recommend a good surge protector?

On 7 Sep 2006 12:00:36 -0700, "bud--" <budnews.DeleteThis@isp.com>
wrote:


>The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
>effective.

THIS is where you start making up nonsense.

Link a guide, but it doesn't support your conclusions.
Plug in suppressors provide mitigation, and possible
prevention of smaller surge damage, a limited nunmber of
times. That does not make them effective PROTECTION against
the entire category of "surges", not even including direct
lightning strike.

>Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2

Nope, you're stretching the truth here.
Neither guide claims they are 100% effective at preventing
overvoltage events, nor guarantee prevention of surges by
mechanism of protection employed.


>Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0


Actually, MOST surge suppressor spec sheets state they
aren't effective as preventative meausures against all
surges, because they have only moderate joule limit and are
not self healing, require replacement.

So who needs links when you can randomly grab the actual
product specs and see it plainly.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 12:00:36 -0700, "bud--" <budnews DeleteThis @isp.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
> >effective.
>
> THIS is where you start making up nonsense.
>
> Link a guide, but it doesn't support your conclusions.
> Plug in suppressors provide mitigation, and possible
> prevention of smaller surge damage, a limited nunmber of
> times. That does not make them effective PROTECTION against
> the entire category of "surges", not even including direct
> lightning strike.
>

The IEEE guide says non-lightning surges (typically from powerline
swithcing) "will
normally be adequately controlled by either building entrance
protectors
or plug-in protectors".

> >Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
>
> Nope, you're stretching the truth here.
> Neither guide claims they are 100% effective at preventing
> overvoltage events, nor guarantee prevention of surges by
> mechanism of protection employed.
>
>
> >Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0
>
>
> Actually, MOST surge suppressor spec sheets state they
> aren't effective as preventative meausures against all
> surges, because they have only moderate joule limit and are
> not self healing, require replacement.
>

My point is that plug-in suppressors do provide protection, contrary to
what w_ likes to say. The IEEE guide recognizes single point grounds,
service panel surge suppressors and plug-in surge suppressors for surge
protection. With high enough device energy ratings that should protect
against all but a very near, very strong lightning hit (ignoring a
direct strike to the building).

One of the keys is an adequate Joule rating, for service protector or
plug-in protector. Not only is the suppressor more likely to survive a
major hit, but as the energy rating is increased above the single-event
energy, a suppressor is able to sustain an increasingly large number of
hits. Plug-in suppressors can be purchased with a wide range of Joule
ratings. You are likely to get what you pay for.

Plug-in surge suppressors have much higher source impedance to the
surge than service panel suppressors. This is not just resistance, but
impedance since a surge is a very short time event involving high
frequency components. In addition, at about 6KV arc-over at the panel
or receptacles is likely which dissipates a lot of energy. At about
1.5KV a light bulb, if turned on, is likely to arc-over burning out the
light bulb but the arc is likely to protect all other light bulbs and
also dissipate surge energy.


> So who needs links when you can randomly grab the actual
> product specs and see it plainly.

The guides give expert recommendations on what product specs ratings
are adequate, in addition to providing an understanding of surges and
how protection functions, including the importance of SREs.

bud--
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On 8 Sep 2006 09:58:42 -0700, "bud--" <budnews RemoveThis @isp.com>
wrote:

>
>kony wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2006 12:00:36 -0700, "bud--" <budnews RemoveThis @isp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
>> >effective.
>>
>> THIS is where you start making up nonsense.
>>
>> Link a guide, but it doesn't support your conclusions.
>> Plug in suppressors provide mitigation, and possible
>> prevention of smaller surge damage, a limited nunmber of
>> times. That does not make them effective PROTECTION against
>> the entire category of "surges", not even including direct
>> lightning strike.
>>
>
>The IEEE guide says non-lightning surges (typically from powerline
>swithcing) "will
>normally be adequately controlled by either building entrance
>protectors
>or plug-in protectors".

Recall that these are dumbed-down consumer guides, where
they're trying to paint a black or white picture.

"Adequate" depends on the susceptiblity of the connected
device. Non-lightning merely alludes to the size of the
surge, making overgeneralized presumptions about the most
common surges. Remember that if the most common surges
killed equipment, there would already be few computers
working at all without the surge protector, which is
obviously not the case.



>
>> >Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
>>
>> Nope, you're stretching the truth here.
>> Neither guide claims they are 100% effective at preventing
>> overvoltage events, nor guarantee prevention of surges by
>> mechanism of protection employed.
>>
>>
>> >Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0
>>
>>
>> Actually, MOST surge suppressor spec sheets state they
>> aren't effective as preventative meausures against all
>> surges, because they have only moderate joule limit and are
>> not self healing, require replacement.
>>
>
>My point is that plug-in suppressors do provide protection,

.... and this is where you are wrong.
You attempt to claim "protection" without qualification.
If you wrote "more protection than nothing", or "a certain
level of but not complete", or another such statement that
did not attempt a black and white categorization of
protection, you'd be closer to correct.

>...to
>what w_ likes to say. The IEEE guide recognizes single point grounds,
>service panel surge suppressors and plug-in surge suppressors for surge
>protection.

First, you might as well ignore those two dumbed down guide
if you want to get into what the IEEE knows, versus an
introductory pamphlet meant for the general public. Many
things will not be mentioned, such as their presumptions
about the value or susceptiblity of connected consumer
equipment, or what a basic "plug in protector" actually is.
Such marketed devices must be safe, but not a specific
topology to be labeled by the manufacturer as surge
protector.


>With high enough device energy ratings

Which they obviously don't have...

> that should protect
>against all but a very near, very strong lightning hit (ignoring a
>direct strike to the building).

IF the device has high enough rating, AND it were only a one
time event, "maybe". Problem is, while the lightning strike
might be a one time event, the smaller magnitude surges tend
to reoccur. What a device protects on day 1 may not be
possible on day 200. How often do consumers check their
surge protectors? How many of them have comprehensive
diagnostics and audible warning systems?



>
>One of the keys is an adequate Joule rating, for service protector or
>plug-in protector.

This is true of course, but this fact doesn't support your
further speculations, rather closer to evidence of the
opposite.


>Not only is the suppressor more likely to survive a
>major hit, ...

"More likely"?
If your ideas about their adequacy were correct, it would
have to necessarily survive the hit, or at least come
extremely close- because if it fails during the hit, the
remaing potential on the line is then left to do what it
would've had there never been the so-called protection.

>... but as the energy rating is increased above the single-event
>energy, a suppressor is able to sustain an increasingly large number of
>hits.

Yes, but we're more interested in sustaining ALL the hits,
if we were to consider it "protection". Does it matter if
the equipment was killed by a large surge rather than a
smaller one? Perhaps, it is likely that would mean it ran
longer before being damaged, but in the larger picture, it
wasn't protected in the end unless the events meant to be
protected against, didn't occur.


>Plug-in suppressors can be purchased with a wide range of Joule
>ratings. You are likely to get what you pay for.

It's very unlikely you'll get what you pay for, the cost vs
parts go up by an order of magnitude and plug in types still
don't have an effective earth ground.


>
>Plug-in surge suppressors have much higher source impedance to the
>surge than service panel suppressors. This is not just resistance, but
>impedance since a surge is a very short time event involving high
>frequency components. In addition, at about 6KV arc-over at the panel
>or receptacles is likely which dissipates a lot of energy.

If you are claiming there's going to be an arc-over at re
ceptacles, you're conceding little of use from the surge
protector, it might as well just be two pieces of metal with
a thin, precision rated dielectric inbetween.




>At about
>1.5KV a light bulb, if turned on, is likely to arc-over burning out the
>light bulb but the arc is likely to protect all other light bulbs and
>also dissipate surge energy.

Yes, there are multiple things that can, but this is lack of
protection from the surge device, an *equipment* failure
instead of protection.

Further, your idea of the impedance is problematic because
it is as a factor if that to ground as well, that if the
surge has made it this far at high magnitude, the plug-in
device has a similar problem shunting it away, the connected
device may see some of it too. It may not fail as a result,
but this is still considering only the first event, while
subsequent events onto a point of failure may be a lack of
protection.



>
>
>> So who needs links when you can randomly grab the actual
>> product specs and see it plainly.
>
>The guides give expert recommendations

No, they oversimplify a generic explanation of what such
devices are, not a guarantee that they are actually a
comprehensive protection in scope or length of service.

>...on what product specs ratings
>are adequate, in addition to providing an understanding of surges and
>how protection functions, including the importance of SREs.

The guides are better than nothing, if only taken at face
value instead of reading more into it as you have. They are
not a means to draw further conclusion, they are already the
conclusions from basic presumptions made to simplify the
discussion into a layman pamphlet format.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"kone-head" farted:
> "bud--" wrote:
>> My point is that plug-in suppressors do provide protection,
>
> ... and this is where you are wrong.
> You attempt to claim "protection" without qualification.
> [............]
> Yes, but we're more interested in sustaining ALL the hits,
> if we were to consider it "protection".


Oh, quit your pontificating. "SOME protection" is "protection".
It doesn't have to be "Total Protection Against All That Man And
Nature Can Produce" to be "protection". All you're doing is
re-defining words to suit your lame argument.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 19:19:31 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels RemoveThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kone-head" farted:
>> "bud--" wrote:
>>> My point is that plug-in suppressors do provide protection,
>>
>> ... and this is where you are wrong.
>> You attempt to claim "protection" without qualification.
>> [............]
>> Yes, but we're more interested in sustaining ALL the hits,
>> if we were to consider it "protection".
>
>
> Oh, quit your pontificating.

Tim, you're a troll, why would I care what you think?


>"SOME protection" is "protection".

Oh? What about the events that "some" you wrote above,
doesn't cover? If those surges kill the connected
equipment, was that "protection" because it was "some
protection"? No.


>It doesn't have to be "Total Protection Against All That Man And
>Nature Can Produce" to be "protection".

Who said it did?

It would however, have to be protection against surge events
that are reasonably expected to occur over the life of the
connected equipment. It can't be an effective protection
mechanism if it blocks the minor surges but the larger ones
which do occur, kill the gear. What would be the point
since gear died anyway?

Go look up some data on the frequency of surges and their
magnitude. The data is out there.


>All you're doing is
>re-defining words to suit your lame argument.

Nope.

The details really do matter.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony wrote:
<edited>
>
> >With high enough device energy ratings
>
> Which they obviously don't have...

Plug-in and service surge suppressors are available with very high
energy ratings.

>
> > that should protect
> >against all but a very near, very strong lightning hit (ignoring a
> >direct strike to the building).
>
> IF the device has high enough rating, AND it were only a one
> time event, "maybe". Problem is, while the lightning strike
> might be a one time event, the smaller magnitude surges tend
> to reoccur. What a device protects on day 1 may not be
> possible on day 200. How often do consumers check their
> surge protectors? How many of them have comprehensive
> diagnostics and audible warning systems?
>


The IEEE guide has a rather long discussion for plug-in suppressors on
wiring the protected load across the MOV, so it is disconnected when
the MOV is disconnected. Wiring the load across the MOV gives the
warning you are looking for.

>
> >... but as the energy rating is increased above the single-event
> >energy, a suppressor is able to sustain an increasingly large number of
> >hits.
>
> Yes, but we're more interested in sustaining ALL the hits,
> if we were to consider it "protection". Does it matter if
> the equipment was killed by a large surge rather than a
> smaller one? Perhaps, it is likely that would mean it ran
> longer before being damaged, but in the larger picture, it
> wasn't protected in the end unless the events meant to be
> protected against, didn't occur.
>

Protection is always a trade-off against cost. Want better protection?
Use very high energy rated surge suppressors. Replace surge suppressors
regularly. Some UPS designs provide increased protection. Add
lightning rods. How much do you want to spend?

>
> >Plug-in suppressors can be purchased with a wide range of Joule
> >ratings. You are likely to get what you pay for.
>
> It's very unlikely you'll get what you pay for, the cost vs
> parts go up by an order of magnitude and plug in types still
> don't have an effective earth ground.
>

As explained in the IEEE guide, and which I tried to make clear in my
first post, plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing the
surge. They work by clamping the voltages on all wires, including phone
and other signal, to the common ground at the surge suppressor. The
voltages are limited to values safe to the connected equipment.

> >
> >Plug-in surge suppressors have much higher source impedance to the
> >surge than service panel suppressors. This is not just resistance, but
> >impedance since a surge is a very short time event involving high
> >frequency components. In addition, at about 6KV arc-over at the panel
> >or receptacles is likely which dissipates a lot of energy.
>
> If you are claiming there's going to be an arc-over at re
> ceptacles, you're conceding little of use from the surge
> protector, it might as well just be two pieces of metal with
> a thin, precision rated dielectric inbetween.
>

François Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
guide. He also wrote many technical papers. One of them is on a system
with no service panel surge protection but with a plug-in surge
suppressor. Arc-over provided significant surge dissipation with the
plug-in suppressor providing the rest of the protection. The highest
energy absorption at the plug-in suppressors was with a short distance
from gap to surge suppressor and low end of applied surge energies. In
those cases the surge suppressor kept gap voltage low and it did not
arc-over.

>
> >At about
> >1.5KV a light bulb, if turned on, is likely to arc-over burning out the
> >light bulb but the arc is likely to protect all other light bulbs and
> >also dissipate surge energy.
>
> Yes, there are multiple things that can, but this is lack of
> protection from the surge device, an *equipment* failure
> instead of protection.
>
> Further, your idea of the impedance is problematic because
> it is as a factor if that to ground as well, that if the
> surge has made it this far at high magnitude, the plug-in
> device has a similar problem shunting it away, the connected
> device may see some of it too. It may not fail as a result,
> but this is still considering only the first event, while
> subsequent events onto a point of failure may be a lack of
> protection.
>

The surge does not make it that far at high current magnitude. Its
magnitude has been reduced by the source impedance. Ground impedance is
quite undesirable, but as noted above plug-in surge suppressors work
primarily by clamping, not earthing.

> >
> >> So who needs links when you can randomly grab the actual
> >> product specs and see it plainly.
> >
> >The guides give expert recommendations
>
> No, they oversimplify a generic explanation of what such
> devices are, not a guarantee that they are actually a
> comprehensive protection in scope or length of service.
>
> >...on what product specs ratings
> >are adequate, in addition to providing an understanding of surges and
> >how protection functions, including the importance of SREs.
>
> The guides are better than nothing, if only taken at face
> value instead of reading more into it as you have. They are
> not a means to draw further conclusion, they are already the
> conclusions from basic presumptions made to simplify the
> discussion into a layman pamphlet format.

You seem to think the guides have little value. I wonder then why the
IEEE and NIST bothered to publish them.

I have read quite a few of Martzloff's technical papers on surges. He
seems to believe surge suppressors at the service entrance or plug-in
or preferrably both provide protection. Not likely to protect from a
200kA lightning strike on your service drop, but that is unlikely. Do
they provide protection from any possible surge - no. Do they provide
good protection if sized properly - my reading of the technical papers,
in addition to the guides is yes. Do MOVs deteriorate with repeated
hits - yes. Oversize them relative to the largest hit likely. Get a
plug-in suppressor that connects the protected load across the MOV. Do
you have better protection?

bud--
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On 9 Sep 2006 08:15:03 -0700, "bud--" <budnews.TakeThisOut@isp.com>
wrote:

>
>kony wrote:
><edited>
>>
>> >With high enough device energy ratings
>>
>> Which they obviously don't have...
>
>Plug-in and service surge suppressors are available with very high
>energy ratings.

Yes, but the articles do not limit this, and the vast
majority of products don't.




>
>>
>> > that should protect
>> >against all but a very near, very strong lightning hit (ignoring a
>> >direct strike to the building).
>>
>> IF the device has high enough rating, AND it were only a one
>> time event, "maybe". Problem is, while the lightning strike
>> might be a one time event, the smaller magnitude surges tend
>> to reoccur. What a device protects on day 1 may not be
>> possible on day 200. How often do consumers check their
>> surge protectors? How many of them have comprehensive
>> diagnostics and audible warning systems?
>>
>
>
>The IEEE guide has a rather long discussion for plug-in suppressors on
>wiring the protected load across the MOV, so it is disconnected when
>the MOV is disconnected. Wiring the load across the MOV gives the
>warning you are looking for.

No. You still have to (will) have the event that kills it
(surge protector).



>
>>
>> >... but as the energy rating is increased above the single-event
>> >energy, a suppressor is able to sustain an increasingly large number of
>> >hits.
>>
>> Yes, but we're more interested in sustaining ALL the hits,
>> if we were to consider it "protection". Does it matter if
>> the equipment was killed by a large surge rather than a
>> smaller one? Perhaps, it is likely that would mean it ran
>> longer before being damaged, but in the larger picture, it
>> wasn't protected in the end unless the events meant to be
>> protected against, didn't occur.
>>
>
>Protection is always a trade-off against cost. Want better protection?
>Use very high energy rated surge suppressors. Replace surge suppressors
>regularly. Some UPS designs provide increased protection. Add
>lightning rods. How much do you want to spend?

This is where we differ. I don't see it as "better
protection", I see it as protected from realistic magnitude
surges, or not, that there should be no product under "X"
dollar amount claiming "protection". Otherwise, let them
call a device a surge strip but leave out any claims about
protection.



>
>>
>> >Plug-in suppressors can be purchased with a wide range of Joule
>> >ratings. You are likely to get what you pay for.
>>
>> It's very unlikely you'll get what you pay for, the cost vs
>> parts go up by an order of magnitude and plug in types still
>> don't have an effective earth ground.
>>
>
>As explained in the IEEE guide, and which I tried to make clear in my
>first post, plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing the
>surge. They work by clamping the voltages on all wires, including phone
>and other signal, to the common ground at the surge suppressor. The
>voltages are limited to values safe to the connected equipment.

Yes, and you fail to see why this simultaneously doesn't
matter, and isn't enough.

Grounding the surge is obvious enough, since they are plug
in types. Clamping depends on paralleled load that also
sees the surge.


>
>> >
>> >Plug-in surge suppressors have much higher source impedance to the
>> >surge than service panel suppressors. This is not just resistance, but
>> >impedance since a surge is a very short time event involving high
>> >frequency components. In addition, at about 6KV arc-over at the panel
>> >or receptacles is likely which dissipates a lot of energy.
>>
>> If you are claiming there's going to be an arc-over at re
>> ceptacles, you're conceding little of use from the surge
>> protector, it might as well just be two pieces of metal with
>> a thin, precision rated dielectric inbetween.
>>
>
>François Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
>guide. He also wrote many technical papers. One of them is on a system
>with no service panel surge protection but with a plug-in surge
>suppressor. Arc-over provided significant surge dissipation with the
>plug-in suppressor providing the rest of the protection. The highest
>energy absorption at the plug-in suppressors was with a short distance
>from gap to surge suppressor and low end of applied surge energies. In
>those cases the surge suppressor kept gap voltage low and it did not
>arc-over.

One system? I think we can agree that not all systems are
the same, nor all surges.


>
>>
>> >At about
>> >1.5KV a light bulb, if turned on, is likely to arc-over burning out the
>> >light bulb but the arc is likely to protect all other light bulbs and
>> >also dissipate surge energy.
>>
>> Yes, there are multiple things that can, but this is lack of
>> protection from the surge device, an *equipment* failure
>> instead of protection.
>>
>> Further, your idea of the impedance is problematic because
>> it is as a factor if that to ground as well, that if the
>> surge has made it this far at high magnitude, the plug-in
>> device has a similar problem shunting it away, the connected
>> device may see some of it too. It may not fail as a result,
>> but this is still considering only the first event, while
>> subsequent events onto a point of failure may be a lack of
>> protection.
>>
>
>The surge does not make it that far at high current magnitude. Its
>magnitude has been reduced by the source impedance. Ground impedance is
>quite undesirable, but as noted above plug-in surge suppressors work
>primarily by clamping, not earthing.

.... primarily by grounding, it is still applicable. We
don't have to arbitrarily conclude it had a high current
magnitude, it is the voltage that is the problem.
"Clamping" does NOT AVOID the significance of earthing,
because if it is not close to earth potential, other paths
are taken through equipment.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"kone-head" farted:
> ...let them call a device a surge strip but leave out any claims
> about protection.


There you go again, kohn-head, requiring Total Protection
Against Nuclear Strike and Planetary Collision in order to
qualify as "protection". Word re-definition and word-morphing
is your argumentive specialty. Stop weaseling and just admit
that various degrees of protection ARE "protection".

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> There you go again, kohn-head, requiring Total Protection
> Against Nuclear Strike and Planetary Collision in order to
> qualify as "protection". Word re-definition and word-morphing
> is your argumentive specialty. Stop weaseling and just admit
> that various degrees of protection ARE "protection".

Those who provide technical fact do not post insults. Timothy
Daniels demonstrates how ineffective plug-in protectors are
recommended: insult. Those who don't understand basic technology -
Timothy - will insult those who post technical fact - Kony.

For those still slogging through these posts, a summary. Effective
protection must accomplish two functions: equipotential and
conductivity. Equipotential means voltages around or across the
transistors are small - do not cause damage. That is a concept
promoted by Bud's SRE protectors. But a kid even with an Xbox can
completely violate the protection. That Xbox violates equipotential;
exposing a TV to large voltage differences. Other problems with
equipotential only inside a room is why Bud's citations also and
instead recommend a superior solution: 'whole house' protection.

Bud's solution ignores and cannot provide conductivity. No dedicated
earthing connection. 'Whole house' solution provides both
equipotential AND conductivity. Equipotential is provided beneath the
entire building when using a 'whole house' solution. Therefore even a
kid with an Xbox cannot compromise equipotential. Furthermore the
'whole house' solution also provides conductivity. Direct lightning
strike creates near zero voltages inside the building because that
transient has a most conductive (lower voltage) path to earth.

'Whole house' solution provides both equipotential and conductivity.

Since we cannot provide sufficient equipotential, then we need
superior conductivity. And since we cannot provide sufficient
conductivity, then we also need equipotential. One 'whole house'
protector with single point earthing provides both equipotential and
conductivity. A plug-in protector does not provide effective
conductivity. Therefore its manufacturer even avoids the entire topic
and does not claim protection in his numerical specifications.

No earth ground means no effective protection. What makes a Ben
Franklin lightning rod so effective? Earthing. What makes a protector
so effective? Earthing electrode with a short, dedicated connection.
What do 'whole house' protectors provide? That dedicated earthing
connection.

One can spend $25 or $100 on plug-in protectors for each household
appliance. Don't forget bathroom GFCIs, smoke detector and furnace
control system. They are also essential electronics that must be
protected - and cannot be protected by plug-in protectors. However one
properly sized 'whole house' protector from Lowes, Home Depot, or
electrical supply houses - for less than each Monster Cable protector
sold in Circuit City - means everything in a building has protection.

No insults. Just basic concepts provided even with numbers.
Responsible manufacturers such as Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic,
Leviton, Siemens and GE manufacturer effective protectors that costs
maybe $1 per protected appliance. That would even protect smoke
detectors, bathroom GFCIs, and furnace controls. IOW those more
responsible manufacturers offer effective protection that even costs
tens of times less money.

Recommended without insult. Effective protectors provide both
equipotential and conductivity. Superior protection costs less money
and will not be compromised by a kid with an Xbox.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 15:37:37 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels DeleteThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kone-head" farted:
>> ...let them call a device a surge strip but leave out any claims
>> about protection.
>
>
> There you go again, kohn-head, requiring Total Protection
>Against Nuclear Strike and Planetary Collision in order to
>qualify as "protection".

Nope, just SURGES.
If it can't do that, WTF was the point?
A system without any surge protector can survive the typical
daily surges.


>Word re-definition and word-morphing
>is your argumentive specialty. Stop weaseling and just admit
>that various degrees of protection ARE "protection".

Sure, until it fails. Protection has to result in system
surviving, not just one surge but all of them.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"w_tom" farted, too:
> Those who provide technical fact do not post insults. Timothy
> Daniels demonstrates how ineffective plug-in protectors are
> recommended: insult.

Get off your poop, w_. No one " recommended ineffective
plug-in protectors". The point made in various ways is that
"plug-in protectors" do provide some protection in that they
protect against mild surges once or twice or a few times, and
that partial protection against the panoply of possible types of
overvoltages is better than nothing at all. You and Kohn-head
just have grinding NEEDS for a pulpit on which to pontificate,
and yours happens to be about "whole house protection with
single-point grounding". Kohn-head's happens to be "the man
uttering the last word wins". Pathetic, really.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

w_tom wrote:
>
> For those still slogging through these posts, a summary. Effective
> protection must accomplish two functions: equipotential and
> conductivity. Equipotential means voltages around or across the
> transistors are small - do not cause damage. That is a concept
> promoted by Bud's SRE protectors. But a kid even with an Xbox can
> completely violate the protection.

A kid with an Xbox can figure out SREs. Sorry you can't. There is no
hint of difficult application of SREs in the guides. Or in any
techincal papers from Martzloff and others that I have read including
the "six ports" paper you invoked earlier, whose purpose was to
introduce SREs as an effective tool. The "six ports" paper says:
"The surge reference equalizer combines the
protective function for both system ports [power and signal] in the
same
enclosure. The device is plugged in the power
receptacle near the equipment to be protected, with the
communications system wires (telephone or data link) or
the coaxial cable (TV) routed through the enclosure. A
common, single grounding connection equalizes the
voltages of the two paths that return the surge through
the grounding connection of the 3-prong power line
plug, as shown in Figure 4.
"Such a solution is particularly attractive as an
element of 'whole-house protection', a concept that has
been recently introduced by some electric utilities."

>
> Bud's solution ignores and cannot provide conductivity. No dedicated
> earthing connection. 'Whole house' solution provides both
> equipotential AND conductivity. Equipotential is provided beneath the
> entire building when using a 'whole house' solution.
>

Building equipotential depends on the ground system. With your favorite
ground rods earth volt drop is highest near the rod. The last I read
the IEEE says in general 70% of the voltage drop is in the 3 feet
adjacent to the rod. If you have a "good" 20 ohm ground resistance and
a modest 5,00A earthed current that is 70,000 volts from the rod to 3
feet from the rod. With high ground currents there can be arcing across
the ground surface. Away from the rod is not at equipotential.

>
> No earth ground means no effective protection. What makes a Ben
> Franklin lightning rod so effective? Earthing. What makes a protector
> so effective? Earthing electrode with a short, dedicated connection.
>

As the IEEE guide clearly describes, plug-in surge suppressors work
primarily by clamping, not earthing. Sorry that violates your religous
views.

The IEEE and NIST guides (and the technical papers I have read) say
that plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the guides for
recommendations on current and energy ratings. If you want certainty
run equipment off isolated batteries with no wire connections.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0

bud--
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

bud-- wrote:
> A kid with an Xbox can figure out SREs. Sorry you can't. There is no
> hint of difficult application of SREs in the guides. Or in any
> techincal papers from Martzloff and others that I have read including
> the "six ports" paper you invoked earlier, whose purpose was to
> introduce SREs as an effective tool. The "six ports" paper says:

Have a kid read that IEEE paper before using his Xbox. Otherwise a
plug-in protector could even contribute to TV damage. Bud tells us that
even a kid can understand concepts in that paper. A paper thet then,
instead, recommends 'whole house' protection.

Bud's IEEE paper proposes how SRE protection might work with a
careful engineering analysis and without earthing. Even baseboard heat
system must be integrated into that protection so as to not violate any
of six ports. Clearly a kid will learn why not to route his Xbox
wires that way.

SRE protection without earthing is difficult - ineffective without
careful engineering. Install a 'whole house' protector to even
eliminate special child training.

Even bud's citations recommend superior 'whole house' protection:
> High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
> service entrance of the premises.

SRE protecton without earthing is insufficient. However Bud
represents a plug-in protector industry. So bud says:
> As the IEEE guide clearly describes, plug-in surge suppressors
> work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Clamping to what? Bud again posts half truths from a paper that only
proprosed a concept. IEEE recommendations are published in reference
books; earthing is essential to protection:
IEEE Red Book (Std 141):
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
IEEE Green Book (Std 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
> not result in damage.

What does a protector divert surges to? What must it clamp to?
Single point earth ground. Where is the dedicated connection not
provided by plug-in protectors? A shunt mode protector missing the
necessary shunt (clamp) to earth is not effective.

Bud represents plug-in protector manufacturers. Plug-in protectors
don't have that dedicated earthing wire. What do they clamp to? Bud
assumes you will train kids to not compromise all six ports in complex
SRE protection. Train kids so that plug-in protector sales will not be
harmed.

Responsible home onwer earths where transients might enter a building
using solutons from responsible manufacturers. Protection as IEEE
recommends - connected to earth. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. What does an effective protector clamp to? Earth.
No earth ground means no effective protection. A paper that disusses
SRE protection even concludes the 'whole house' type protection is
prefered. Of course. Kid should not be specially trained how to
connect an Xbox - to protect plug-in protector sales.

bud-- wrote:
> A kid with an Xbox can figure out SREs. Sorry you can't. There is no
> hint of difficult application of SREs in the guides. Or in any
> techincal papers from Martzloff and others that I have read including
> the "six ports" paper you invoked earlier, whose purpose was to
> introduce SREs as an effective tool. The "six ports" paper says:
> "The surge reference equalizer combines the
> protective function for both system ports [power and signal] in the
> same
> enclosure. The device is plugged in the power
> receptacle near the equipment to be protected, with the
> communications system wires (telephone or data link) or
> the coaxial cable (TV) routed through the enclosure. A
> common, single grounding connection equalizes the
> voltages of the two paths that return the surge through
> the grounding connection of the 3-prong power line
> plug, as shown in Figure 4.
> "Such a solution is particularly attractive as an
> element of 'whole-house protection', a concept that has
> been recently introduced by some electric utilities."
> ...
>
> Building equipotential depends on the ground system. With your favorite
> ground rods earth volt drop is highest near the rod. The last I read
> the IEEE says in general 70% of the voltage drop is in the 3 feet
> adjacent to the rod. If you have a "good" 20 ohm ground resistance and
> a modest 5,00A earthed current that is 70,000 volts from the rod to 3
> feet from the rod. With high ground currents there can be arcing across
> the ground surface. Away from the rod is not at equipotential.
>
>>
>> No earth ground means no effective protection. What makes a Ben
>> Franklin lightning rod so effective? Earthing. What makes a protector
>> so effective? Earthing electrode with a short, dedicated connection.
>
> As the IEEE guide clearly describes, plug-in surge suppressors work
> primarily by clamping, not earthing. Sorry that violates your religous
> views.
>
> The IEEE and NIST guides (and the technical papers I have read) say
> that plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the guides for
> recommendations on current and energy ratings. If you want certainty
> run equipment off isolated batteries with no wire connections.
> Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
> Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector?