Surge protector

External Since: Dec 10, 2007 Posts: 12

w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2:47 am, bud-- <remove.budn....TakeThisOut@isp.com> wrote:
>> 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.
..
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.

--
bud--

External Since: Apr 16, 2007 Posts: 89

On Feb 24, 2:36 am, bud-- <remove.budn....DeleteThis@isp.com> wrote:
> 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%20Protectors.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%20SURGE%20SUPPR...OR%20FI

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.