do I need a surge protector?
 

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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

do I need a surge protector?
 

On 23 Feb 2007 18:18:13 -0800, Jane wrote:

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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Don't trust the Circuit City guy--he probably works on commission.
Monster cables are unnecessary. I use regular cables and they work
great.

You can find good surge suppressors for under $20 at www.newegg.com,
or comparison shop at www.pricegrabber.com. I tend to buy Belkin and
Tripp Lite products, but any brand names are good.

do I need a surge protector?
 

Take a three dollar power strip. Add some ten cent components.
Sell it as a surge protector for $25 or $125 dollars. How's that for
a profit margin - or why the hard sell.

All electronics contain protection that would be effective on its
power cord. Those promoting power strips hope you don't learn this
and a few other important facts. That internal appliance protection
may be overwhelmed by surges that enter on AC mains. Therefore earth
a 'whole house' protector at the service entrance. Protector is for
an entire house at about $1 per protected appliance. Effective
protection earths before surges enter a building. Did they forget to
mention that at Circuit City? Why?

Who sells effective solutions? Notice names of responsible and
highly regarded manufacturers such as Siemens, Square D, Cutler
Hammer, GE, Leviton, and Intermatic. These effective solutions are
sold in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses. Never saw an
effective protector sold in Circuit City, Radio Shack, Sears, Staples,
Best Buy, Bed Bath & Beyond, or the grocery store. And yet those
products also claim to do what a $125 Monster Cable product claims.

The principles are simple. Demonstrated even by Franklin in 1752.
Lightning seeks earth ground. Either it does so destructively via a
television, OR it is earthed before entering the building. Does a
protector stop, block, or absorb what three miles of conductive sky
could not stop? That is what Monster Cable and other plug-in
protectors claim. There silly little box with stop what three miles
of sky could not. Meanwhile standards from responsible organizations
such IEEE state that earthing provides the protection.

How to identify an ineffective protector ... two simple rules: 1)
It has no dedicated earthing wire and 2) manufacturer avoids all
discussion about earthing. That Monster Cable product violates both
rules.

Install 'whole house' protector on AC electric. Also upgrade AC
electric earthing to meet and exceed post 1990 National Electrical
Code requirements. A protector is not protection. What did Franklin
demonstrate in 1752? Protection is effective because the surge is
earthed. Earthing is the protection - or what that Circuit City
salesman and so many others hope you do not learn. Why are 'whole
house' protectors (such as the one installed for free on your phone
line by the telco) so effective? That short ('less than 10 foot')
connection to earth. Distance to earth is important which is why
earthing must meet post 1990 code. No earth ground means no effective
protection - even if selling for $125.

BTW, why do we install protectors? For protection from direct
lightning strikes. Notice that your phone company with a $multi-
million computer connected to overhead wires all over town also
shutdown phone service during T-storms. Oh-hh? They don't. Why?
Because they also use the simple concept of earthing a 'whole house'
protector; every incoming wire connects to earth via a protector.
Telco wires can suffer as much as 100 strikes over 5 months. Why do
they not suffer damage? Because protection from direct lightning
strikes is that routine.

All electronic appliances contain any protection that would make
power blips irrelevant. Notice how often your smoke detectors are
destroyed. That was even required by industry standards 30 years ago.
But we install protector to earth direct lightning strikes before that
surge can enter the building. No earth ground means no effective
protection. We install protectors to make even lightning surges
irrelevant - even for $1 per protected appliance.

On Feb 23, 9:18 pm, "Jane" wrote:
Just bought a Samsung 46" HDTV at Circuit City. They tried to talk me
into a very expensivesurgeprotector. 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 theirsurgeprotector 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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 24, 12:13 am, "w_tom" wrote:

For reliable information on surges an surge suppression try:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
- the title is "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
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home" published by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (the US government agency
formerly called the National Bureau of Standards) in 2001

Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public
to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background.


The principles are simple. Demonstrated even by Franklin in 1752.
Lightning seeks earth ground. Either it does so destructively via a
television, OR it is earthed before entering the building. Does a
protector stop, block, or absorb what three miles of conductive sky
could not stop? That is what Monster Cable and other plug-in
protectors claim. There silly little box with stop what three miles
of sky could not.
Rubbish.

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

As explained in the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING
the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor, not
earthing, stopping, blocking, absorbing.

Meanwhile standards from responsible organizations
such IEEE state that earthing provides the protection.
The IEEE guide was published by the IEEE.


How to identify an ineffective protector ... two simple rules: 1)
It has no dedicated earthing wire and 2) manufacturer avoids all
discussion about earthing. That Monster Cable product violates both
rules.
w_ has a religious belief in earthing. But as explained by the IEEE
guide, plug-in suppressors don't work primarily by earthing.


No earth ground means no effective
protection - even if selling for $125.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #2.


No earth ground means no effective
protection. We install protectors to make even lightning surges
irrelevant - even for $1 per protected appliance.
Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
HDTV systems may be one of the more appropriate places to use them
because of value of the equipment. I agree the Circuit City guy is not
reliable.

Note that 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 needs to be clamped to the common
ground at the suppressor. This is described in both guides.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

"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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812120408 is the best
value that I have found.

http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...il&id=249&ly=v is more
money but has over/under voltage cutoff, which is nice if you have lots of
brownouts.

Both units have lifetime warranties. Panamax has an impeccable reputation
and history of service. CyberPower is a newer player with a good cheap
product with similar protection.

w_tom has showed up once again to confuse and spout his anti-surge
suppressor lies. That's right, I said lies. I have tried to be reasonable
with him in the past and give him credit for the partial truths that he
emphasizes, but he simply keeps coming back with more venomous attacks on a
product category that is very useful when applied with good sense. His
statemement that "All electronics contain protection that would be effective
on its power cord" is untrue, silly, and contradicts his later statement
that no dedicated ground wire makes any suppressor ineffective. I will
bother to engage him in debate on the matter as he has been debunked in the
past and anything other than keeping his posts from confusing other readers
is a waste of time. Bud has repeatedly corrected him as well.

Get a good, inexpensive surge suppressor like the one above, pay no
attention to claims of improved picture quality or the need for regulation,
filtering, or a UPS, make sure that you connect all incoming signal lines
through the suppressor as well as all a.c. cords, and verify your system
grounding. The last item is where w_tom has been correct, in part. Without
good grounding, SS are much less effective. Each line comming into your
home should be properly grounded according to code. Many installers do not
do so on cable and sat systems.

Leonard




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 598 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?
 

On Feb 24, 3:35 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
"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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...E16812120408is the best
value that I have found.

http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...&id=249&ly=vis more
money but has over/under voltage cutoff, which is nice if you have lots of
brownouts.

Both units have lifetime warranties. Panamax has an impeccable reputation
and history of service. CyberPower is a newer player with a good cheap
product with similar protection.

w_tom has showed up once again to confuse and spout his anti-surge
suppressor lies. That's right, I said lies. I have tried to be reasonable
with him in the past and give him credit for the partial truths that he
emphasizes, but he simply keeps coming back with more venomous attacks on a
product category that is very useful when applied with good sense. His
statemement that "All electronics contain protection that would be effective
on its power cord" is untrue, silly, and contradicts his later statement
that no dedicated ground wire makes any suppressor ineffective. I will
bother to engage him in debate on the matter as he has been debunked in the
past and anything other than keeping his posts from confusing other readers
is a waste of time. Bud has repeatedly corrected him as well.

Get a good, inexpensive surge suppressor like the one above, pay no
attention to claims of improved picture quality or the need for regulation,
filtering, or a UPS, make sure that you connect all incoming signal lines
through the suppressor as well as all a.c. cords, and verify your system
grounding. The last item is where w_tom has been correct, in part. Without
good grounding, SS are much less effective. Each line comming into your
home should be properly grounded according to code. Many installers do not
do so on cable and sat systems.

Leonard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 598 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


Where I have worked (video production companies) every rack has been
protected with a Furman Power Conditioner. Here at home I use an
RP-8, about $30 from Musician's Friend. I have one on the computer
and the equipment in the office, and another one lives behind the
entertainment center in the living room. I'm not afraid of lightning,
just of spikes on the line due to switching.

do I need a surge protector?
 

Jane wrote:

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.

HDMI cables are on the Internet for less than $20.

Some of those of us who have rear-projection LCD TVs with the expensive
light bulb use uninterruptable power suppies, typically a reasonable
size APC unit. The UPS protects as a surge protector and gives you a
chance to properly power down the hot-running bulb in the event of a
power failure.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

After losing 2 circuit boards in my furnance in 2 years, I decided to
install a surge protector. After 1 1/2 years, I have not lost the board
yet. I think they work, and you have to check them occasionally to make sure
the surge protection circuit has not been used destroyed by a surge.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 24, 8:38 am, Sam Spade wrote:
Some of those of us who have rear-projection LCD TVs with the expensive
light bulb use uninterruptable power suppies, typically a reasonable
size APC unit. The UPS protects as a surge protector and gives you a
chance to properly power down the hot-running bulb in the event of a
power failure.

If a UPS protects as a surge protector, then it says so in numerical
specifications. Yes, it protects from one type of surge. And again,
we have a half truth. That surge is typically not destructive; made
irrelevant by protection already inside electronics.

Meanwhile another type surge that does damage .... well, that UPS
has no dedicated earthing wire. Therefore no protection from a
typically destructive type surge.

Have doubts? Look at UPS's numerical specs. Where is each type of
surge listed and numbers for that protection listed? They don't list
protection because a UPS without that dedicated earthing wire does not
provide protection from all types of surges. What does a building
wide UPS have? That dedicated earthing wire. Notice that building
wide UPSes can provide surge protection. Does that mean plug-in UPSes
also provide protection? Only when junk science makes assumptions.
No earth ground means no effective protection.

Then we look at its number of joules. That plug-in UPSes has so
few joules that ... well again, we are back to a half fact. They have
installed some joules to claim protection from a typically not
destructive surge. Protection so woefully undersized as to do almost
nothing; maybe create smoke. Effective protectors, instead, have
sufficient joules that earth a direct lightning stike AND remain
functional.

How many joules in that UPS?

Any protection on that TV power cord is already inside that TV.
Protection that can be overwhelmed if a rare and destructive surge is
not earthed where it enters the building. This solution is called a
'whole house' protector from manufacturers that have responsible
names. Why is it effective? 1) More joules. 2) Short ('less than 10
foot') connection to an earth ground also used by TV cable and teleco
installed protector.

Cable does not need a protector. TV Cable must be earthed directly
to earth ground by direct wire, where it enters the building, and
'less than 10 feet'. Protectors effective when they make the
conneciton to earth. But cable is earthed where it enters the
building; no protector required to make that connection.

Another here misrepresents what IEEE demands for protection. Again,
something that the UPS does not provide - that short and dedicated
earthing wire. IEEE recommendations are not in papers. IEEE
recommendations are in standards. IEEE Green Book (Standard142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' says:
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.

Necessary for protection defined in IEEE Red Book (Standard 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 Emerald Book, "Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic
Equipment" (Standard 1100) says:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...

Does that UPS have a dedicated wire for earthing? Does its
manufacturer avoid discussing earthing? Both questions identify an
ineffective protector. That UPS does not even claim to provide that
protection. UPS only function is to maintain power during blackouts
and extreme brownouts. That is also claims to do in numerical specs.

Does Jame need a protector? Yes. One that connects to an earth
ground also used by TV cable (hardwired) and by telco installed 'whole
house' protector. All protectors or direct connections must make a
'less than 10 foot' connection to the same earth ground as even
required by post 1990 National Electrical Code. And yes, to protect
the TV, even the telephone 'whole house' protector must be earthed so
that destructive surges do not enter the building. Protection is
defined by a single point earthing electrode. Protectors are nothing
more than connections from each utility wire to protection - earth
ground.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"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?

This is the first non-conventional TV I've had and it cost enough so
that I'd like to protect it if it's necessary. I'm willing to spend
whatever I should but don't want to spend more than I have to. I know
that nothing will protect me from a direct lightening hit, but we do
get lots of power blips around here.

Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks


I wouldn't be without protection, considering the cost of my TV and my
computer system, and use the same model surge suppressor for both, a
neither-cheap-nor-monstrously-expensive one from The Source (used
to be Radio Shack), with nine outlets (with sliding dust covers,
remember this thing is going to live on the floor, more or less
forgotten, for years), phone line protection (essential for the computer
system), and TV cable protection (essential for both systems, since
the computer has built-in TV capabilities -- and the suppressor's
equipment damage warranty wouldn't be valid for the TV if the cable
wasn't protected). Why so many outlets? On the computer system.
it's kind of obvious. On the TV system, remember you're probably
going to have multiple components such as DVD, VHS, HD if not built in
to your set, digital channel unit from your cable service, maybe even
a satellite box.

Besides protection, you get a convenient system-power-off switch
if you anticipate power outages, maybe a flurry of them such as
we got in Vancouver in the late-06 multiple storms, or wavering
power, or if, like me, you have peripherals with no power switch and
you're about to work on your system unit.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"w_tom" wrote in message
s.com...
On Feb 24, 8:38 am, Sam Spade wrote:
Some of those of us who have rear-projection LCD TVs with the expensive
light bulb use uninterruptable power suppies, typically a reasonable
size APC unit. The UPS protects as a surge protector and gives you a
chance to properly power down the hot-running bulb in the event of a
power failure.

If a UPS protects as a surge protector, then it says so in numerical
specifications. Yes, it protects from one type of surge. And again,
we have a half truth. That surge is typically not destructive; made
irrelevant by protection already inside electronics.

Meanwhile another type surge that does damage .... well, that UPS
has no dedicated earthing wire. Therefore no protection from a
typically destructive type surge.

Have doubts? Look at UPS's numerical specs. Where is each type of
surge listed and numbers for that protection listed? They don't list
protection because a UPS without that dedicated earthing wire does not
provide protection from all types of surges. What does a building
wide UPS have? That dedicated earthing wire. Notice that building
wide UPSes can provide surge protection. Does that mean plug-in UPSes
also provide protection? Only when junk science makes assumptions.
No earth ground means no effective protection.

Then we look at its number of joules. That plug-in UPSes has so
few joules that ... well again, we are back to a half fact. They have
installed some joules to claim protection from a typically not
destructive surge. Protection so woefully undersized as to do almost
nothing; maybe create smoke. Effective protectors, instead, have
sufficient joules that earth a direct lightning stike AND remain
functional.

How many joules in that UPS?

Any protection on that TV power cord is already inside that TV.
Protection that can be overwhelmed if a rare and destructive surge is
not earthed where it enters the building. This solution is called a
'whole house' protector from manufacturers that have responsible
names. Why is it effective? 1) More joules. 2) Short ('less than 10
foot') connection to an earth ground also used by TV cable and teleco
installed protector.

Cable does not need a protector. TV Cable must be earthed directly
to earth ground by direct wire, where it enters the building, and
'less than 10 feet'. Protectors effective when they make the
conneciton to earth. But cable is earthed where it enters the
building; no protector required to make that connection.

Another here misrepresents what IEEE demands for protection. Again,
something that the UPS does not provide - that short and dedicated
earthing wire. IEEE recommendations are not in papers. IEEE
recommendations are in standards. IEEE Green Book (Standard142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' says:
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.

Necessary for protection defined in IEEE Red Book (Standard 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 Emerald Book, "Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic
Equipment" (Standard 1100) says:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...

Does that UPS have a dedicated wire for earthing? Does its
manufacturer avoid discussing earthing? Both questions identify an
ineffective protector. That UPS does not even claim to provide that
protection. UPS only function is to maintain power during blackouts
and extreme brownouts. That is also claims to do in numerical specs.

Does Jame need a protector? Yes. One that connects to an earth
ground also used by TV cable (hardwired) and by telco installed 'whole
house' protector. All protectors or direct connections must make a
'less than 10 foot' connection to the same earth ground as even
required by post 1990 National Electrical Code. And yes, to protect
the TV, even the telephone 'whole house' protector must be earthed so
that destructive surges do not enter the building. Protection is
defined by a single point earthing electrode. Protectors are nothing
more than connections from each utility wire to protection - earth
ground.

Just wondering why you don't consider the ground wire in an outlet as
ground?

do I need a surge protector?
 

As a retired electrical engineer, with many years experience in design,
implementation and maintenance, of communications and security systems,
I take exception to the conclusion of w_tom that surge suppressors are
of no value in protecting electrical operated devices from damage from
power line surges.
Of course no surge protector can guarantee protection from a direct
lightning strike on the incoming powerline, but can still be effective
protection from other causes of power line surges. DO, USE SUPPRESSORS,
preferably find one with telephone line and cable protection. The better
the electrical grounding system in your home or office, the more
effective the surge protectors will be. I could write a lengthy article
on surge protectors, but to simplify selection for the layman, select
one with the highest joule rating consistent with the thickness of your
wallet. Any protection is better than none. If voltage spikes are sharp
enough even tying knots in the power cord could reduce them. That is
because a coil of wire generates a reverse electromotive force opposing
the source.
Back to Ben Franklin; He was extremely lucky he did not become a
surge suppressor with his kite experiment.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"Tom in Macon" wrote in message
.. .

"w_tom" wrote in message
s.com...
On Feb 24, 8:38 am, Sam Spade wrote:
Some of those of us who have rear-projection LCD TVs with the expensive
light bulb use uninterruptable power suppies, typically a reasonable
size APC unit. The UPS protects as a surge protector and gives you a
chance to properly power down the hot-running bulb in the event of a
power failure.

If a UPS protects as a surge protector, then it says so in numerical
specifications. Yes, it protects from one type of surge. And again,
we have a half truth. That surge is typically not destructive; made
irrelevant by protection already inside electronics.

Meanwhile another type surge that does damage .... well, that UPS
has no dedicated earthing wire. Therefore no protection from a
typically destructive type surge.

Have doubts? Look at UPS's numerical specs. Where is each type of
surge listed and numbers for that protection listed? They don't list
protection because a UPS without that dedicated earthing wire does not
provide protection from all types of surges. What does a building
wide UPS have? That dedicated earthing wire. Notice that building
wide UPSes can provide surge protection. Does that mean plug-in UPSes
also provide protection? Only when junk science makes assumptions.
No earth ground means no effective protection.

Then we look at its number of joules. That plug-in UPSes has so
few joules that ... well again, we are back to a half fact. They have
installed some joules to claim protection from a typically not
destructive surge. Protection so woefully undersized as to do almost
nothing; maybe create smoke. Effective protectors, instead, have
sufficient joules that earth a direct lightning stike AND remain
functional.

How many joules in that UPS?

Any protection on that TV power cord is already inside that TV.
Protection that can be overwhelmed if a rare and destructive surge is
not earthed where it enters the building. This solution is called a
'whole house' protector from manufacturers that have responsible
names. Why is it effective? 1) More joules. 2) Short ('less than 10
foot') connection to an earth ground also used by TV cable and teleco
installed protector.

Cable does not need a protector. TV Cable must be earthed directly
to earth ground by direct wire, where it enters the building, and
'less than 10 feet'. Protectors effective when they make the
conneciton to earth. But cable is earthed where it enters the
building; no protector required to make that connection.

Another here misrepresents what IEEE demands for protection. Again,
something that the UPS does not provide - that short and dedicated
earthing wire. IEEE recommendations are not in papers. IEEE
recommendations are in standards. IEEE Green Book (Standard142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' says:
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.

Necessary for protection defined in IEEE Red Book (Standard 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 Emerald Book, "Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic
Equipment" (Standard 1100) says:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...

Does that UPS have a dedicated wire for earthing? Does its
manufacturer avoid discussing earthing? Both questions identify an
ineffective protector. That UPS does not even claim to provide that
protection. UPS only function is to maintain power during blackouts
and extreme brownouts. That is also claims to do in numerical specs.

Does Jame need a protector? Yes. One that connects to an earth
ground also used by TV cable (hardwired) and by telco installed 'whole
house' protector. All protectors or direct connections must make a
'less than 10 foot' connection to the same earth ground as even
required by post 1990 National Electrical Code. And yes, to protect
the TV, even the telephone 'whole house' protector must be earthed so
that destructive surges do not enter the building. Protection is
defined by a single point earthing electrode. Protectors are nothing
more than connections from each utility wire to protection - earth
ground.

Just wondering why you don't consider the ground wire in an outlet as
ground?

An outlet ground is more of a safety ground (protection from electrocution
or fire). There is some resistance back to earth from any outlet. The best
spot for surge protection is at the panel as the earth ground is only feet
away from the actual earth and electricity follows the path of least
resistance. A cheaper surge protection strip at each device can offer some
protection in case the panel device fails or there's a localized
interference.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 24, 12:39 pm, "Tom in Macon" wrote:
Just wondering why you don't consider the ground wire in an outlet as
ground?

AC electric is affected by wire resistance. That means a wall
receptacle safety ground via 50 feet of Romex wire might be less than
0.2 ohms resistance to earthing electrode. But for surges, wire
impedance is the dominant parameter. That same 50 foot wire may be
120 ohms impedance.

Let's say the plug-in protectors must earth a trivial 100 amp
surge. 100 amps times 120 ohms means voltage may approach 12,000.
Bud's own citation shows this problem with a TV charged to 8000 volts
- destructively - because the plug-in protectors has all but no earth
ground.

These numbers assume that 50 foot ground wire has no sharp bends, no
splices, does not pass through metallic conduit, etc. Those factors
increase wire impedance.

Not only must a protector make a 'less than 10 foot' connection -
for low impedance. Earthing also must exceed requirements of post
1990 National Electrical Code. No sharp bends, no splices, as short
as possible, AND not bundled with other non-earthing wires. If
earthing a transient via wall receptacle safety ground, well, that
Romex ground wire is bundled with and induces transients on other
wires. Just another reason why wall receptacle safety (equipment)
ground is not sufficient as earth ground.

How must that earthing wire be routed? Up above the breaker box,
over the foundation, then down to an earthing electrode? No. Too
long, probably bundled with other wires, and too many bends. Earthing
wire is best run through foundation for a shorter distance to earthing
electrode. Lower wire impedance on that earthing conductor makes a
protection 'system' even more effective.

Remember what makes a protector effective: its earthing electrode
and how that connection is created.

To promote plug-in protectors, its manufacturer simply avoids
discussing this. Somehow a wall receptacle makes a perfectly good
connection to earth? No. They avoid an earthing discussion. Profits
are too large. Look at Monster Cable. Monster knows, instead, to
charge many times more. Then people will 'assume' it is better.
'Assume' is what promotes plug-in and Monster Cable protectors. Why
would they (or Circuit City) discuss earthing? Profits are too high
by telling half truths.

Meanwhile, in another post, you cautioned:
... make sure the surge protection circuit has not been
used destroyed by a surge.

Well how do you know? A properly sized protector degrades - does
not vaporize as indicated by lights. Threshold voltage on a degraded
protector only changes by 10%. That light? It only reports that the
protector components were so grossly undersized as to vaporize.
Undersizing a protector maximizes profits. Effective protectors must
earth the transient AND remain functional. A degraded protector is
not indicated by those lights. Just another fact that a plug-in
protector manufacturers will forget to mention.


Remember, a TV cable (properly installed) is earthed. A shorter and
destructive path from surge protector to earth: through adjacent TV
and to earth via TV coax cable. Now a protector, adjacent to TV, has
simply contributed to damage of that TV. Surge uses TV to find earth
when wall receptacle safety ground wire higher impedance.

But a few reasons why AC wall receptacle safety ground is not earth
ground. Also reasons why your telco does not use plug-in protectors
in facilities that must never suffer damage. Why does the telco
install a 'whole house' protector, for free, at your building?
Because it is so inexpensive and so effective when properly earthed.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 24, 12:54 pm, (Liam R) wrote:
As a retired electrical engineer, with many years experience in design,
implementation and maintenance, of communications and security systems,
I take exception to the conclusion of w_tom that surge suppressors are
of no value in protecting electrical operated devices from damage from
power line surges.

w_tom never said what Liam R has misrepresented. w_tom noted that a
protector without earthing will not earth a typically destuctive
surge. Earthing is the protection. Protector is simply a connecting
device to protection - earthing. Protector is necessary to earth AC
electric and telephone wires.

Where to put the power strip protector? On the AC receptacle
adjacent to a mains breaker box. Then it might earth something.

One need not have a fat wallet to install effective protection. One
needs a fat wallet for ineffective plug-in protectors. 'Whole house'
protectors with minimally sufficient joules AND the dedicated earthing
wire are sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. That's about
$1 per protected appliance. Why would anyone spend $125 for a
protector that does not even claim to protect? Why would anyone spend
$125 per protected appliance for a protector that does not even claim
to work?

Joules and earthing make a protector effective. w_tom strongly
recommends surge protectors that work - which means less money for
better protection - which is not a plug-in type without an earthing
wire.

do I need a surge protector?
 

bud-- wrote:

(the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US).

Huh... So the "I" stands for *I*n the US??? Silly me, always thinking
that it stood for *I*nternational...

;-)

Carlos
--

do I need a surge protector?
 

"w_tom" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 24, 12:39 pm, "Tom in Macon" wrote:
Just wondering why you don't consider the ground wire in an outlet as
ground?

AC electric is affected by wire resistance. That means a wall
receptacle safety ground via 50 feet of Romex wire might be less than
0.2 ohms resistance to earthing electrode. But for surges, wire
impedance is the dominant parameter. That same 50 foot wire may be
120 ohms impedance.

Let's say the plug-in protectors must earth a trivial 100 amp
surge. 100 amps times 120 ohms means voltage may approach 12,000.
Bud's own citation shows this problem with a TV charged to 8000 volts
- destructively - because the plug-in protectors has all but no earth
ground.

These numbers assume that 50 foot ground wire has no sharp bends, no
splices, does not pass through metallic conduit, etc. Those factors
increase wire impedance.

Not only must a protector make a 'less than 10 foot' connection -
for low impedance. Earthing also must exceed requirements of post
1990 National Electrical Code. No sharp bends, no splices, as short
as possible, AND not bundled with other non-earthing wires. If
earthing a transient via wall receptacle safety ground, well, that
Romex ground wire is bundled with and induces transients on other
wires. Just another reason why wall receptacle safety (equipment)
ground is not sufficient as earth ground.

How must that earthing wire be routed? Up above the breaker box,
over the foundation, then down to an earthing electrode? No. Too
long, probably bundled with other wires, and too many bends. Earthing
wire is best run through foundation for a shorter distance to earthing
electrode. Lower wire impedance on that earthing conductor makes a
protection 'system' even more effective.

Remember what makes a protector effective: its earthing electrode
and how that connection is created.

To promote plug-in protectors, its manufacturer simply avoids
discussing this. Somehow a wall receptacle makes a perfectly good
connection to earth? No. They avoid an earthing discussion. Profits
are too large. Look at Monster Cable. Monster knows, instead, to
charge many times more. Then people will 'assume' it is better.
'Assume' is what promotes plug-in and Monster Cable protectors. Why
would they (or Circuit City) discuss earthing? Profits are too high
by telling half truths.

Meanwhile, in another post, you cautioned:
... make sure the surge protection circuit has not been
used destroyed by a surge.

Well how do you know? A properly sized protector degrades - does
not vaporize as indicated by lights. Threshold voltage on a degraded
protector only changes by 10%. That light? It only reports that the
protector components were so grossly undersized as to vaporize.
Undersizing a protector maximizes profits. Effective protectors must
earth the transient AND remain functional. A degraded protector is
not indicated by those lights. Just another fact that a plug-in
protector manufacturers will forget to mention.


Remember, a TV cable (properly installed) is earthed. A shorter and
destructive path from surge protector to earth: through adjacent TV
and to earth via TV coax cable. Now a protector, adjacent to TV, has
simply contributed to damage of that TV. Surge uses TV to find earth
when wall receptacle safety ground wire higher impedance.

But a few reasons why AC wall receptacle safety ground is not earth
ground. Also reasons why your telco does not use plug-in protectors
in facilities that must never suffer damage. Why does the telco
install a 'whole house' protector, for free, at your building?
Because it is so inexpensive and so effective when properly earthed.

Hmm. Seems like we had to have a gound resistance of less than 2 ohms to
ground on work benches used in Navy electronics. This was seldom achieved
and not because of bad wiring, but because the ground electrode sunk into
the ground almost always showed more than 2 ohms. True ground is hard to
achieve because of soil moisture content and soil conductivity. And no, we
didn't use a simple ohm meter to take the measurements, but an instrument
that used 3 rods sunk in the ground and a bridge type meter to take the
measurement.
Personally, I think the surge protectors will work fine on most home
applications. The surge protector on my computer says it will suppress to
330V, and that is all I am asking it to do.

do I need a surge protector?
 

Carlos Moreno wrote:
bud-- wrote:

(the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US).


Huh... So the "I" stands for *I*n the US??? Silly me, always thinking
that it stood for *I*nternational...

;-)

Carlos
--

IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

A world wide organization...
http://www.ieee.org/web/geo_activities/home/index.html

Dominant without being exclusive to US.

do I need a surge protector?
 

"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.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 24, 8:08 pm, "Tom in Macon" wrote:
Hmm. Seems like we had to have a gound resistance of less than 2 ohms
to ground on work benches used in Navy electronics. ...
Personally, I think the surge protectors will work fine on most home
applications. The surge protector on my computer says it will suppress to
330V, and that is all I am asking it to do

2 ohms is earthing electrode resistance - not related to anything
posted above. Discussed was impedance between the appliance and that
electrode. 120 ohm impedance is unchanged whether earthing electrode
was 2 ohms or higher. Mentioning 2 ohms ground resistance is
irrelevant to impedance in wires. Making 2 ohms as low as possible
addresses something different.

Also not relevant is another parameter called let-through voltage.
Protector remains inert - acts just like a $3 power strip - until
voltage between two wires exceeds 330 volts. Does that 330 volts on
a 120 volt TV cause damage? No, because internal TV protection even
makes 600 volts irrelevant.

That 330 volts may exist between any two AC wires. But a
completely different voltage, 12,000 volts, can exist
simultaneously. Current creating 12,000 volts could pass right
through a power strip, no even create 330 volts inside that protector,
and still destructively damage adjacent electronics. Protector does
nothing to protect and may even contribute to adjacent electronics
damage.

A car radio hooked to a 12 volt battery. To protect that radio, we
put a 50 volt protector across radio's power wires. Somebody connects
1000 VAC only to one battery terminal. Does that 50 volts protector
see the 1000 volts? Of course not. 50 volt protector only sees 12
volts as 1000 volts passes through radio, out antenna wire, and
destroys the radio. Your 330 volt plug-in protector performs just
like that 50 volt radio protector. This circuit also demonstrates how
why a 330 volt plug-in protector does not protect the adjacent TV.

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.

Your plug-in protector did nothing to prevent and might contribute
to damage of Jane's TV just like that 50 volt protector did not
protect the 12 volt radio. Plug-in protector is just as ineffective in
the home as in telco facilities and 911 emergency response centers. A
plug-in protector too far from earth ground and too close to TV does
not even claim to provide protection. Worse, that plug-in protector
costs $25 or $125 per protected appliance. Damage prevented if using
a 'less than 10 foot' connection of a 'whole house' protector costing
about $1 per protected appliance. Your protector is 25 and 100 times
more expensive - and does not even claim to provide that protection.
Just another reason why high reliability facilities do not use a plug-
in protector that is not effective and costs excessive.

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!

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 9:00 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.

Why do MOV manufacturers provide charts that list joules in relation
to length of surge, size of surge, and number of surges? Why do MOV
manufacturer numbers say directly opposite what Leonard has just
posted? We had this conversation before when I discovered Leonard
did not learn how MOVs work nor read manufacturer datasheets. Well,
here is a datasheet. As joules increase, a line for life expectancy
moves up the chart. The lurker can take numbers from charts for each
MOV; see that Bud and Leonard have just posted deception. Joules is
the measure of protector life expectancy:
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/CA.pdf

Let's take an example: multiple 10,000 amp surges for a typical 30
microseconds. A 330 joule MOV (V251CA32) will shunt twice before
degrading (not vaporize as happens with intentionally undersized
protectors). The 880 joule MOV (V251CA60) will shunt 10. With 2.7
times more joules, then life expectancy increase exponentially to 5
times longer.

Notice how joules determine life expectancy.

Same 330 joule protector will shunt a ten thousand 300 amp surges. A
370 joule MOV is rated for 60,000 surges. And the 880 joule MOV has a
life expectancy of 100,000. 2.7 times more joules mean a life
expectancy of about 10 times longer. Again, more joules mean an
exponentially increasing life expectancy.

These numbers contradict what both Bud and Leonard have posted. But
again, they are promoting plug-in protectors. Accurate numbers are
not what plug-in protector promoters will provide. Do those numbers
yourself. Joules is a good indicator of surge protector life
expectancy. Joules listed in a plug-in protector spec are
intentionally deceptive. After all, they are not selling effective
protection. They are selling myths without accurate numbers at
massively higher profits.

Panamax is not the responsible manufacturer as Leonard would have
you believe. Responsible manufacturers have names such as GE,
Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Square D, and Siemens. Where is
that Panamax 'whole house' protector? Panamax sells myths that
Leonard promoted:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812120408
or
http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...il&id=249&ly=v
Where are the numbers that claim protection? These are Leonard's own
citations. Where are the numerical specs that list each type of surge
AND cite protection from that surge? Why are no such numbers
available? And how many joules are actually used in protection? Why
a shortage of facts and deceptive numbers?

Provided is an MOV manufacturer datasheet. Do those numbers
yourself. If the protector is an effective type, then joules IS a
measure of protector life expectancy. Leonard and Bud misrepresented
facts to promote ineffective plug-in protectors. Don't take my word
for it. Do the numbers yourself. See how they have deceived you.
w_tom provided a Littelfuse MOV datasheet. w_tom posted using
engineering facts and a few generations of experience. MOVs are a
measure of protector life expectancy - when the protector is
constructed to provide protection - not to promote myths.

Leonard - do the numbers yourself. You have posted some accurate
citations that agree with what I have posted. But Bud promotes for
the plug-in industry and will not even be honest about it. Therefore
he will even hype the deception about joules - because his products
often have too few joules. Too few joules and the resulting smoke
sells more ineffective products to the naive. Joules is the ballpark
measurement of protector life expectancy - when a protector
manufacturer is being honest. Honesty is in short supply among plug-
in protector manufacturers and their promoter.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 3:33 am, "bud--" wrote:
"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.

And then he goes on to explain how anything - such as a kid with an
Xbox - completely violates that protection. Any one port not covered;
then damage may result. Attach an
Xbox to the TV and a port have been violated - damage can result.

Bud hopes you take that SRE paper as a recommendation. Martzloff
demonstrates how it might work and how it can fail. But forgets to
mention that to promote plug-in protectors.

Meanwhile Martzloff then moves on to explain that 'whole house'
protectors are the better solution. What good is a protector that is
compromised even by an Xbox? Well, Bud now tries to avoid discussing
that six port problem to avoid the Xbox problem and to avoid
discussing why that TV is put at 8000 volts by the plug-in protector.

Bud wants you to forget he is the big advocate of only part of that
paper - to intentionally promote myths.

Meanwhile those protectors use current technology in the scary
pictures. Bud will do anything to deny that reality. In one
picture, they even removed all MOVs (the active component) and its
lights still said the protector was good. Even those lights are
promoting half truths. They removed the entire protection circuit and
its light said it was OK? What kind of protection is that?
Protection promoted on myths and half truths:
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?
 

Why not just put a whole house surge protector in at the panel? It's a
little more than a single plug-in surge protector and most likely less
expensive if using more than one plug-in surge protector. You get the
benefits of every piece of electrical equipment being protected in the
house.


"bud--" wrote in message
ups.com...
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?
 

"FDR" wrote in message
...
Why not just put a whole house surge protector in at the panel? It's a
little more than a single plug-in surge protector and most likely less
expensive if using more than one plug-in surge protector. You get the
benefits of every piece of electrical equipment being protected in the
house.

Depends on the hit.
Our home theater got hit when our chimney took a direct bolt that hit the
fireplace insert, that had a fan... that vaporized.

And the bolt entered the house wiring in the same room as the theater, about
50 ft from the service panel.

Fortunately, I had built my own multistage protector with huge MOV's backed
up with flashover tubes... it took kilojoules and save much of the equipment
on the power line.

Unfortunately, my cable TV coax was attached to the chimney... and the
lightning came in that way too.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 2:08 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:33 am, "bud--" wrote:

"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.

And then he goes on to explain how anything - such as a kid with an
Xbox - completely violates that protection. Any one port not covered;
then damage may result. Attach an
Xbox to the TV and a port have been violated - damage can result.

It is yet another source w_ can't understand. The title is: "AN
IMPORTANT LINK IN WHOLE-HOUSE PROTECTION: SURGE REFERENCE EQUALIZERS".
As is apparent from the title, it describes how surge reference
equalizers - SREs - can protect equipment connected to both power and
signal wiring. It was written in 1993 when SREs were quite new. The
only ports on almost any household equipment are power and signal. The
point was both are protected by a SRE. And any kid with an Xbox is a
lot smarter than w_.


Bud hopes you take that SRE paper as a recommendation. Martzloff
demonstrates how it might work and how it can fail. But forgets to
mention that to promote plug-in protectors.
Bullcrap. w_ can't figure out how plug-in surge suppressors work. The
IEEE and NIST guides, along with the 6 ports paper say plug-in
suppressors work.



Meanwhile Martzloff then moves on to explain that 'whole house'
protectors are the better solution.
More bull crap. Martzloff, describing SREs in the 6 ports paper says
"Such a solution is particularly attractive as an element of 'whole-
house protection',"



Bud wants you to forget he is the big advocate of only part of that
paper - to intentionally promote myths.
w_, being unable to comprehend how SREs work. misinterprets
conflicting information and creates myths not supported elsewhere in
the known universe.


Protection promoted on myths and half truths:
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
Ho-hum. Repeating yet again:
" 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."

And another link w_ can't understand.

And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective.
There are 97,463,861 web sites, including 12,587,333 by lunatics, and
w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are not
effective.

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are
effective.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 6:55 pm, "FDR" wrote:
Why not just put a whole house surge protector in at the panel? It's a
little more than a single plug-in surge protector and most likely less
expensive if using more than one plug-in surge protector. You get the
benefits of every piece of electrical equipment being protected in the
house.

Damn - an actual good question. After w_ I am almost out of practice.

As you have probably noted I recommend reading the IEEE guide on
surges and protection at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
And a similar NIST guide at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide says the following are effective - used together as
appropriate:
earthing of the power system
single point grounding
surge suppressor at the power service
plug-in surge suppressors - particularly surge reference
equalizers (mltiport suppressors)

The NIST guide recommendation are the same or similar. I agree with
those recommendations.

Earthing is basic - every system will be earthed.

Single point grounding is where the phone, CATV, ... protectors are
near to, and connected with short wires to the earthing wire at the
power service. Not using a single point ground can cause equipment
damage to equipment connected to both power and signal wires as
illustrated in the IEEE guide - guide page 31. The illustration
continues to show how a SRE can provide protection when there is not a
single point ground. Single point grounds are often not established.
My house had the phone NID connected to the water pipe, which was a
common practice but did not provide a short interconnection. And it is
not uncommon to have the signal service points distant from the power
service point (in that case the signal wires can be run to a second
protector adjacent to the power service and a second protector
installed - with signal distribution from that point).

Power service surge protectors are a real good idea. Some reason why
they might not be installed:
rental property
cost, if installed by an electrician
lightning risk is relatively low
not much equipment needs to be protected

Plug-in surge suppressors, which should include all interconnected
equipment and external signal wires, will provide protection if some
of the above are not present. They are also extra insurance for high
value equipment - HDTV being a prime example. I have a plug-in
protector on my computer, not so much because of its value but the
value of the data and hassle of setting up a new one.
From the NIST guide:
"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."

Looking at SquareD power service protectors - the best one has ports
for phone and CATV. The $ protection warranty doubles if plug-in
suppressors are present.
The $ protection warranty for the next best one does not include
electronics equipment like audio, TV, computer, microwave.
A lot of plug-in protectors have $protection warranties that cover
connected equipment.

Finally, my comments responding to w_ are almost always that plug-in
suppressors are effective, not that I recommend them. My
recommendation is to read the guides and decide what is appropriate
for you situation.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 1:55 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:00 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.

Why do MOV manufacturers provide charts that list joules in relation
to length of surge, size of surge, and number of surges? Why do MOV
manufacturer numbers say directly opposite what Leonard has just
posted?
The comments apply to package surge suppressors - both service panel
and plug-in, not individual MOVs. Read the IEEE guide - it
specifically warns against comparing the energy ratings of different
suppressors because there is no standard for measuring the energy
withstand for suppressors.


We had this conversation before when I discovered Leonard
did not learn how MOVs work nor read manufacturer datasheets. Well,
here is a datasheet. As joules increase, a line for life expectancy
moves up the chart. The lurker can take numbers from charts for each
MOV; see that Bud and Leonard have just posted deception.
What Bud just posted is exactly what the IEEE guide says. Leonard says
the same thing.


Let's take an example: multiple 10,000 amp surges for a typical 30
microseconds. A 330 joule MOV (V251CA32) will shunt twice before
degrading (not vaporize as happens with intentionally undersized
protectors). The 880 joule MOV (V251CA60) will shunt 10. With 2.7
times more joules, then life expectancy increase exponentially to 5
times longer.
If you had a clue you would have seen me make this argument several
times.



These numbers contradict what both Bud and Leonard have posted. But
again, they are promoting plug-in protectors.
Geez Leonard - you made it to the big time.

Accurate numbers are
not what plug-in protector promoters will provide.
If that applies to Leonard and me you just destroyed your rant. The
quotes at the start from both fo us is that numbers on energy ratings
are not comparable. Your stupidity is increasing.

Honesty is in short supply among plug-
in protector manufacturers and their promoter.
Intelligence is in increasingly short supply in w_'s posts.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 26, 8:00 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:

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,
Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

If a H-N suppressor rating is 10,000Joules, for an example, and the
suppressor only gets hit with 1,000Joule single events, the suppressor
can withstand *cumulative* hits of many times its 10,000Joule rating.
I think many suppressors have ratings that are far larger than a
likely hit, making failure quite unlikely, which makes a lifetime
warranty practical.


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.
I don't believe MOVs reliably trip circuit breakers on plug-in surge
suppressors before damage is caused by the overheating of the MOV on
its path ot a short..

In any case, the 1998 revision to the UL standard required protection
that disconnects overheating MOVs. I believe that is implemented by
fuses or similar devices immediately adjacent to the MOVs to
disconnect them. It is likely the MOVs will be disconnected without
tripping the breaker, so the unit is still powered.

The IEEE guide describes that the protected load may be connected
across the MOVs and be disconnected when they are disconnected, or the
load may stay powered with no protection. Manufacturers are required
to indicate which method is used. Disconnecting the load sounds like a
good idea.


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.
The one I recently bought was a Belkin. There a lot of protectors with
high ratings that should be perfectly good. I would use one with a
recognized name.


I like 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
Interesting, it does not provide surge current ratings on this page.
But ratings are on a linked manufacturer page. I'm also surprised the
manufacturer $ protection warranty is not on the first page

http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...il&id=249&ly=v
Fairly spendy but includes over/under voltage protection. I had read
that is available but hadn't seen a protector with it before. The
manufacturer has a hidden $ protection warranty for this one too.



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

w_ is evangelical in his beliefs about plug-in suppressors and he
searches google-groups "surge" to find heathens, like Jane, to
convert. Alas, Jane, and you, are still pagans.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 27, 4:20 am, "bud--" wrote:
The comments apply to package surge suppressors - both service panel
and plug-in, not individual MOVs. Read the IEEE guide - it
specifically warns against comparing the energy ratings of different
suppressors because there is no standard for measuring the energy
withstand for suppressors.

Remember those scary pictures? MOVs from that dastsheet are inside
those plug-in protectors. Bud is lying. Bud now claims those MOVs
inside plug-in protectors are somehow different. Somehow when inside
a plug-in protector, then increased joules no longer increases
protector life expectancy? Bud must make this claim because he was
caught intentionally misrepresenting what the IEEE says. Plug-in
protectors claim more joules than actually protect. Why? Numerous
reasons. One: undersizing - having some protectors smoke - actually
promotes more sales.

Bud claims no relationship between joules and MOV life expectancy.
MOV manufacturer specs - view those datasheets yourself at
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/CA.pdf
- show increased joules exponentially increases protector life
expectancy.

At $25, they could easily increase the joules by ten times. But
having some protectors smoke then gets the naive to promote "replace
them every two years". Profits are more important which again
explains those scary pictures:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm

Sell a $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts for $25 and
$125. Bud promotes for these manufacturers. Bud does not promote
for responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Square
D, Siemens, or Cutler-Hammer. Ask any electrician. Those latter six
manufacturer are all well respected. Therefore Bud must spin myths
so that you waste good money on more ineffective plug-in protectors.

When it smokes, Bud claims there is no relationship between joules
and protector life expectancy. Well the MOV manufacturer datasheet
proves he was lying.

Again, little relationship between a plug-in protector's joules and
life expectancy. Their joules number is intentionally deceptive.
Deception from a plug-in protector manufacturer? Oh my! Just
another example of why responsible manufacturers such as Square D,
Siemens, GE, et al make 'whole house' protectors - with the necessary
and dedicated earthing connection.

Bud claims plug-in protectors use different MOVs. Well look at the
MOVs removed in this scary picture - same MOVs:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Remember when Bud said those protectors are not current technology?
Then why are the MOV manufacturers still selling the same MOVs today?
Or did he spin another myth?

Just more reasons why Bud hopes you will not view those scary
pictures of past and current protectors.

Numbers taken from that datasheet:
A 330 joule MOV (V251CA32) will shunt twice before degrading
(not vaporize as happens with intentionally undersized
protectors). The 880 joule MOV (V251CA60) will shunt 10.

As joules increase, then protector life expectancy increases
exponentially. This is valid when you install a protector from
responsible manufacturers - not purchased a plug-in protector. When
using a plug-in protector, those 'claimed' joules in numeric
specifications is not the joules actually used in protection. Why do
they (and Bud) forget to mention that? Just another reason why plug-
in protector are not effective. No wonder they have Bud obfuscating
even this reality: a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

Bud was caught lying again to promote grossly overpriced (highly
profitable) plug-in protectors.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 27, 3:04 am, "bud--" wrote:
Ho-hum. Repeating yet again:
" 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."

Those scary pictures show protectors then and currently failing the
same way and for same reasons. Those protector used same components
in the 1980s when PC Magazine demonstrated this problem in two
separate issues.

Notice again how Bud posts a half truth. How were MOVs somehow
'fixed'? He sort of forgets to mention that part. Those scary
pictures demonstrate why grossly understized protectors are dangerous
when located on a rug or on a desk adjacent to a pile of papers.
Scary pictures that he needs you to igno
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

How can this be when the protection cost tens of times more money
per protected apliance? Well someone has to pay for Bud. He also
forgets that part.

Meanwhile Bud posts so that you will ignore what everyone
(responsible) defines necessary for effective protection: earthing.
What does Martzloff actually say in his studies? Martzloff even
defines plug-in protectors as contributing to electronics damage. Bud
does not even challenge this quote:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These
occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices
are present at the point of connection of appliances.

Martzloff again because Bud misrepresents what Martzloff says.
Martzloff says one 'whole house' protector is the better solution:
High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
service entrance of the premises.

Best? Well Martzloff was discussing plug-in protectors - then
recommended a "best" solution. So Bud avoids that and other Martzloff
conclusions.

Bud will even confuse shunt mode protection with clamping.
Shunting, clamping, or as Martzloff says - "best diverted" - each
defines shunting a surge to earth ground.

A list of professionals who discuss real world protection are in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit
needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe":
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

Even the IEEE says what is necessary for protection. Bud will then
reply with more wordy myths so that you will forget this reality - a
need for earthing:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...

Now Bud will reply with attacks because his income from plug-in
protectors is dependent on you not learning about earthing. Did he
also forget to mention that part?

Meanwhile, Bud is also caught intentionally lying about the
relationship between joules and a protector's life expectancy. Why?
Notice that plug-in protectors typically use very few joules in actual
protection. The only number in a numerical specification sheet - and
that number is deceptive? See the numbers posted 26 February at:
http://tinyurl.com/22g9du
followed by more of Bud's denials.