Checking Earth Ground--problem

Don Both you and Bud need to realize that it is futile to wrestle with a pig. You just get covered in mud and the pig enjoys it.

Reply to
Tom Horne, Electrician
Loading thread data ...

You are right but the problem is that people may actually believe some of what he has said if nobody speaks up.

Reply to
Don Kelly

The thing called 'static electicity' is not static. We can call it Don Kelly electricity it you like. But the thing commonly known as static electricity is 'dynamically' moving charges. It is electricity. Static whatever followed by the word electriticy means 'dynamic' electricity. But it is still electricity. BTW - the terms 'static electicity' and 'dynamic electricity' mean same. However that is all irrelevant because the only point - it is electricity.

Electricity flows through materials that are not conductive? How can this be? Because materials that must not be conductive to a TV at

8000+ volts actually are conductive at elevated voltages. When static charges on shows are connected to a conductive path, then electricity flows through those now conductive materials.

Don Kelly electricity, static electricity, or dynamic electicity - is still will not flow through non-conductive items. So why does it flow? Because those items that somehow will not conduct current via an 8000+ volt TV are actually conductive. That is the sixth path that violates effective SRE protection in Bud's cited paper. Just another reason why plug-in protectors are not effective protection; money better spent on effective 'whole house' protector and enhanced earthing.

Reply to
w_tom

Insufficient information to make a judgement call for a particular room. But we are not discussing a specific room. We are discussing general protection in every room. Will that TV at 8000 volts be damaged every time? No. But even 5% or 10% damaged is totally unacceptable. Spend so much money for a shunt mode protector that does not even have earthing, threatens damage (TV at 8000 volts), and call that effective?

One general solution does apply. Install a 'whole house' protector to provide generally effective protection for all homes: two wire receptacles, three wire receptacles, electronics for furnace and air conditioner, smoke detectors so essential to human safety, clock radio, dishwasher, etc. Also inspect the utility 'primary' protection. Now we are talking effective.

Once a massive transient is minimized, then seconary transient will not overwhelm appliance internal protection. Every time? No. But it is by far THE best solution for every room in America.

And then we have other problems with shunt mode protectors that don't have necessary earth ground. Are threats to human life acceptable? Examples of plug-in protectors:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
No, a 'whole house' solution is not 100%. But it is vastly superior to more expensive plug-in protectors. Shunt mode protectors that forget to mention earthing and don't even claim such protection are effective? Shunt mode protectors that are now promoted as if earthing never was necessary? Where is all this protection in their numerical specs? But again, why do these shunt mode protector manufacturers forget to mention earthing? Why are these devices effective when even the manufacturer forgets to make such claims? They are ineffective plug-in protectors.

Reply to
w_tom

That is a perfectly valid point and I used to try to offer counterpoint to his sermons on the true religion of grounding but he wore me down. Thanks for holding up the common sense half of the sky.

Reply to
Tom Horne, Electrician

In his early days in GE, Martzloff wrote about MOVs - making the L-N, L-G, and G-N connections: a classic plug-in protector. GE's MOV application note of that time also reported how surges can enter on overhead or underground wires. And what joules measure. Also useful information. Those were 1970 time period. I wish I had kept that GE MOV application manual since it defined what is today called the plug-in protector. Plug-in protector manufacturers today provide that type protection: L-N, L-G, N-G.

Meanwhile both I and apparently Martzloff have since moved on to discover what others learned previously. Earthing defines quality of protection. Learned why 'whole house' protectors from Siemens, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, GE, and Square D are so effective.

MOV is simply a connection to earthing. Too many experiments with MOV protectors (and resulting damage) taught me why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Experiences with protectors over many decades (in one revealing example - less than 2 feet to earth ground) taught me why earthing and short connections to better earthing defines protection.

Yes, those early Martzloff papers discussed protection only in terms of MOVs - plug-in protectors. But as his latest papers demonstrate, Martzloff has now written about superior protection provided by better earthing. Once he only wrote in terms of L-N, L-G, and N-G - the classic plug-in protector.

Reply to
w_tom

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as effecive - to anyone who can both read and think.

A MOV is simply a clamping device.

bud--

Reply to
Bud--

Ditto. I have been trying to shorten returns though.

I have seen posts that suggest w_ searches for "surge" to spread his wisdom. Some groups with technical people remember him and he gets real hostile responses.

bud--

Reply to
Bud--

Maybe I don't understand what you have said. To have electricity, both an electric field and a magnetic field must exist. And without current flow (moving charges), then no magnetic field can exist. IOW electricity can exist "with moving current". But how does electricity exist "without moving current"? I am confused on this (a very minor) point.

Yes, protection is necessary at the appliance. But a shunt mode protector - without an earthing ground - without being integrated within a faraday cage - the six ports defined in that paper - does not supply effective protection. Protection effective on an appliance cord is already inside that appliance. Even the SRE concept can be implemented inside appliances.

So what does a shunt mode protector (that is missing an earthing wire) to do? Yes, protection is necessary at the appliance and is already inside an appliance.

'Whole house' protectors earth incoming surges so that internal appliance protection is not overwhelmed. No, one size does not fit all. But if there was any one solution that works in most every residential situation - comes closest to one size fits all - it is a properly earthed 'whole house' protector connected to a single point earth ground. A solution so that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. And that protector is defined mostly by quality of its earthing system. That alone is a massive improvement compared to what is inside most homes today. If any one thing can keep appliance internal protection from being overwhelmed, that most certainly is not a plug-in protector with no earthing and too close to appliances.

How will a plug-in protector do anything anywhere as effective as a 'whole house' protector? It will not for a number of reasons. #1 reason: no short connection to earth.

Now, where is this mixed-> I agree on one point. Electricity is electricity- with or without current

Reply to
w_tom

Energy stored in static charges is not electricity. That energy is a category called electrostatics. An electric field exists AND no magnetic field exists. This is not electricity.

From Maxwell's equations, to have electricity - to have a magnetic field - charges must be moving. No magnetic field even if an electric field does exist still means no electricity. BTW,that is not true for gravity. Gravity exists like electric fields exist. But to have a magnetic field, from Maxwell's equations, charges must be moving; a current must exist.

Static is energy in an electrostatic field. Static electricity is energy with both electric and magnetic fields. The word static alone has no relationship to same word in the term 'static electricity'. Once that word 'static' is paired with electricity, then the term 'static electricity' means same as 'dynamic electricity'.

Static electricity is electricity created from energy once stored in an electrostatic energy storage device. Electricity created because the discharge involves moving charges - also called electricity.

Meanwhile, I have discharged thousand of volts of electricity through wall paint. Wall paint can be conductive once voltages get into thousands of volts. Was it gypsum inside that wall board - not the paint? Maybe. But the point remains. Those walls are conductors when voltages get excessive. And that is the point about static electricity. Items normally not conductive become conductive when confronted by thousands of volts in 'static electricity'.

Why is this relevant? That plug-in protector has put two TVs at maybe 8000 volts. If that 8000 volts has no path for current flow, then TV are not damaged. But as static electricity from a human's fingertip demonstrates, a room has too many 'surprise' conductors. Therefore that 8000 volts may find an outgoing path - and do TV damage. Just another reason why destructive transients are best earthed long before getting into that room; to put two TVs at 8000 volts. Static electricity demonstrates a room is chock full of conductors that would completely violate the SRE concept - compromise the adjacent protector.

Reply to
w_tom

The guys who wrote the IEEE and NIST guides must be pretty dumb, huh?

bud--

Reply to
Bud--

-------------------------

I wasn't going to reply to this but, against my better judgement, I will.

a) There are different "definitions" of electricity and some of the KISS ones that I found agree with you. Technical references treat it as a non- issue, recognising that there is such a thing as "static electricity" (i.e stored energy in an constant electric field) and then getting on with life. However when you get zapped by a so called "static" discharge, the discharge is actually a current- no longer "static" I have been careful to make this clear. However, if you want your own definition of "electricity" (apparently as a matter of pride) other than as a rather loose term, go for it. I will disagree, as will many reputable sources but that won't get in your way.

b) Maxwell's equations include the "static" case so they don't help you. One can handle the "static" case using them.

Please note that I compared the static case to gravity- great parallel in terms of basic force equations and potential energy concepts- but I did not extend it beyond that.

c) I have never said that materials which are normally insulators can break down and even good insulators will have some leakage. My own experience with deliberate tests to breakdown were limited to a bit under 300Kv.

d)If a TV is at 8Kv to ground but the differential voltage between line and neutral on the incoming supply is negligable and no deliberate ground is at the TV (i.e. 2 wire supply cord) then there is no reasonable discharge path. My TV has a plastic case and is on a wood stand. The breakdown voltage of the plastic is of the order of 25-50Kv at 60 Hz and will be higher for an impulse. The varnished wood will easily cope with 8Kv and more. Result- the TV will float above ground. A local protector may clamp the line to neutral voltage to a safe value in such a case but the danger of a discharge through case, stand, nearby walls, etc, is pretty slim at a piddly

8Kv surge.

e) Your static electricity example actually shows the opposite of what you claim. A room is not full of conductors but rather is generally full of pretty good insulators whose leakage is low. Otherwise there would be no static charge buildup -even humid air is conductive enough to prevent this. A spark from a finger doesn't imply that a ground path exists. It does imply a high local field which can occur between a person and an ungrounded object - damage possible-sure- but both you and your circuit board that you have just zapped may well be both very well insulated from earth. Energy involved? Typically in the order of a mJ and the charge involved may be in the order of microcoulombs

By the way, do you realise how lightning arrestors for a power system work? Modern ones are actually MOV's and older ones are Silicon carbide with a series gap. Both at a voltage level above the normal operating voltage but below the breakdown level of the insulation. The modern units are better able to handle the slower, but higher energy, switching surges which, nowadays, are more of a problem than lightning. This is not to say that proper grounding is unimportant.

Anyhow, I don't expect to convince you, and I really don't care.--

Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer

>
Reply to
Don Kelly

A room is not a monolithic material of "pretty good insulatiors whose leakage is low". The room is a cobble of different materials - some are very good insulators, some significant leakage, and others are totally perfect conductors. If everything in the room was a perfect insulator like that plastic, then TV is not at risk to 8Kv. Problem is, for example, an extension speaker, an attached computer game, or even humans touch that TV creating a potentially destructive path for

8Kv to earth ground. This again because the room was not constructed as required for reliable SRE protection. Room must be constructed similar to a faraday cage as even the IEEE paper noted - the six ports. And again, that paper then recommended an effective alternative - 'whole house' type protector. The IEEE paper that defines those six ports for SRE protection then moves on to recommend a superior solution

- a 'whole house' type protector.

If you think charging a TV to 8000 volts means good protection every time, then fine. Spend tens of times more money on those plug-in protectors. Meanwhile others are better advised to earth a transient before it can get to TV - protection that costs less money. Earthing a transient at the service entrance eliminates a TV at 8000+ volts. It is called effective protection. Unlike massive numbers of plug-in protectors that avoid all discussion about earthing and have no earthing wire, instead, one 'whole house' protector earths a transient. Earths long before transient gets 8000 volts on those two TVs. Earths a transient so that protection already inside two TVs is not overwhelmed.

Meanwhile, anything that a plug-in protector might do effectively adjacent to those TVs is already inside TVs. TVs already have adjacent protection - internally. Protection that may be overwhelmed if an effective 'whole house' protector is not installed. With protection inside the TV and 'whole house' protection at the service entrance, then what does the plug-in protector accomplish? Costs more and does almost nothing: ineffective.

Better protection means not spending up to $100 on each plug-in protector to leave two TVs exposed to 8000 volts. Better protection means plug-in protectors are costly and ineffective. Better protection even in those IEEE papers is defined as a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

Reply to
w_tom

"w_tom" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

--------- I could be inside a Faraday cage, totally isolated from the outside world (no power or communications lines into the room,etc). The cage could be grounded or ungrounded- doesn't matter. Now take a typical room with a typical carpet, etc and low humidity inside this Faraday cage. Shuffle around the room and then go over to a circuit board or a doorknob substitute. Result will be a zap. The only reason that a static charge has been built up is because, in general, insulation is quite good. If the air is humid, then it has sufficient conductivity to eliminate the static charge build up. That appears to be the point that you have missed, among others when you brought up the doorknob example. If the TV has internal protection, then an external protector maybe gilding the lily as you imply. Either only provides line to neutral protection of a device isolated from earth unless a cable signal supply is used and such earthing depends on the grounding of the cable. Depends. You indicate that whole house protection "earths" a transient at the service entrance. As stated, that is quite unclear. If a surge comes in on the line, do you mean that it is shorted to ground? Fine, but what happens to power follow through which could dump more energy into the device than the surge does? I doublt that that is what you mean. If it means that the protection limits the voltage as with a power system surge arrestor, that is a different thing as there will be an overvoltage present, just limited to what is considered a safe value- i.e. clamping occurs (and with this, there is a discharge to earth) allowing for doubling at loads. A surge protector at a device can do a good job- as is apparent from what Bud and others have said. Yes they are limited as are any devices. Yes, whole house protection, properly applied will probably be superior, but will still let some common mode stuff through.

Bye. No further responses from me.

Reply to
Don Kelly

First define the source of 'follow through' to define how if can be destructive and how it can be avoided. For example a transformer, struck by lightning, then forms a plasma connection from 13,000 volt primary to 240 secondary. 'Follow through' sourced by 13,000 volts is large energy - more than from a lightning strike. Now even a 'whole house' protector et al are overwhelmed - destroyed. Just another reason why the primary protection system must also be inspected. Inspection of the primary protection system is essential to avoid this 'follow through' current:

formatting link
Each protection layer - each protection system - is defined by its earthing point.

Yes, a plug-in protector might offer protection. Might. As soon as the kid plugs in his Xbox, that protection 'design' may be compromised. Will you teach a kid how to maintain equipotential protection - how not to violate the faraday cage - or will you install same protection that provides both equipotential and conductivity that even the kid cannot compromise? Same protection is better located farther from the appliance, does both equipotential and conductivity, and is not compromised by surprise connections to earth - such as a baseboard heater.

For tens of times less money, a 'whole house' protector also provides superior protection. Not protection that a human in the room can compromise - also called ineffective protection. Not protectors that costs tens of times more money per protected appliance - also called ineffective protection. The effective protection system makes a short, direct, and independent connection to the most critical component in any protection system: single point earth ground.

Plug-in protectors don't even discuss this. Somehow you will magically always create a faraday cage - SRE protection - none of the six ports compromised? Do plug-in protectors even describe how to make the SRE (equipoential) solution inside every room? Of course not. Do plug-in protectors even claim protection from each type of transient - with numbers? No wonder those papers that describe SRE protection then move on to note protection that is superior - 'whole house' protection.

To be effective, then every room must be a perfect faraday cage. Not possible. Even linoleum tile may become a conductor that violates the six ports - compromise a faraday cage. And yet to be effective, the plug-in protector must create a faraday cage in every room. Not possible as even the kid's Xbox demonstrates.

To be effective, even the SRE (plug-in protector solution) still needs a 'whole house' protector. Lightning must have some path to earth. But if the 'whole house' protector is installed and properly earthed, then what are those 100 plug-in protectors doing? One solution - a 'whole house' protector with proper earthing is so effective - a superior solution. Any money wasted on those 100 plug-in protectors is better spent on enhancing the most critical component in every protection system - earth ground. Not just a system based only in equipotential. A system that does both equipotential and conductivity - and cannot be compromised by a kid with an Xbox.

Yes plug-in protectors are limited devices - which is why they are ineffective. Just because the more expensive solution might work, then you call that effective? I don't. No wonder plug-in protectors manufacturers don't even define protection with numbers in their specifications.

Reply to
w_tom

The IEEE and NIST both say plug-in surge suppressors are effecitve. They might be smarter than you.

bud--

Reply to
Bud--

Bud who promotes plug-in protectors ignores some glaring realities. First those papers say plug-in protectors are sufficient if you - the homeowner - do careful executed engineering installations. For example, a kid by only attaching an Xbox to the TV eliminates protection that Bud promotes. So Bud ignores that fact to promote an excessively expensive and ineffective solution - which a kid with an Xbox can compromise.

Those papers only demonstrate how plug-in protectors must be installed on every appliance including the dishwasher, clock radio, smoke detectors, dimmer switches, etc. Those papers demonstrate why a kid with an Xbox can compromise plug-in protectors.

Others have demonstrated how plug-in protectors endanger humans:

formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Review manufacturer specs for those plug-in protectors. Where do they even list protection for each type transient in their numerical specifications? Assuming you can find those specs, then notice - no numerical claims for protection. Why does the manufacturer not even claim such protection? Why does Bud forget to mention those missing numerical specs?

Effective 'whole house' protectors from responsible manufacturers come from Siemens, Square D, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, and GE. Sources for these and other responsible manufactures include Lowes, Home Depot and electric supply houses. That's one protector for everything, or maybe a hundred plug-in protectors for each electronic device. Where would you put a plug-in protector for bathroom GFCI so it also does not create a fire hazard?

Bud will also post > The IEEE and NIST both say plug-in surge suppressors are effecitve. They

Reply to
w_tom

The IEEE and NIST say nothing about engineering an installation.

The IEEE and NIST say plug-in protectors are effective.

bud--

Reply to
Bud--

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.