do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 24, 10:52 pm, "w_tom" wrote:

Let's return to Jane's TV. Assume your 330 volts protector is
adjacent. A surge comes down all AC wires seeking earth ground. Your
protector may or may conduct surge current from one wire to others.
Will that surge seek earth ground down a safety ground wire that is
now charged at something less than 12,000 volts? Not when surge has a
better path to earth, destructively, through Jane's TV and coax cable.

All interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in
suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. Other external wires like cable TV, phone, ... also need
to go thorough the suppressor. The voltage on ALL wires (power and
signal) to protected devices is clamped to the common ground at the
suppressor.

Multiport suppressors are described in the IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
And the NIST guide at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf


A
plug-in protector too far from earth ground and too close to TV does
not even claim to provide protection.

Complete nonsense.

Worse, that plug-in protector
costs $25 or $125 per protected appliance.

Which is why you don't buy one for your alarm clock. But a HDTV system
is high value.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

"R Sweeney" wrote in message
. ..

"Jane" wrote in message
ups.com...
Just bought a Samsung 46" HDTV at Circuit City. They tried to talk me
into a very expensive surge protector. They also said I MUST have a
Monster HDMI cable for $125 which I later found out was bull. So I
decided to wait on their surge protector and ask you guys out there
for advice.

Do I need it? What brand is best? I have a really good one for my
computer but it's paid for by my company. I also have a Liebert which
costs about $30 but I believe is meant mostly for computers, or are
they generic?

No one needs ANYTHING made by Monster.
They might as well change the name of the company to Fraud Inc.

However, a quality surge protector is a wise investment for home theater.
There are many on the market, even the best are less than $50. The Joule
rating is the amount of energy the surge arrestor can swallow without
blowing up - higher is better. Your Liebert is better than fine.

Joule ratings are not necessarily reliable indicators for comparison. Let
through voltage and current peak ratings are other ratings that should be
considered. BTW, w_tom stated that most units start to clamp at 330volts,
but actually, the better units these days have a max let through voltage of
330 volts. As for Joule ratings, yes, more is better, but understand that
the ratings can be misleading. For instance, the two units that I
recommended earlier, the CyberPower 1090 and the Panamax have almost
identical complements of MOVs, yet the CP has a joule rating of more than
twice the Panamax. They obviously are counting the capacity of all of the
MOVs. This is misleading because it is impossible for all of them to be
operating at the same time, as they are protecting the three combinations of
H-N, H-G, and N-G. You simply cannot clamp on all those combinations at the
same time.

Read and compare all of the specs carefully, and be wary of those that are
missing. Most units give little or no detail, particuarly on the signal
line suppression.

Some of the Monster products can be found at prices that, while not the
cheapest, are competitive with other quality brands. I don't suggest that
they are a good value in most cases, but they are a quality product in
almost all cases. Filtering claims of improved performance are as bogus as
any, but then even reputable SS companies such as Panamax have jumped on
that marketing bandwagon.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 800 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

do I need a surge protector?
 

Thanks everyone

I just ordered a Belkin PureAV Isolator. 4720 Joules. My company
uses Belkin Isolators for their equipment so I'm hoping they are
fairly reliable.

Again, thanks.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"Jane" wrote

Advice would be appreciated.

I have learned from a couple of years on this NG and the AVS Forum to pay
attention to what Leonard says on matters like this. Unlike some others he
values facts and not self image.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"Jane" wrote

Advice would be appreciated.

I have learned from a couple of years on this NG and the AVS Forum to pay
attention to what Leonard says on matters like this. Unlike some others he
values facts and not self image.

Thank you Dave. I do try to do my homework and throw in my version of
common sense. I have also learned quite a bit from others, like yourself on
these forums. It certainly goes both ways.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 844 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

do I need a surge protector?
 

"Dave Gower" wrote in message
...

"Jane" wrote

Advice would be appreciated.

I have learned from a couple of years on this NG and the AVS Forum to pay
attention to what Leonard says on matters like this. Unlike some others he
values facts and not self image.


I agree with this. Leonard's usually very knowledgable and reliable in his
remarks about the deeper tech/electronic stuff.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 25, 3:19 am, "bud--" wrote:
All interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in
suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor.

That is the point of Bud's papers. They move onward to describe how
plug-in protectors also cause damage. A TV is at 8000 volts because a
plug-in protector - without proper earthing - contributes to TV
damage. Why? TV in another room was not connected through the same
protector.

What happens to "connected to the same plug-in suppressor"
electronics when a kid attaches his Xbox to the TV? Protection is
completely compromised - as Bud's own citations note when discussing
'six ports'. Bud forgets to mention that part. Described in
technical terms is how damage happened; such as when a kid attaches an
Xbox to a TV.

Meanwhile, when one 'whole house' protector provides 'properly
earthed' protection, then everything is "connected to the same"
protector. Bud also forgets to mention his citations also say that.
Just another reason why plug-in protectors are recommended by Bud's
authors AND why that TV is destroyed by 8000 volts thanks to a plug-in
protector.

In one post, Bud recommends earthing so that 8000 volts does not
damage a TV. In another, Bud claims "surge reference equalizer" does
not require earthing. Which is it? Confusion to promote plug-in
protectors is his objective. As long as you don't learn facts and
numbers, then many will buy what is simplest - a magical plug-in
device that violates how effective protection was installed even 50
years ago.

He hopes you will not notice this. No plug-in protectors
manufacture claims to provide such protection in their numerical
specifications. If they did, then they could be sued.

Why does Bud intentionally distort what even the IEEE recommends in
standards? Remember IEEE does not recommend in papers. IEEE
recommends in standards. And IEEE standards repeatedly define
earthing (what 'whole house' protectors do) as essential to
electronics protection.

Meanwhile Bud also cites Martzloff while forgetting to quote what
Martzloff recommends:
High-current surges ... are best diverted at the service
entrance of the premises. While such a protection is
not mandated at present, trends indicate growing
interest in this type of surge protection.

Bud just forgets to mention that Martzloff recommends "service
entrance" protection - also called a 'whole house' protector. One
'whole house' surge protector at about $1 per protected appliance that
earths for protection. Exactly how all high reliability facilities
did it even in the 1930s - because real protection was required.

Read up top what Bud posted. Plug-in protector will not accomplish
that. Only 'whole house' protection accomplishes that. Bud just
forgot to mention that fact. But then who does he promote for?

Bud would even hope you believe current technology protectors did
not create these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 12:08 am, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:19 am, "bud--" wrote:

What happens to "connected to the same plug-in suppressor"
electronics when a kid attaches his Xbox to the TV? Protection is
completely compromised - as Bud's own citations note when discussing
'six ports'.
"Six-ports" is in none of my citations.

Six-ports is in a Martzloff paper where he talks about surge reference
equalizers (aka multiport surge suppressors), which were new at the
time of the paper. He said:
"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."

Martzloff recommends surge reference equalizers in the paper, just
like he does in the NIST guide. But w_ can't understand how they work.
A kid with an Xbox can.



In one post, Bud recommends earthing so that 8000 volts does not
damage a TV. In another, Bud claims "surge reference equalizer" does
not require earthing. Which is it?
w_ is forced to misrepresent information that conflictes with his
beliefs.. What I have said, and what the IEEE guide says, is that plug-
in surge suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all
wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. They
do not work PRIMARILY by earthing. 8kV is part of the IEEE guide
explanation of how plug-in suppressors work. Since it does not work
primarily by earthing it violates w_'s religious beliefs and he is not
able to understand the IEEE description.



He hopes you will not notice this. No plug-in protectors
manufacture claims to provide such protection in their numerical
specifications. If they did, then they could be sued.
This may be the stupidest thing w_ says. Specs are readily available,
along with protection guarantees for many devices.



Why does Bud intentionally distort what even the IEEE recommends in
standards? Remember IEEE does not recommend in papers. IEEE
recommends in standards. And IEEE standards repeatedly define
earthing (what 'whole house' protectors do) as essential to
electronics protection.
Why does w_ refuse to acknowledge that the IEEE Emerald book, an IEEE
standard, includes plug-in suppressors (surge reference equalizers)
as an effective protection device?

Why is w_ stupid enough to say the IEEE would publish a guide for the
general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards?



Bud just forgets to mention that Martzloff recommends "service
entrance" protection - also called a 'whole house' protector.
From the NIST guide, written by Martzloff, [who was the surge guru at
the NIST]:
"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 CATV 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."


But then who does he promote for?
I agree with w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only interests
in surge protectors are that I have two.


Bud would even hope you believe current technology protectors did
not create these scary pictures:
Lacking technical arguments w_ tries scare tactics.


http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the
revised UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal
disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the
US in 1998. w_ can't understand his own links

None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL
labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with
suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors
shouldn't be used. The links do give info on how to use plug-in
suppressors.

And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective -
just w_'s ranting.

But both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in suppressors are effective. As
does Martzloff in a new source above.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 25, 4:32 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:

Joule ratings are not necessarily reliable indicators for comparison.
The IEEE guide - linked to elsewhere - makes the same observation,
saying there is no standard for how to make energy measurements, so
measurements are not comparable.

Let
through voltage and current peak ratings are other ratings that should be
considered. BTW, w_tom stated that most units start to clamp at 330volts,
but actually, the better units these days have a max let through voltage of
330 volts.
Sounds reasonable, but...

François Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and wrote the NIST
guide to surges linked in another post.

From a Martzloff technical paper - pdf-page 20:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/sp...es/Enduser.pdf
"The fact of the matter is that nowadays, most electronic appliances
have an inherent immunity level of at least 600 V to 800 V, so that
the clamping voltages of 330 V widely offered by TVSS manufacturers
are really not necessary. Objective assessment of the situation leads
to the conclusion that the 330 V clamping level, promoted by a few
manufacturers, was encouraged by the promulgation of UL Std 1449,
showing that voltage as the lowest in a series of possible clamping
voltages for 120 V circuits. Thus was created the downward auction of
"lower is better" notwithstanding the objections raised by several
researchers [B8] and well-informed manufacturers. One of the
consequences of this downward auction can be premature ageing of TVSS
that are called upon to carry surge currents as the result of
relatively low transient voltages that would not put equipment in
jeopardy."

Martzloff also wrote a guide for phone service reps for co-op power
utilities.
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/sp...shoot%20PQ.pdf
This guide is considerably more technical than the IEEE guide, and
includes a lot of information on surges caused by powerline switching
Among his comments - pdf-page 20:
"In fact, the major cause of TVSS failures is a temporary overvoltage,
rather than an unusually large surge."

At the risk of insulting anyone's intelligence, Martzloff said lower
clamp voltages are not necessarily a good idea because they cause a
suppressor to clamp surges that are not a risk to equipment, which may
cause earlier suppressor failure than necessary.

The suppressor also may try to clamp temporary overvoltage that would
otherwise be ignored which will rapidly burn out MOVs, while the
overvoltage continues.
(That may provide protection for equipment connected to a plug-in
suppressor if the protected equipment is connected across the MOVs and
is disconnected when the MOVs are disconnected on failure. The
protected equipment may also be connected so it is not disconnected -
described in detail in the IEEE guide.)

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

"bud--" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 25, 4:32 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:

Joule ratings are not necessarily reliable indicators for comparison.
The IEEE guide - linked to elsewhere - makes the same observation,
saying there is no standard for how to make energy measurements, so
measurements are not comparable.

Let
through voltage and current peak ratings are other ratings that should be
considered. BTW, w_tom stated that most units start to clamp at 330volts,
but actually, the better units these days have a max let through voltage
of
330 volts.
Sounds reasonable, but...

François Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST and wrote the NIST
guide to surges linked in another post.

From a Martzloff technical paper - pdf-page 20:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/sp...es/Enduser.pdf
"The fact of the matter is that nowadays, most electronic appliances
have an inherent immunity level of at least 600 V to 800 V, so that
the clamping voltages of 330 V widely offered by TVSS manufacturers
are really not necessary. Objective assessment of the situation leads
to the conclusion that the 330 V clamping level, promoted by a few
manufacturers, was encouraged by the promulgation of UL Std 1449,
showing that voltage as the lowest in a series of possible clamping
voltages for 120 V circuits. Thus was created the downward auction of
"lower is better" notwithstanding the objections raised by several
researchers [B8] and well-informed manufacturers. One of the
consequences of this downward auction can be premature ageing of TVSS
that are called upon to carry surge currents as the result of
relatively low transient voltages that would not put equipment in
jeopardy."

Martzloff also wrote a guide for phone service reps for co-op power
utilities.
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/sp...shoot%20PQ.pdf
This guide is considerably more technical than the IEEE guide, and
includes a lot of information on surges caused by powerline switching
Among his comments - pdf-page 20:
"In fact, the major cause of TVSS failures is a temporary overvoltage,
rather than an unusually large surge."

At the risk of insulting anyone's intelligence, Martzloff said lower
clamp voltages are not necessarily a good idea because they cause a
suppressor to clamp surges that are not a risk to equipment, which may
cause earlier suppressor failure than necessary.

The suppressor also may try to clamp temporary overvoltage that would
otherwise be ignored which will rapidly burn out MOVs, while the
overvoltage continues.
(That may provide protection for equipment connected to a plug-in
suppressor if the protected equipment is connected across the MOVs and
is disconnected when the MOVs are disconnected on failure. The
protected equipment may also be connected so it is not disconnected -
described in detail in the IEEE guide.)

--
bud--

I would rather have it clamp to a lower voltage and be safer. Small surges
that would fall between 330V and 600V are going to be tolerated by modern
MOVs repeatedly. With the units that offer a lifetime warranty and a vendor
that is quick to replace them, I'll take the risk of damaging the MOVs and
protecting the equipment. You always know when an MOV is shot because they
fail with a dead short, causing the breaker to open. Rather than buy
cheaper units that use MOVs which are likely not as well made, I'll stick
with the ones from companies that seem to make a reasonable trade-off
between value and best protection.

I don't necessarily disagree with your information, and thank you for
keeping us informed on what is being published, but in the real world,
people have to have something to go on. None of the ratings are a perfect
representation of the best TVSS. I think you have to look at the whole
picture and use common sense. That is where I came up with the two
recommended units that I have posted previously and below. If you have any
better suggestions, I would be very interested to see how you sort out what
is available. Il kile the first because it is cheap and has more outlets
and after taking them apart, I find that it has comparable protection to the
Panamax for the a.c. and what I consider adequate protection on the signal
lines. I like the second because of the similar protection, reputation of
the company, the over/under voltage cutoff feature, and slightly better
info, and perhaps clamping, on the signal line protection.

To summarize, my suggetions for best value in surge protection a

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812120408
or
http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...il&id=249&ly=v

and verifying the integrity and correctness of the grounding on the a.c.
service and ALL incoming signal lines. Additional whole house suppression
is not a bad idea but one must note that most do not include protection for
incoming signal lines nor do the have lifetime warranties like the system
level units above.

If anyone has a better recommendation, I am always shopping for the best
values and searching for the most effective practices in the context of the
market as it is applied to consumer electronics.

And thanks, Bud, for debunking w_tom and his foolishness.

Leonard







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 940 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!