Surge / Ground / Lightning

On May 7, 7:27 am, wrote:
And as usual, W_'s statement taken at face value is wrong and/or
misleading. A simple check of history shows Saddam did in fact have
WMDs for years, because they were used in war and against his own
people.

Read Duelfer's report. Learn facts before posting. When David
Kay's report said WMDs did not exist, then extremists had Kay's report
withheld hoping that Charles Duelfer’s report would say otherwise.
Instead, Duelfer’s report said what Kay's report said - and more.
Those WMDs did not exist.

trader should first learn before knowing. trader's constant
bickering is directly traceable to knowledge with first learning
facts. Another indication of that, his problem, are posts full of
insults rather than technical facts. When will trader post a technical
facts or citation? trader even denies what was well documented about
Saddam's WMDs. No wonder he also posts insults that only Rush
Limbaugh would be proud of.

Meanwhile, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground
which is why one 'whole house' protector is *routine* for effective
household surge protection. Which is why responsible homeowners also
inspect their primary surge protection:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
trader also denies this despite a long list of industry professionals
that trader never bothered to learn from.

Another professional standard contradicts naysayers such as trader.
IEEE Green Book (IEEE Std 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning
Protection Grounding':
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

Significantly effective is only one 'whole house' protector.
Protector for about $1 per protected appliance. How much for the
ineffective plug-in protector? $25 or $150 per protected
appliance. Where does that plug-in protector even claim to protect
from typically destructive surges? No plug-in manufacturer
specification exists. It does not even claim to protect from the
typically destructive sruge. IEEE is quite blunt about effective
protection from a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Unlike
trader, I even provide numbers.

trader never read industry standards. Unnecessary. trader
automatically knows without first learning.

On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
How can one find this rating for a particular device?

UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability. In
fact, protectors can completely fail during a UL certification test
and still obtain UL approval. It failed without emitting sparks or
flame; therefore UL approved.

Approval may be obtained by undersizing MOV's thermal fuses so that
a protector will disconnect MOVs faster during a surge; leave the
appliance to fend for itself. Undersized surge protector simply
disconnects faster to obtain UL1449 approval. How might it get that
approval? Provide even less protection so as to not spit flame.

Also required for UL approval is total number of joules. That says
nothing about how many joules actually participate in protection.
Typically, plug-in protectors use as little as 1/3rd and never more
than 2/3rd of its joules for protection. If a protector is also for
cable, telephone, network, etc, then that protector may use even less
joules during protection.

A 'whole house' protector uses all joules during all types of
surges. What happens when more joules actually participate in
protection? Well, doubling the numbers of 'used' joules typically
increases a protector’s life expectancy by a factor of eight. As
joules increase, the life expectancy of the protector increases
exponentially. As joules increase, more energy gets dissipated in
earth and less energy gets dissipated inside the protector. Increase
joules to absorb less energy and to exponentially increase protector's
life expectancy.

Minimal 'whole house' protector for a home is 1000 joules and 50,000
amp surges. In locations where surges occur more frequently, a larger
joule protector is installed. Increased joules means increases
protector life expectancy.

How effective are 'whole house' protectors? Well, a friend suffered
when the 33,000+ volt transmission line fell upon his 4000 volt
distribution line. Literally everyone powered from that B phase had
electric meters explode up to 30 feet from their pans. Many had
damage to plug-in protectors and to powered off appliances plugged
into those protectors. But my friend suffered no damage, except to a
meter that exploded off his building. He had a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. A protector is not rated to provide that
protection. But properly installed protectors with sufficient joules
will provide more protection than rated.

Which protectors actually provide better protection? Products from
a list of responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Square D,
Siemens, Polyphaser, GE, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Leviton.
Specifically not on that list are APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster
Cable.

On May 7, 8:07 am, wrote:
According to W_, surge protection is impossible unless there is
a direct and short connection to earth ground. Does the PC
power supply come with a built-in earth ground?

Again trader reads only what he wants to see. Surge protection
without that short connection to earth ground is *ineffective*.
trader, who understands propaganda in the Rush Limbaugh tradition,
changes the message - uses the word 'impossible'. Misrepresenting
reality is trader.

PC power supply has no built-in earth ground. How do others know?
They learned before knowing. For example, they read both front page
EE Times articles entitled “Protecting Electrical Devices from
Lightning Transients". trader did not. Those electrical concepts
were too complex. trader knows rather than first learn technology.

Had trader learned facts before posting, he would have read what
IEEE Standards also said (and is posted elsewhere). Defined by the
IEEE is effective protection - with numbers:
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

What do 'whole house' protectors use? Enough MOVs so that protector
is sufficiently sized. So that direct lightning strikes does not
destroy the protector.

What do MOVs need to provide effective connection? That short (ie '
less than 10 foot') connection to earth.

What provides surge protection? Earth ground - where surge energy
is harmlessly dissipated.

What does the effective MOV do? Connects to earth so that surge
energy gets dissipated harmlessly rather than destructively inside the
building.

What must those MOVs inside appliances do (and why did Apple stop
using them after Apple II)? Those MOVs must somehow stop or absorb a
surge that even three miles of sky could not stop. So few joules will
somehow absorb all that energy. Such little devices will block what a
sky could not?

What happens when MOVs are too close to appliances and too far from
earth ground? Page 42 Figure 8 from another IEEE citation - surge
earthed 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV.

Provides were numerous professional citations that say this. Where
does trader even post technical numbers? He does not. trader is like
most who recommend plug-in protectors. They need not first learn
facts. They know. Their proof is by using insults – just like Rush
Limbaugh.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

w_tom wrote:

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.


And you are only as lucid as your drugs allow.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article , bud--
writes

Phone wires were clamped to ground before the 1960s?

It was common to earth one leg of the incoming pair to either the house
ground or to its own rod. An earth connection also allowed "party
lines", where two houses could share one physical phone line pair, each
house with its own number. Disadvantage was that both lines could not
be used simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

My previous house still had its telephone earth rod and earth wire,
though it had not been connected to the phone line for many years.

--
(\__/) Bunny says NO to Windows Vista!
(='.'=) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
(")_(") http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/vista.pdf

w_tom wrote:

Also required for UL approval is total number of joules. That says
nothing about how many joules actually participate in protection.
Typically, plug-in protectors use as little as 1/3rd and never more
than 2/3rd of its joules for protection.

How does a protector decide how many of its joules to use? :-)

Nick

w_tom wrote:

... Surge protection without that short connection to earth ground
is *ineffective*.

Wrong, wrong, wrong (say it 3 times and it's true :-)

Nick, ex-K3VZW, BSEE, MSEE, Senior Member, IEEE

On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surgeprotectors".
UL evaluatessurgesuppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.
Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.
How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Look for ul1449 330v or 400 for example, or surge voltage rating SVR
330v or Clamping Category 330v

Whateversurgesuppression protection you're looking for, make sure
thesurgesuppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient VoltageSurge
Suppressors.
http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html
"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, asurgemay have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, thesurgesuppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

MOV’s and surge protectors are like tires on your car, the more you
use them the shorter useful life, mistreat them, the shorter the
useful life, too small or light weight the shorter the useful life.
Ul 1449 certification take care of the too small or light weight.
Proper selection for problem locations is the key to protection.

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

Don’t pay attention to joules on surge protectors, no standard to
measure, a better and recommended rating is “Peak Surge Current” the
higher the better.

wrote:
On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
wrote:
I think the UL requires only that the MOVs don't start a fire when
exposed to conditions which cause their break-down. They don't rate
their ability to function as "surgeprotectors".
UL evaluatessurgesuppressors for fire, electric shock and personal
injury hazards, and also measures and categorizes the devices for how
much voltage they can "clamp," thus preventing excess voltage from
passing through to electronic equipment. UL refers to this as a
"suppressed voltage rating," with ranges from 330V (volts) to 4000V.


Believe it or not, the lower the rating, the better the protection.

That is a quote from UL. Contrast that with Martzloff:
"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 [surge suppressor]
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 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."

How can one find this rating for a particular device?

Look for ul1449 330v or 400 for example, or surge voltage rating SVR
330v or Clamping Category 330v

I believe it is required by UL to be on the package or literature.


Whateversurgesuppression protection you're looking for, make sure
thesurgesuppressor has been tested and Listed to the stringent
requirements of UL 1449, the Standard for Transient VoltageSurge
Suppressors.
http://www.ul.com/consumers/surge.html
"The unpredictable nature of surges makes it difficult to suppress them;
you never know when, how long or how powerful they will be. In some
cases, asurgemay have a higher energy level than the device can
handle. When this happens, thesurgesuppressor may be damaged and lose
its ability to provide protection against future surges."

MOV’s and surge protectors are like tires on your car, the more you
use them the shorter useful life, mistreat them, the shorter the
useful life, too small or light weight the shorter the useful life.
Ul 1449 certification take care of the too small or light weight.
Proper selection for problem locations is the key to protection.

I'm happy to see that UL agrees! They don't seem to put any evaluation
of this parameter, unless the "suppressed voltage rating" includes the
Jules rating of the MOVs.

Don’t pay attention to joules on surge protectors, no standard to
measure, a better and recommended rating is “Peak Surge Current” the
higher the better.

I would like to know the Joule ratings. The problem, as you say, is
there is no standard way to measure the energy rating and some
manufacturers apparently use questionable ratings. That has led some
other reputable manufacturers, like SquareD, to not include Joule ratings.

Peak surge current is directly related to the energy rating. w_'s
recommended 50,000A surge current rating is way beyond what you will get
at a service panel, but it represents a high energy rating which means
long life.

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On May 7, 2:37 pm, VWWall wrote:
How can one find this rating for a particular device?

UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability.

Cuttler Hammer says you are wrong.
http://tinyurl.com/63594d


Approval may be obtained by undersizing MOV's thermal fuses so that
a protector will disconnect MOVs faster during a surge; leave the
appliance to fend for itself.

Of course that applies to service panel and plug-in suppressors. But CH
says a suppressor has to have tested functionality (above).

w_ just buys cheap Chinese knock offs, so his suppressors fail regularly.


Also required for UL approval is total number of joules.

Provide a cite. Why does your favored manufacturer SquareD not provide
Joule ratings?


A 'whole house' protector uses all joules during all types of
surges.

Depends on the surge.


How effective are 'whole house' protectors? Well, a friend suffered
when the 33,000+ volt transmission line fell upon his 4000 volt
distribution line. Literally everyone powered from that B phase had
electric meters explode up to 30 feet from their pans. Many had
damage to plug-in protectors and to powered off appliances plugged
into those protectors. But my friend suffered no damage, except to a
meter that exploded off his building. He had a properly earthed
'whole house' protector. A protector is not rated to provide that
protection. But properly installed protectors with sufficient joules
will provide more protection than rated.

Neither service panel or plug-in suppressors will survive extended
overvoltage. It rapidly kills MOVs. w_ is using anecdotal evidence
(with no cite) to suggest service panel suppressors protect from crossed
power lines. More lunacy.


Which protectors actually provide better protection? Products from
a list of responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Square D,
Siemens, Polyphaser, GE, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, and Leviton.

Being responsible, they all make plug-in suppressors except SquareD.
SquareD, for the ‘best’ service panel suppressor, says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."


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

Still missing – answers to embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

For accurate information read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--