Citation describes various protectors in Category A, B , and C. It repeatedly demonstrates numerous weaknesses with Category A (plug-in) protectors. For example, why are two TVs sitting at 8000 volts somehow protected from surges? You call TVs charged to 8000 volts effective protection? Yes Bud does. If that protector was moved to and earthed at the service entrance, then two TVs would not be sitting at 8000 volts. But again, that is why 'whole house' protectors are so effective.
How does that 8000 volts not conduct current? Of course it conducts current through other paths found inside all homes. Some of those paths are destructive.
formatting link
High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
Repeatedly Bud ignores quotes from his own citations to post half truths. At least he stopped falsely claiming that IEEE recommends plug-in protectors. They don't. Those IEEE papers only define different types of protectors. Each paper has some little paragraph that notes either how plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage or that a 'whole house' protector is the superior solution.
Plug-in protetors are shunt mode devices. Without that low impedance connection to earth, then what do they do? Shunts 8000 volts into those two TVs? What kind of protection is that? One that assumes the entire room has been reconstructed as a Faraday cage. Meanwhile effective protection earths before destructive surges get into that room and appliances - which is why those professional papers repeatedly note a superior 'whole house' protection method.
Bud, acting as troll is sophmoric. And being an employee of a surge protector manufacturer does not help your credibility. Repeatedly demonstrated is why plug-in protectors can even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. Somehow you call that effective protection? This from your own previous citation:
Damage occurs "even when or perhaps because" plug-> The link at
formatting link
which is a guide published by the IEEE, and is a link posted by you,
This paper, which is no longer available (bad link) was writen by Martzloff, the NIST guru on surges, and describes surge reference equalizers, also described plainly in both the IEEE and NIST guides. From the paper:
"CONCLUSIONS "The rapid expansion of smart electronics involving power and communications connections creates the potential for disappointing performance under surge conditions if adequate, coordinated protection is not provided Separate, uncoordinated surge protection of each of the two ports still leaves the possibility of damage or upset. "A new type of device, the 'Surge Reference Equalizer', offers a solution to the problem, provided that the performance characteristics of the device will be coordinated with the environmental stress and with other surge-protective devices that may be installed on the systems."
Surge reference equalizers clamp voltages for all wiring to equipment power and communications. Martzloff says that is effective. Using this paper to argue against SREs is stupid.
Anyone who can both read and think can read the NIST and IEEE guides and see they recognize plug-in surge suppressors as effective.
The IEEE, NIST and Martzloff clearly recognize plug-in surge protectors are effective. Are you smarter than the IEEE, the NIST and Francois Martzloff?
1993 Paper on surge reference equalizer (SRE) from Martzloff, et al that also demands all six ports be included in protection (IOW room must be reconstructed to be interconnected to the SRE). Meanwhle, the paper that Bud originally cited (long before this thread) and that he says is no longer available makes this very important conclusion:
Because conditions necessary to make a plug-in protector effective do not exist - because not all six ports can be included - then even that paper instead recommend the 'whole house' protector solution.
A properly earthed 'whole house' protector such as models from more responsible manufacturers such as Leviton, Intermatic, GE, Siemens, and Cutler-Hammer. Such products are sold in Home Depot, Lowes, and electrical supply houses. Ineffective plug-in protectors advocated by Bud are sold in places such as Kmart and your grocery store.
'Coordinated protection' is a primary protection system and a secondary protection system. Each protection layer is defined by its single point earth ground. Homeowner should inspect that a primary protection system has effective earthing:
formatting link
Bud admits that 'whole house' protectors are effective - the secondary protection. It too is made effective by a short - 'less than
10 foot' - connection to the secondary protection earth ground. Protection from direct lightning striks has always been about earthing that direct lightning strike in electrical paths that are not destructive.
Bud simply misrepresents what IEEE and Martzloff say due to a relationship with plug-in protector manufacturers. Plug-in protectors that cost so much money are not effective. Why? One glaring and obvious reason - no effective connection to an earth ground, no dedicated wire to make that earthing connection, manufactuer does not even claim such protection in numerical specs, and manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection - which is plug-in protectors.
1993 Paper on surge reference equalizer (SRE) from Martzloff, et al that also demands all six ports be included in protection (IOW room must be reconstructed to be interconnected to the SRE). Meanwhle, the paper that Bud originally cited (long before this thread) and that he says is no longer available makes this very important conclusion:
Because conditions necessary to make a plug-in protector effective do not exist - because not all six ports can be included - then even that paper instead recommend the 'whole house' protector solution.
A properly earthed 'whole house' protector such as models from more responsible manufacturers such as Leviton, Intermatic, GE, Siemens, and Cutler-Hammer. Such products are sold in Home Depot, Lowes, and electrical supply houses. Ineffective plug-in protectors advocated by Bud are sold in places such as Kmart and your grocery store.
'Coordinated protection' is a primary protection system and a secondary protection system. Each protection layer is defined by its single point earth ground. Homeowner should inspect that a primary protection system has effective earthing:
formatting link
Bud admits that 'whole house' protectors are effective - the secondary protection. It too is made effective by a short - 'less than
10 foot' - connection to the secondary protection earth ground. Protection from direct lightning striks has always been about earthing that direct lightning strike in electrical paths that are not destructive.
Bud simply misrepresents what IEEE and Martzloff say due to a relationship with plug-in protector manufacturers. Plug-in protectors that cost so much money are not effective. Why? One glaring and obvious reason - no effective connection to an earth ground, no dedicated wire to make that earthing connection, manufactuer does not even claim such protection in numerical specs, and manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection - which is plug-in protectors.
What "relationship to plug-in protector manufacturers". Among the stupidest things you have said.
The base of the problem is your narrow religous view that "no earth ground means no effective protection" The IEEE papaer clearly decribes the primary action of plug-in protectors as clamping, not earthing. Because this conflicts with your narrow religous view you can't read and understand the description, or acknowledge that both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge suppressors are effective - which is obvious from both guides.
You have never provided a reputable link (or any link) that said plug-in suppressors are not effective. I have seen no supporting posts. You are alone on this.
If the "Bonding" is good, I just don't see where have a good or a bad ground makes much difference. The equipment will see the same voltages. In fact, a "floating ground" would likely result is somewhat lower voltages "surge" voltages between and among the conductors connected to the equipment one hopes to protect.
Number 2 implies only secondary protection. Primary protection is also required to put #2 in proper perspective - layers of protection where each layer is defined by that layer's earth ground..
Yes, we diagree primarily on #3 since electronic appliances already contain what would be effective on its power cord AND a shunt mode protector at the appliance does not have effective earthing; has even contributed to damage of adjacent and powered off electronics.
However #3 and this above discussion was limited to shunt mode protectors. We have not discussed series mode. If necessary conditions are met, then series mode protectors may provide supplemental protection.
If a transient does not find a superior earth ground at the service entrance, then surge finds earthing incoming to appliances AND outgoing through wall paint, via the floor, where that peripheral cable is near an air duct, etc. Rooms are chock full of conductors - as made obvious by static electricity discharges. As made obvious by wooden 1700s church steeples that conduct lightning. How does static electricity travel from your finger, through that door, across floor, to charges beneath your feet? Those are conductive materials at voltages for static electricity and for destructive surges.
Destructive transients are typically longitudinal mode. Incoming on maybe one (or many) wire. Outgoing on anything conductive and adjacent in that room. Connecting that wire to another wire (via MOV) only means both wires now carry an incoming surge. Earth beneath that building is still the outgoing path.
Again, returning to the example of a plug-in protector connected to two adjacent TVs. Why do two TVs at 8000 volts not conduct that electricity destructively? Why would TVs sit at 8000 volts and not conduct to earth? That room is full of alternative conductors in paths that may be destructive. Protection means that 8000 volts must be reduced or it will find destructive paths inside that room to earth.
Bud makes references to a paper on plug-in protectors doing SRE. If everything in that room - if all six ports - are integrated into that plug-in protector, then SRE works. The paper specifically states that if any one of those six ports is not integrated in that protection system, then damage results. We found a network of damaged computers by tracing a path from plug-in protector, through that network of powered off computers. IOW not all six ports were integrated into the protection system. Room must be equivalent to a faraday cage for adjacent protector to be effective. If any one of six ports is not included, then damage can result.
Concepts are called conductivity and equipotential. Both must be provided to make protection effective because neither is sufficient. SRE concept assumes equipotential (assumes all six ports are included) is sufficient; ignores conductivity. Significant conductivity at a service entrance means less electricity enters that room to find earth destructively via appliances. Equipotential provided by service entrance 'single point ground' means everything in that room is now at a voltage similar (closer) to what that TV is at. A service entrance ground means both conductivity and equipotential reduces that 8000 volts.
A reduced voltage difference between TV and other parts of the room means protection already inside the TV is not overwhelmed. This is why telcos earth their incoming wires (via 'whole house' type protectors) up to 50 meters distant of transistors AND near zero feet to earth ground. Technology was that well proven even before their switching computers used transistors.
IEEE and NIST guides do not say plug-in protectors are effective. They define each type and show how such protectors can fail to provide protection when careful conditions are violated. And what violates those conditions? Most rooms in most homes.
Bud's paper demonstrates a plug-in protector putting two adjacent TVs at 8000 volts. How are those TVs protected when the adjacent protector
- a shunt mode protector - shunted 8000 volts into those TVs?
It is not a religion. It's a science that even your own citations demonstrate. It's a science that also explains why plug-in protector manufacturers do not claim protection in their numerical specs. Where is that protection claimed in specs from plug-in manufacturers? Silence?
Somehow a plug-> What "relationship to plug-in protector manufacturers". Among the
A non-conductive material such as shoe soles have static charges. How do charges atop a shoe get to charges below a shoe? Up leg, down arm, through finger, through table, into floor, to bottom of soles. Static charges create static electricity when charges create a current . A current through materials normally not considered conductive will somehow not conduct currents out of two TVs at 8000+ volts? "How can this be because TV sits at 8000+ volts in perfect isolation?"
Same materials that make TV voltages drop down to 8000 volts also conduct static electricity. If not, then static electric discharges could not happen. Static electric discharges occur for same reason why TV is not electrically isolated at 8000+ volts. TV would probably be at much higher than 8000 volts if not for currents taking alternative paths to earth. Currents flowing for the same reason that those materials conduct static electricity. Is TV's internal protection sufficient to make those currents irrelevant - or destructive?
Meanwhile, effective protection must not let those TVs get to 8000+ volts - potentially cause so much current through the TV as to overwhelm internal protection.
I am not sure what you are trying to suggest with traveling waves, impedances, etc. Yes paths for current damage become even more interesting when we do analysis at that level using wave equations. But do you really think that is useful when concepts such as 'whole house' protector (ie smarthome.com) and breakdown voltages are new concepts? When the OP and others are learning that "It requires a combination of good grounding, shielding, bonding, and surge protection" for the first time.
Some or maybe all parameters involving electricity may be different at two end of a wire. Again, remember the perspective. In simplest terms, a wire that conducts electricity will not have same voltage at both ends - and yet so many assume otherwise. That alone is new information. Wire impedance? Even some electicians don't understand the concept. I don't remember why that phrase was posted this time. But appreciate that many assume electricity on one end of a wire is exactly same as the other - every time. Phase diference? What is that? It is easier to KISS. Electrictiy on both end of a wire is just not same. (Some wires leak currents. Voltages are lost. Reference points for measurements along that wire may be different.) Better to just say elelctricity is not same on both ends of a wire - and that is sufficient information to some.
BTW I cannot f> If you have conductive surfaces or conductors, then you will NOT have
-------- First of all "Static" electricity implies no current. Look up "electrostatics" It is a charge separation even though there will be a current, generally extremely small, involved in the process of separation. There will be a current when there is a path to allow the (capacitively) stored charge to recombine. If you have sufficiently high potential, then almost any material can conduct but such conduction may involve extremely small currents as in the shoe (capacitor) example that you give. In many situations, there is no measurable flow and hence a residual charge can remain for a long time. Now put a plate under a floor, put a TV on top of it and apply a voltage, TV to plate of 8KV. Will it cause a damaging current. Not likely. If you have a potential difference between the chassis ground and some normally ungrounded part of the circuitry- that is a different problem. If you have a "ground" at the TV which is 8Kv higher than the ground at the panel that it is supposedly tied to- what current will flow in, say, 40 ft of #12 in comparison to that in paint or wood? That would be damaging! You also seem to imply that the TV HV supply is dragged down to 8Kv? That is a different problem than what we are discussing.
Secondly, considering an incoming surge- this is not a "static" problem but usually a relatively fast pulse or pulse train. You will have a common mode input which is generally measured with respect to earth such that all that will happen with unearthed equipment is that it floats with respect to earth provided that the insulation can withstand this mode. You also will have a differential mode signal which can cause problems.
----------------
-------- Yes I do. Travelling waves are what you have. It also enters into the proper design of such protection (even though rule of thumb methods may be used in design. All that is happening is that concepts and methods used by utilities are now coming down to the household level. Breakdown may or may not occur and all whole house protection is doing is clipping incoming surges to a safe level (a MOV at each piece of equipment may do a better job-closer to equipment being protected).
-------------- When the OP and others are learning that "It requires a
---------- Can't argue with that.
---------------
--------- Typically the potential to reference at each end of a wire carrying current will not be the same. What's new about this? In some AC cases, the voltage at the load end may be higher than at the sending end. So? When you are KISSING, you appear to be saying things that mislead or are not factual, mixed in with truth.
---------------
I have, in the past, given figure of about 60KWH (200MJ) most of which goes to heat the air in the stroke channel. What you get will be a small fraction of this. Chances are that longer term overvoltages, while not as high, will cause more problems than lightning - and involve the need to dissipate more energy. In power systems the older surge "arrestors" which could handle all that lightning threw at them, would often fail on switching surges.
"SPECIFIC PROTECTION EXAMPLES "The previous sections have shown, in general, how to protect electronic systems in houses: "1) Proper grounding and bonding, especially at the service entrance. "2) AC panel and primary signal surge protection at or near the service entrance. "3) Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected." #3 explicitly recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as effective. As is clearly described, these devices work primarily by clamping all wires to a common ground at the surge suppressor.
Why do both examples of surge protection in this chapter use multi-port plug-in surge suppressors?? If you have trouble figuring out the text look at the nice pictures of multi-port plug-in surge suppressors.
---------------------- NIST guide
page 12 discussing protection of 2-port equipment: "A simple solution to the problems of voltage differences for two-link appliances is to install a special surge protector that incorporates, in the same package, a combination fo input/output connections for the two systems. Each link, power and communications, is fed through the protector which is then inserted between the wall receptacles and the input of the appliance [electronic device] to be protected. This type of surge protector is readily available in computer and electronics stores, and the electrical section of home building stores." If you have trouble figuring out the text look at the nice pictures of multi-port plug-in surge suppressors.
page 16 - questions and answers: "Q - Will a surge suppressor installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? "A - There are two answers to that question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic devices], No for two-link appliances. 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. ...."
Page 17 - surge suppressor installation hints: "Plug-in (with cord or directly into receptacle) The easiest of all for anyone to do. The only question is "Which to choose?"
------------- Another previously cited paper writen by Martzloff, the NIST guru on surges, describes surge reference equalizers.
"CONCLUSIONS "The rapid expansion of smart electronics involving power and communications connections creates the potential for disappointing performance under surge conditions if adequate, coordinated protection is not provided. Separate, uncoordinated surge protection of each of the two ports still leaves the possibility of damage or upset. "A new type of device, the 'Surge Reference Equalizer', offers a solution to the problem, provided that the performance characteristics of the device will be coordinated with the environmental stress and with other surge-protective devices that may be installed on the systems."
----------------------------- It takes willfull stupidity to claim the IEEE guide, NIST guide, and Martzloff "do not say plug-in protectors are effective."
The religion is your narrow limit on protection: "no earth ground means no effective protection". Clearly described in the IEEE guide, plug-in surge suppresssors do not work primarily by earthing. They work by clamping. Your narrow religous view does not allow that, and you can't acknowledge that they work by clamping. They do not work primarily by shunting or blocking. Your narrow religous view does not allow you to acknowledge both guides recognize plug-in surge protectors are effective, and are recommended as one solution to surges.
--------------- The IEEE, NIST and Martzloff clearly recognize plug-in surge protectors are effective. Are you smarter than the IEEE, NIST and Francois Martzloff?
You have never provided a reputable link (or any link) that said plug-in suppressors are not effective.
43,839,853 web pages and you can't find one link?? Where are your supporting links??
Electrostatics - stored charges - is not electricity. Conducting of electricity occurs when a connection is made to those separated charges. Once that finger touches for example a table, then a conducitve path exists. Now electrostatics instead creates static electricity - moving charges. Electricity means moving charges. Moving charges can only occur if the material is conductive. Once that path is created, then electricity flows; what is called static electricity.
If those materials were not conductive as Bud claims, then static electricity would not exist. But when a finger touches conductive materials (same materials that were considered not conductive) then static electricity (a flow of charge) occurs.
Put a plate beneath that TV and apply more than 8000 volts. Then TV may appear at 8000 volts as currents finds conductive paths (paths not intended to be conductive) to that plate. Will it occur every time? No. Depends on unique design of each TV. But we don't want transient currents flowing through TVs. So we don't want TVs at 8000+ volts. Even larger transients would make damage to TV more likely. Since it is so easy to earth that transient long before it gets to TV, then what does a plug-in protector do when putting a TV at 8000 volts? It's called ineffective protection. Protection that can only exist if materials are so non-conductive that even static electricity does not exist. So instead we earth transients before they get to the TV - so that we need not worry about surprisingly conductive electrical paths.
Static electric discharges demonstrate that so called non-conductive materials are actually conductive. Incoming surge is not a static problem AND was never defined as such. But static elecctricity demonstrates that materials inside that room are conductive - which is bad news for two TVs charged to over 8000 volts by an adjacent plug-in protector.
Bud is advocating a rule of thumb solution using only plug-in protectors. This discussion is at a 'rule of thumb level' which means EM field theory tells us nothing when new information is about shielding, earthing, etc. Bud would recommend a protector from Monster Cable rather than an earthed protector. Can you tell us that a protector from Monster Cable provides effective protection - can stop or block lightning? We are not installing protection for every commercial broadcasting station. We are installing basic and effective protection for most every house in America - so that a home has minimally sufficient protection. Discussing traveling waves only so confuses the issue as to promote Bud's plug-in protector products. Discussing traveling wave is discussed when the 911 Emergency response center never suffers from lightning.
It's a major revelation to those also told that a plug-in protector will block or absorb a direct lightning strike. How do we explain wire concepts in a sound byte to someone who always believed electricity at both wire ends is always same? Who never knew about wire impedance? Sound byte: electricity in not same at both ends of a wire. Despite the newsgroup title, we are not posting for electrical engineers. That sound byte becomes a new concept. Some are learning about "good grounding, shielding, bonding" for the first time; have been told by people such as Bud that MOVs between two wires will make longitudinal mode surges irrelevant; that a shunt protector without earthing is effective.
Found that post > First of all "Static" electricity implies no current. Look up
-------------- Wrong. Please get a good dictionary and look up a few definitions. "electricity", "static electricity" and, in particular the term "static"
As to the rest, you really do have a mix of fact and fiction.
Come on Don. Stop playing games. What is your point. Those non-moving charges have electric fields and no magnetic fields. Electrostatics. Once the connection is made, then moving charges have both electric and magnetic fields - electricity. More commonly called static electricity. But electricity all the same. Instead of saying "wrong", instead explain to everyone what from basic field theory and definition of electricity causes you problems?
D> Wrong. Please get a good dictionary and look up a few definitions.
An example of Bud's posts to promote plug-in protectors products:
Since 'whole house' protectors are useless for two port protection, then we should install only plug-in protectors within the building? Since only plug-in protectors are effective for two port appliances (a myth), then obviously they must also be better for one port devices. Therefore don't waste money on a 'whole house' protectors? Buy reams of plug-in protectors?
Why do we properly earth each utility line to a common earth ground - single point ground? So that appliance internal protection on two port appliances is not overwhelmed.
You pretend these fundamental facts were not provided by you. From papers written by some who once recommended only plug-in protectors:
Remember, you provided the citation and recommended the author. And yet Martzloff, et al accurately say "objectionable ... voltages ... occur even when or perhaps because surge protection devices" are plug-in type. A reality also learned from decades of experiences.
From IEEE Red Book
How does that plug-> High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
The SRE function, if effective, is even implemented inside the appliance. Internal protection that again requires a properly earthed 'whole house' protector so that internal protection is not overwhelmed.
Why after writing all about SREs, do those authors conclude that a 'whole house' solution is best? Maybe because one 'whole house' protector is so effective? Maybe because the primary protection system makes it even more effective. That shunt mode protectors have this protection problem when missing a short and essential connection to earth. Spin it all you want. But effective protection starts with and requires both earthing on each incoming utility wire - also provided by 'whole house' protectors. Protection that means internal appliance protection - even on dishwasher, bathroom RFCI, and smoke detectors
- is not overwhelmed.
Meanwhile effective 'whole house' protectors are from manufacturers with resp> IEEE guide - chapter 6 provides examples protection using surge suppressors. >
The upside-down house papers were ca. 1995. Martzloff's NIST guide was
2001. Martzloff "once recommended only plug-in protectors" after the upside-down house papers.
I have never seen Martzloff "recommend only plug-in protectors".
The whole point of SREs is to protect against "objectionable difference in reference voltages."
I didn't claim it. It was quoted from Martzloffs paper on SREs published
1992.
A surge protector at the electric service is a good idea. The only question is whether plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
In 1999 Martzloff wrote a guide for customer service reps for rural electrical coops. Included was: "Whole house protection consists of a protective device at the service entrance complemented by TVSSs [plug-in surge suppressors] for sensitive appliances [electronic equipment] within the house. The service entrance protection is an adapter inserted by the utility between the revenue meter and its base. Variations exist, such as a separate box connected to the meter base box."
You gotta be desperate to try again to tie me to a company. I have no interest in surge suppressors. Moron.
Explained 439 times - plug-in surge suppressors do not protect by shunt mode. They protect by CLAMPING all wires to a common ground at the surge suppressor. Earthing is secondary. It is you narrow religious view that surge protection has to have "earthing to be effective" that prevents you from seeing how SREs work, and recognizing that the IEEE and NIST endorse them. Martzloff clearly describes clamping in the IEEE guide.
The IEEE, NIST and Martzloff recognize plug-in surge suppressors as effective.
Still missing - your reputable links that say plug-in surge suppressors are not effective. If you're right there have to be thousands of links.
WHERE ARE YOUR SUPPORTING LINKS??? Maybe no-one agrees with you.
----------- That is a problem. There is a contradiction. Common terminology as you have stated it is incorrect. You are saying , in essence, that all electricity, from DC to microwave, is "static"
-------------- But electricity all the same. Instead of saying
------- I have no problems with either field theory or the definition of electricity. I have problems with what you are calling "static". You have apparently mixed up the popular idea of "static electricity" with the discharge of the same.
Look in a dictionary as I suggested. If you wish, I can quote from mine.
Non-moving charges -->static. An electric field exists (i.e. separation of charge as between the plates of a charged ideal or real, for practical purposes in many cases,capacitor which is open circuited). Moving charges--> dynamic (i.e charge in motion-as in charging or discharging the above capacitor) A current then also exists because of a closed path. No longer "static". However, to be fair, the terms "static" and "dynamic" electricity are rather antiquated and stem from a parallel to mechanics. The only reference that I have that refers to "static", actually refers to fields (Artley "Fields and Configurations") and only in one sentence on page 2. "Electrostatics" takes up quite a bit more space and consideration.
Please note that I did make this distinction before. Also please note that both situations are covered in field theory. In some cases it is reasonable to consider an electrostatic situation even where it is an approximation (as in determing the electric fields under power lines or in the application of a constant DC voltage to a capacitor after the initial transient). However, the moving charge situation is not considered "static".
I am not advocating in depth travelling wave analysis in this group. However, you have made some general statements which are not necessarily true. The total concept of protection, "whole house" or otherwise, and what you advocate as necessary, is, in general, true. However, some "truths" are not actually "truth".
Part of the problem with the 2 TV's (as referred to) is when and how the voltage measurements were made- if actually made. There is also the consideration of the actual circumstances and circuitry. Insufficient information to make a judgement call. However, invoking paint and structural wood conductivity as the ground path for destructive currents at "8Kv" pushes belief over the edge. 8Kv across internal components is a serious problem, but in ignorance of the actual situation, "one size fits all" answers are misleading. Grounding and surge protection, at the panel is, as you say, important but, depending on the situation, may not be as effective as expected. Shit happens in spite of "best" efforts. It does not prevent a surge (between line and neutral) from propagating along the wiring, nor does it prevent possible doubling of the voltage at the receiving end. It does not prevent the situation that potential to "true ground" at an appliance , is not the potential to "true ground" at the panel.
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.