Connecting MOV's in parallell

Short reply - No, use a bigger (larger diameter) varistor.

Detailed reply - Varistors are voltage dependant devices that have a VI characteristic that means the voltage across them remains constant(ish) for a wide range of currents. Varistors also have manufacturing tolerance. If you put a two varistors in parallel, and one is at the top of its tolerance range and the other is at the bottom, virtually all the current will go in to one of them, and hardly any onto the other - hence the short reply of no. This is the same problem that occurs if you parallel diodes etc. If you fully understand the tolerances and VI curve charicteristics, and are using varisors from the same batch, and have statistical infomaton on manufacturing tolerance, you can parallel varistors, BUT you will not be able to simply double the current rating, you will have to apply a de-rating factor to allow for the matching of currents between the varistors

Joules - Note that I have carefully avoided mentioning joules above. It is much better to work in volts, amps and time when dealing with varistors. You can then derive joules if you need to, but never loose sight of the raw electrical information of volts, amps and time. Joules confuse the issue! Joules are more usefull for dieting for the metrically inclined! Let me explain: if you have two varistors, and want to double the joule rating, just put them in series. Your joule rating will be just about doubled, no problem! The joule rating hides the fact that this not a very clever thing to do!

Most manufacturers of surge suppressed socket outlets (power strips in the USA) ignore this fact and just add up the MOV rating in Joules when quoting the performance of the units. Therefore the figures they quote have no relevance in the performance rating of their units, but it looks good in the sales literature.

BillB

Ok, thanks for the info, but im a little confused here. I thought MOV's conducted at a certain voltage, example if the voltage gets to 130 or above, and the MOV is rated at 130 volts, the MOV conducts, or passes current. If you connected two in series, would this not double the votage at which they pass current?

Absolutely! Connecting two varistors in series will double the voltage across them (not actually what you want) and hence double the joule rating (sort of what you asked for!).

I was trying to encourage you to not use joules, as they do not help you. Just work with volts, amps and time and you won't get caught out.

What prompted your original question? What current rating are you trying to pass and for what time?

Well, I am making a "surge protector" out of a standard 15 amp 120 VAC duplex receptacle with a MOV connected across the hot and neutral terminals. Both mounted in a handy box. I got the MOV at radio shack, all they had was a 700 joules one, so I was thinking I could get more protection by adding another one in paralell.

I'm in agreement with your reply, but I'm looking at a different aspect than you: two separately housed MOV's plugged into the same circuit. The positioning of my reply is for comparison, not disagreement.

Short reply - Yes, but a little different than discussed. Individual point of use surge protectors, each with their own MOV's, plugged into the same circuit, increase the joule rating. If the first one to conduct blows open, the second one conducts, so the total joule rating is additive. If the first one to conduct blows shorted, the second one is irrelevant, until and unless the short blows open. (The typical failure mode is shorted. However, if the 120 Vac supply or the surge energy is still present, they open.) Since they are in separate housings, the heat dissipated in one does not affect the other. But within a single housing, use a bigger varistor, just as you say.

And even if they work in that configuration, it's not too good - the clamping voltage will be doubled. And when the first one opens, the second one is useless.

Ed

700 joules - or 70 joules? Big difference. Furthermore, fire safety issues should be addressed - as defined by UL1449 2nd Edition. MOV inside a fire resistant box. But then which type of surge are you trying to protect from? You are installing for normal mode transients. Meanwhile destructive transients are longitudinal mode. IOW a surge seeking earth ground now has two wires (not just one) to find earth destructively via adjacent electronics because of that MOV.

Effective shunt mode protectors divert a surge to earth. You are not doing that - as well as making what could be a potential fire hazard. Maybe look at an MOV from Littelfuse that has internal protection. Or put that box in a location where a small flame will not be dangerous. Ever see an MOV burn or vaporize? Do it to learn - but in a location where human life would be threatened.

Meanwhile some MOV manufacturers provide ball park numbers for estimating joules ratings for MOVs in parallel. Since MOVs, working properly, do not vaporize or blow out, then increasing joules by paralleling them is rather easy. But two MOVs do not exactly achieve a double joules rating. Another post that discusses voltage, amperage, and time rather than joules is accurate. A 70 joule MOV does not mean it is stopping or absorbing up to 70 joules as others participating in this thread have falsely assumed in the past. Do you calculations in terms of voltages, amps, etc to eventually appreciate its actual joules rating.

Aga> Well, I am making a "surge protector" out of a standard 15 amp 120 VAC

Let me support W_thom's post. Making a DIY surge protector is a scary thing to do! You need to ask yourself "what happens when the varistor comes to the end of its life?, what disconnects the varistor from the circuit ?". If you don't know the answer, it could be that your house burns down as a result! This is what UL 1449 2nd issue addresses. Using 130V varistors on a 120V supply, though common practice, is also a cause of many failures as there is not a lot of headroom for supply voltage variation. If your supply is over

8% high, then you could be heading for a nasty thermal runaway failure.

Transients can occur between any pair of conductors. So you need to protect between line and neutral, neutral and ground, line and ground. If you are on the type of supply where neutral and ground are bonded together in your building, and are very close to the bonding location, then you can obviously simplify things.

In your context, adding a second varistor in parallel will at worst do next to nothing, and at best, if you are really really lucky, it will double the current rating.

.> I'm in agreement with your reply, but I'm looking at

You make an interesting point. Conventional practice/wisdom says that a single shot current rating corresponds to a current that a device can endure with no more than a defined amount of degradation, which is usually quite low. Hence if I buy a device that is rated at 10kA, and I test it with10kA, I don't expect to see bits fly off, acrid black smoke, or flames!

You could indeed have a new definition: Single shot current rating WITH PERMITTED PARTIAL CATASTROPHIC FAILURE (the capitals are for emphasis, not shouting!) and what you say then might work and make sense. Users would need to be fully aware of the difference. Marketing men would need to avoid the temptation to mislead the unwary.

You stated "Since they are in separate housings, the heat dissipated in one does not affect the other." During the transient event, any heat dissipated is actually absorbed (adiabatic behaviour), ie the heat raises the temperature of the varistor itself, and does not have time to be conducted, convected or radiated anywhere else. In this case it makes no difference if the varistors are separate or not. On the other hand, a varistor suffering from thermal runaway may well fail in a much slower manner if suitable disconnection is not provided. Your separate boxes may indeed isolate the mess caused by the failing device from a healthy device

Sorry, I'm missing the point in the above paragraphs. I'm thinking of two physically separated in different enclosures devices. Each would be tested independently, if testing were done. It is my understanding that MOVs that are tested are then discarded.

What happens in a real world surge is problematic to predict:

A C E S ----------+----------+-------+ O | | | U | | | R MOV1 MOV2 Equipment C | | | E -----------+----------+-------+ B D F

Assume a source surge V of 10,000. Assume MOV1 conducts at 330 and clamps to 130 Assume MOV2 conducts at 332 and clamps to 130 A-B will go to 130, keeping MOV2 from operating and holding C-D and E-F to 130, until the surge stops or MOV1 opens. If MOV1 opens, C-D rises to

332 and MOV2 clamps to 130.

New scenario, except this time MOV2 conducts at 330 and MOV1 conducts at 332. Now we need to know the voltage drop A-C. MOV2 will draw a bucket of current through that wire, and there will be some inductance as well, so it is quite possible that MOV1 will see in excess of 332 while MOV2 is clamping C-D at 130. So - MOV2 absorbs part of the surge, and causes MOV1 to conduct. MOV1 now clamps to 130, turning MOV2 off.

In either case, a surge in excess of rating that causes MOV destruction will cause both MOV's to participate. In the second case, a non-MOV-destructive surge *may* cause both MOV's to participate.

But, bottom line, in either case, the total MOV joule rating is increased by parallel MOV's. What is not increased is the amperage, except for the brief time in the second case where both MOV's conduct at the same time. The parallel MOV's extend the duration of protection, but would seem to have little effect on the total current they can conduct.

That goes back to something you mentioned, advising to look at the amperage rating.

Right - during the non-destructive to the MOV transient period, the heat in one doesn't affect the other. I'm referring to an event that raises the temperature in the MOV to the point of destruction. The flames (sometimes) in MOV 1 will affect MOV 2 ! I don't know if the kinetic energy of an exploding MOV (speculated) would adversely affect a second MOV in the same housing. I have no data on "exploding MOV's" - don't know if it happens, nor even what the definition of "exploding" would be in that case.

Ed

Above is one type of transient - also called normal mode. This is the type of transient that plug-in protectors are designed to protect from. However the other and typically destructive type of transient is not between two wires. Longitudinal mode transients come down any one or all wire seeking a complete path to earth ground. Plug-in protectors do not claim to protect from this type since the transient is not a voltage between two wires. The transient is a voltage difference between any one wire and earth.

So that confusion remains, plug-in protectors don't discuss the various transient modes. Properly earthed 'whole house' protectors make both types of transient irrelevant. Longitudinal mode transients

- an electrical path from cloud to earth, then miles through earth to earthborne charges - is why single point earth ground is the most critical component in a protection system.

It's not the MOV that is protection. That MOV is equivalent to a switch. The effective MOV makes a temporary connection from every incoming wire to earth. Therefore those MOVs shunt the typically destructive type of surge.

Normal mode transients - between wires - are not the typically destructive transient. Protection inside appliances makes normal mode transients irrelevant. But the longitudinal mode transient can overwhelm that internal protection. Longitudinal mode transients are best earthed where they would enter the building with a short (low impedance) connection to a single point earth ground. A longitudinal mode transient can come down one wire or all wires. The effective protector shunts longitudinal mode transients to earth - best many meters away from transistors. That many meter separation then contributes to appliance protection.

What usually happens with MOVs mounted on a PCB, is that the track burns off the board before the MOV blows, i.e. the track acts as a fuse during high current surges. When an MOV explodes it normally destroys anything in the area around it, wiring, LEDs and other devices etc. All MOVs must have protection fitted to prevent this happening.

Billb

"ehsjr" wrote

Aside from the point you are trying to make, I think you may have misunderstood how varistors work and muddled them up another suppression technology:

Varistors are voltage limiting devices with a continuous VI characteristic where V progressively increases with I, but in a non-linear manner. A

130V varistor NEVER clamps at 130V.

This is in contrast to voltage switching devices such as gas discharge tubes, spark gaps and thyristor based devices that switch to a lower voltage once a threshold voltage is reached, which is the behaviour you describe.

The VI characteristic (mid-tolerance) of a 130VAC rated varistor is very approximately:

205V @1mA 220V @ 10mA 240V @ 100mA 250V @ 1A 270V @10A 300V @100A 350V @1kA 450V @10kA

And about 10 micro amps at 130V!

Perhaps my point make more sense now.

In addition, are you under the misapprehension that varistors are single shot devices like fuses? Well the aren't, unless abused. In general, you should select a varistor so it will give you a reasonable lifetime, and so failure or overstressing is unlikely.

Coming back to your way of looking at things, if I buy a car a twin turbo car, and the manufacturer tells me you can drive it at 200 mph for no more than 10 minutes, I would expect it to fully work afterwards, but wouldn't be surprised if it had suffered some very minor effects as a results. Perhaps there might me some minor increse in emmisions etc. You would be happy to have one of the turbos fail in the same circumstances, providing

200 mph was achieved for 10 minutes. I hope this illistrates the point I am making.

On a technical level, your point is entirely dependant on the failure mode of the varistors, which is indeterminate. Never the less, it is an interesting way to look at things.

Finally, it may amuse you to know that an exploding varistor (if safely contained) is actually a comparatively benign form of failure compared to a slow thermal runaway.

I had the idea that MOV weren't too good voltage clamps, and the clamping voltage would depend on the current through the device. This voltage usually being greater than the voltage at which ti triggers (think gas gaps are better in this respect).

If this is the case, the sec> Assume a source surge V of 10,000.

On 12 Jun 2006 22:43:47 -0700, "w_tom" Gave us:

Huh?

Well, thanks for everyone's help and opinions. I feel any advice done in hosnesty is helpful. Let me address the issue of burning down my house first: The MOV will be enclosed in a metal "handy box", with a duplex receptacle, the whole thing will be covered with a metal duplex cover, factory made to fit the duplex receptacle and box. The wire entry into the handy box will be with a metal cable clamp (romex clamp is what Ive always called them). This wire will then go to a 10 amp button type breaker rated at 600 volts. (breaker is on the hot wire). Im not worried about catching anything on fire. Fire is always my first and most important concern. As fas as attracting lightning, I dont see how this could be, since the electronic equipment will be plugged into the duplex receptacle, how could adding a MOV "attract" more lightning than the electronic equipment alone? (I could be wrong, not trying to start an argument, just trying to get understanding.) I could see where attaching two more MOV's from hot and neutral to ground could be benificial. But you still have the ground wire going back to the panel (house fuse box), looks like any current going throug the MOV's will take this path or the neutral, since they both go back to ground. As fas as the regulations, I took apart a power strip, all it has is a MOV between hot and neutral buss bars, and a reset button breaker on the hot wire. Plus the case of the power strip is plastic, may be fire resistant, I dont know, but I do know the metal handy box is. Now, to address the 700 joules rating: I messed up, it is 70 joules, not

700, those typos and decimal points will get you everytime! LOL Someone mentioned testing the MOV, how is that done? Except by visually inspecting them?

"Harry" wrote in message news:xLFjg.37965$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

One MOV test is to feed a 1 milliamp current source and measure its voltage. Obviously voltage will rise as necessary to conduct only 1 mA. MOVs don't fail by vaporizing - an unacceptable failure mode. MOVs fail by degrading. From an MOV manufacturer's datasheet:

This manufacturer defines a functional MOV as "delta Vb / Vb

Where was my editor when I needed her. There was supposed to be a "- not" at the end of that sentence.

MOVs don't trigger like a gas device. As with Harry's figures, the current is very low until the "maximum continuous operating voltage" (at

1 mA), then the current smoothly, but very rapidly, increases as the voltage increases.

If the 2nd MOV has a 'actual' higher voltage rating, it will always be conducting at a lower current than the 1st MOV. And because the V-I characteristic is so non-linear it will be conducting at a much lower current than the 1st MOV. The currents and energies will split very unevenly unless the devices are the same type and have very nearly the same 'turn-on' voltage.

bud--