s belief in earthing he has to
twist what the IEEE guide says about them.
Bud says his plug-in protectors do not work by earthing.
..
The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors, which are not mine, do not work
primarily by earthing.
..
He also claims that protector is a complete 'magic box'
solution.
..
Only a ’magic box’ to w_, because he can’t understand how they work.
..
Plug-in specs do not
even claim to provide surge protection. Bud is repeatedly challenged
to provide those numbers. He cannot. He never does. Bud routinely
ignores the question.
..
The last plug-in suppressor I bought had 1 MOV that was 1475J, 75,000A
and 2 that were 590J 30,000A. Cost under $30. Previously posted and
ignored.
Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent parts.
..
One of the MOVs in the suppressor above has a rating of 75,000A and
1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.
Grossly undersized is another problem with protectors built for
maximum profit. Scary pictures are from fire departments, Fire
Marshal, and others:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.
..
Bud's citation contradicts him again:
..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and as quoted previously:
"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
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide says plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides says plug-in suppressors are effective.

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.

w_ has never answered simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.


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.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
 
W

w_tom

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998.

UL1449 standard was released on 28 August 1985; not 1998. Honesty
is not Bud. Protectors in scary pictures were manufactured long after
1986. Gaston County's fire marshal describes why current technology
plug-in protectors may create fire; why those thermal links can still
result in fire. The fire marshal is quite blunt about thermal links
that Bud claims did not exist. Thermal links were all but required by
that 28 Aug 1985 standard.

One such fire was Sept 2007 in Boston. How did those 2007 college
students find a protector manufactured before 1986? Bud again lies.
Even his citations say a protector works by connecting a surge to
earth ground. Bud denies it. Bud claims surge energy will somehow be
absorbed by tiny components inside his protector. Bud must deny
reality even in those scary pictures.

What may happen when a 'Bud' grossly undersized protector attempts
to absorb too much energy - not dissipate that energy into earth?
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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc

Where does Bud provide a plug-in protector spec that claims surge
protection? He never does. Bud again ignores every spec request.
His 'magic box' complete solution does not even claim such
protection.

And again Bud distorts reality on Page 42 Figure 8:
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a
cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor.
The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

TV2 earths a surge, 8000 volts destructively, to protect TV1. Both
TVs connect to Bud's 'magic box' protector. Surge energy must be
dissipated someplace. If not inside TV1 and if not inside Bud's
'magic box' protector, then surge destroys TV2. How many other
appliances also were not protected by that overpriced plug-in
protector?

One 'whole house' protector means no TV damage, no dishwasher
damage, etc. Bud says TV damage is acceptable. Well yes. Protector
on Page 42 Figure 8 did just as spec numbers claim. Same spec numbers
that Bud also refuses to provide.

Bud provides distortion. Otherwise profits would be at risk. Bud
even lies about the UL1449 date. UL1449 was released 28 Aug 1985;
not 1998 as Bud lies. Grossly undersized protectors may even create
scary pictures. Bud will even lie to pervert reality. Promoting
myths is what Bud does. Profits are at risk.
 
B

bud--

w_tom said:
UL1449 standard was released on 28 August 1985; not 1998. Honesty
is not Bud.
..
I said “a revision to UL1449" which was effective in 1998. Intelligence
is not w_.
..
Gaston County's fire marshal describes why current technology
plug-in protectors may create fire; why those thermal links can still
result in fire.
..
No link says any suppressor was manufactured after 1998. Or that any
suppressor was UL listed.
..
The fire marshal is quite blunt about thermal links
that Bud claims did not exist.
..
The text says “More modern surge suppressors are manufactured with a
Thermal Cut Out mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is
intended shut the unit down overheating occurs.” It conspicuously does
not say any failed suppressor had thermal links.

The text also says “Less expensive units typically have a single MOV”.
UL requires MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. I believe UL has always required 3
elements.
..
Where does Bud provide a plug-in protector spec that claims surge
protection? He never does. Bud again ignores every spec request.
..
Posted and, as in the past, ignored.


w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often
enough, people will believe it.

But, what a surprise, still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

And still no answer to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

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.
Invents statements and attributes them to opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

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

Advertisements

W

w_tom

I said "a revision to UL1449" which was effective in 1998. Intelligence
is not w_.

UL1449 standard was released in 28 Aug 1985; not in 1998 as Bud
said. Scary pictures show what happens to undersized protectors after
that standard was implemented. Standard was created to reduce fire
threats. The most common solution has been thermal links to
disconnect the protector as fast as possible - leaving the appliance
exposed to the surge.

A plug-in protector can even fail during testing and still get UL
1449 approval. UL1449 does not eliminate the problem. Surge energy
must be dissipated someplace harmlessly. Therefore effective
protectors have that short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

No wonder high reliability facilities (ie telephone switching
centers) do not install Bud's recommendation. An effective solution
that costs less money also is not the problem in 'scary pictures'.

Responsible manufacturers such as Square D, Cutler-Hammer,
Intermatic, Siemens, Leviton, and GE sell one 'whole house' protector
with the essential earthing wire. Not on that responsible list are
products from APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable. A protector
is only as effective as what provides the protection - what dissipates
surge energy - earth ground. Effective protectors are properly sized
and earthed to not create scary pictures.

What does the Gaston County Fire Marshal discuss? Risk created by
plug-in protectors that even meet UL1449. Scary pictures demonstrate
a problem with protectors promoted by Bud:
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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc

From Matthew T. Glennon, P.E. "Guidelines For Providing Surge
Protection at Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Facilities":
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/surge.html
Grounding Is Fundamental
A surge protection device (SPD), also known as a transient
voltage surge suppressor (TVSS), is designed to divert
high-current surges to ground and bypass your equipment,
thereby limiting the voltage that is impressed on the
equipment. For this reason, it is critical that your facility have
a good, low-resistance grounding system, with a single
ground reference point to which the grounds of all building
systems are connected. Without a proper grounding system,
there is no way to protect against surges. Consult with a
licensed electrician to ensure that your electrical distribution
system is grounded in accordance with the National Electric
Code (NFPA 70).

Protection: building earthing meets and exceeds post 1990 National
Electrical Code requirements. The OP suffered modem damage is a
building that typically would not have sufficient earthing. An
effective protector makes a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection
to that earthing. It's a simple inspection. Does a protector have
that dedicated wire that connects to single point earth ground? If
not, then where does surge energy get dissipated?

Bud refuses to provide manufacturer spec numbers for protection.
Why? His 'magic box' protectors without earth ground are somehow a
complete solution, BUT do not claim to provide protection. That is the
point on Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud even denies protectors need earthing. Bud says his protectors
work without earthing. Even Bud's 1998 date for UL1449 is a lie. One
properly earthed 'whole house' protector negates the need for $2000+
of Bud's plug-in protectors. Surges that don't enter a building will
not find 8000 volt destructive paths through household appliances.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - as
demonstrated in quotes from another engineering source. Glennon could
not be more honest and blunt:
Without a proper grounding system, there is no way
to protect against surges.
Bud denies this. Profits are at risk.
 
B

bud--

w_tom said:
UL1449 standard was released in 28 Aug 1985; not in 1998 as Bud
said.
..
What an idiot. The 1998 revision even has a name - “UL1449 2nd edition”.
..
Bud refuses to provide manufacturer spec numbers for protection.
..
What an idiot. “Posted and, as in the past, ignored.”
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground
..
And the statement of religious belief in earthing.

Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.

Still missing - a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

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.
Invents statements and attributes them to opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.
 
W

w_tom

What an idiot. The 1998 revision even has a name - "UL1449 2nd edition".

Insults are what Bud uses as proof. Every responsible source requires
earthing for surge protection. Responsible sources also say why:
surge energy must be dissipated harmlessly in earth. Earthed
protectors are why every telephone Central Office (CO) can suffer
maybe 100 surges during every thunderstorm without damage. Why do
they not use what Bud recommends? They need protection that is both
effective and that costs less money. Same protection is recommended
for Man-wai Chang ToDie.

Bud's proof is to insult. He must. Even his citation demonstrates
the problem with plug-in protectors: Page 42 Figure 8. Bud is
promoting protectors that do not even claim to provide that
protection. No wonder Bud cannot provide a single manufacturer numeric
spec. No plug-in protector claims to provide that protection. Bud
cannot provide what plug-in protectors do not claim - protection from
each type of surge.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That does not
change no matter how many times Bud posts insults. However another
professional states bluntly what makes effective surge protection.
From Atlanta Scientific at:
http://www.atlanticscientific.com/lightning.html
"Lightning And Surge Protection - Basic Principles"
Surge protection devices should ideally operate
instantaneously to divert a surge current to ground
with no residual common-mode voltage presented
at the equipment terminals. Once the surge current
has subsided, the SPD should automatically
restore normal operation and reset to a state ready
to receive the next surge.

First, Atlanta Scientific says the surge must be earthed by
diverting; also called shunting, clamping, or connecting. Bud's shunt
mode protectors will do that without any earthing wire? Not according
to professionals.

Second a typically destructive surge is common mode. Common mode
surges seek earth ground either via the 'whole house' protector OR
destructively via the adjacent appliance (Page 42 Figure 8). No
wonder responsible manufacturers, instead, sell 'whole house'
protectors with that short, dedicated earthing wire.

Third an effective protector remains functional after each surge:
"... reset to a state ready to receive the next surge." Grossly
undersized plug-in protectors fail due to a surge. Some examples are
even observed in 'scary pictures'.

Bud denies all this to promote obscenely overpriced plug-in
protectors.

Man-wai Chang ToDie has requests a solution to his 1990 modem
damage. Bud does not provide any effective solution. Bud recommends
something that increases profits. Professionals recommend earthing.
That building earth ground must be upgraded to and exceed post 1990
National Electrical Code requirements. No earth ground means no
effective protection. Earthing is required by Glennon, IEEE, NIST,
Atlanta Scientific, every telco, and commercial broadcast stations.
Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept in 1752. Effective
solutions threaten Bud's profits. So Bud must attack the messenger.
Bud replies repeatedly with insults. It defines Bud's integrity. And
Bud still will not post a plug-in manufacturer spec. He cannot. Plug-
in protectors cannot do what Atlanta Scientific requires in effective
protection.

Bud's insults cannot change science fact. Bud promotes myths. No
wonder he never provides those manufacturer spec numbers. A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground.
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

bud--

w_tom said:
Insults are what Bud uses as proof.
..
w_ repeatedly couldn’t?can't figure out the difference between a release
date and a revision date. It takes an idiot....
..
Second a typically destructive surge is common mode.
..
Never explained - how does a common mode surge (H & N lift from G) make
it past the N-G bond in a (US) power service. Common mode becomes
transverse mode (H lifts from N & G). But it really doesn’t matter. UL
requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G. That is all surge modes.
..
Effective
solutions threaten Bud's profits. So Bud must attack the messenger.
..
To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.
And poor w_ complains about insults.
..
No
wonder he never provides those manufacturer spec numbers.
..
Already provided. Made clear it was already provided. It takes an idiot...
..
A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing. If you repeat
a lie often enough...

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

Still missing - a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Poor w_ is alone in the universe.

Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- How does a common mode surge get past the N-G bond in (US) services?

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.
Invents statements and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top