surge suppression

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:50:34 -0400 Eric wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote:>

|> |> |> | ? Why don?t airplanes drag an earthing chain? |> |> |> |> That would make it too easy for terrorists to grab hold of and yank the plane |> |> down. |> |> |> |> Silly question, silly answer. |> | . |> | It is a serious question. w_ says you can?t protect without the |> | protector directly earthing the surge. Then it is not possible to |> | protect airplanes. |> |> It seems you have a broad lack of understanding, despite reading all these |> various guides. |> | | Airplanes also don't drag along an ac cord for power. They are closed | systems surrounded by a conducting shell..

I was going to next try the argument "if the airplane drags along a ground wire, it might contact power distribution wires and short them out, creating legal liability for the airline". If he's going to insist on considering an absurd concept, then I'll give him logical, but equally absurd, answers.

Or I could just tell him he is being absurd.

| Surge protectors do a reasonable job as long as the protected equipment | has no other connection referenced to ground other than the power cord.

Right. And some emphasis is due on "reasonable". For most home use, this is just fine and the plug-in power strip type units I believe he refers to are adequate for the level of protection most people need.

Life gets more complicated when devices like radio transmitters need to have their own grounding. But this is outside the scope of the typical case where most people need protection. And the "resonable" protection isn't going to cover 100% of possible surges. But it might do well enough to reach 99%. Considering the infrequency of surges, and reduce that further by 1%, and reduce that even more by the number of people that never request fulfillment of a surge protection warranty, and considering the market avantage of having such a warranty listed on the product, I can see how this makes business sense.

. You use transmission line characteristics. Using Martzloff?s statement of travel time on the circuit, the circuit is a fraction of an inch to a MOV and about 6 feet to the protected equipment. Transmission line characteristics would require on the order of a 10 nanosec surge. A MOV will effectively clamp the voltage to a safe level.

And provide a source that agrees with you that transmission line characteristics apply. .

. Martzloff?s 1.2/50 us waveform is a standard IEEE surge waveform. It is a standard waveform because it is characteristic of waveforms of surges produced by lightning. Martzloff, an expert in the field, used an appropriate and representative waveform.

One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond rise time for a surge produced by lightning is a "representative pulse", with most of the spectrum under 100kHz.

You claim surges resulting from lightning have rise times about a thousand times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are experimentally derived.

Provide a source that agrees with you. .

. Waveforms that are well accepted as characteristic real world surges by people that are competent in the field. .

If Martzloff was as stupid as you think he is his papers would not be published.

Provide a source that surges produced by lightning are far faster than the 1.2/50 us Martzloff used. .

. In other words you can?t. You prefer phils phantasy physics. .

. Not hardly for minimal levels. It is consistent with standards for surges conducted in on utility wires. The standards are based on a

Connected correctly all interconnected equipment is connected to the same plug-in suppressor and external wires, like cable, go through the suppressor.

Still excluded are direct strikes to a building which require lightning rods for protection. .

. Maybe you should disregard the discussion aimed at w_. .

A MOV in a service panel suppressor absorbs a lot more energy than a plug-in suppressor because it is not isolated by the impedance of a branch circuit and is not protected by arc?over at the panel (it clamps the voltage far below arc-over). As I wrote, MOVs absorb energy in the process of protecting (energy absorbed as in your post). They don?t protect by absorbing the energy in the surge. .

. You have provided no source that agrees with you that transmission line characteristics are relevant.

And Martzloff contradicts you. .

The existence of a warrantee indicates the manufacturer doesn?t think the device will fail. Manufacturers for some devices have a lot more confidence in the devices than you do. .

. The IEEE guide is much broader than plug-in suppressors, which is what your post said. .

. The "specific readers" the guide was aimed at are "electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical engineers". .

. It seems you have a broad lack of understanding of logic. Start with a statement often repeated by w_ "no earth ground means no effective protection." Then add:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:19:55 -0500 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:51:22 -0500 bud-- wrote: |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:22:00 -0500 bud-- wrote: |> |> | w_tom wrote: |> |> |> So where does that plug-in protector dissipate surge energy |> |> |> harmlessly in earth? It does not. |> |> | . |> |> | If not hindered by religious blinders w_ could read the answer in the |> |> | IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40). The IEEE guide explains plug-in |> |> | suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) |> |> | to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work |> |> | primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains |> |> | earthing occurs elsewhere. |> |> |> |> Clamping does not make surge energy disappear. |> | . |> | Clamping makes the voltage between wires going to the protected |> | equipment safe for the protected equipment. |> |> See what I said later in that post you are replying to. Sure, it does |> equalize the difference for the most part. Other aspects of the surge |> are not affected, or are affected in only minimal ways. For example |> the surge front waveform is reduced because some of the energy can go |> across the clamp and take another path away from the appliance. But |> this is only reducing the energy to some fraction that can still be |> enough to cause damage. | . | You use transmission line characteristics. Using Martzloff?s statement | of travel time on the circuit, the circuit is a fraction of an inch to a | MOV and about 6 feet to the protected equipment. Transmission line | characteristics would require on the order of a 10 nanosec surge. A MOV | will effectively clamp the voltage to a safe level.

I'm not concerned with the distance to, or across, an MOV. You still seem to be missing my statement where I acknowledge the MOV tend to equalize the voltage between the wires. A surge waveform is relevant, and may even be relevant to the MOV connection, but I have not yet even needed to address that (and have not done so).

Consider that the MOV is equivalent to the two conductors being shorted together, without considering the effect of that short on the service the wires are intended to provide (since in reality the MOV is supposed to become such a short for the duration of a surge above a certain voltage). The wires are shorted at zero distance. Let's not even worry about the change in characteristic impedance as the wires approach each other (as this doesn't contribute much effect, anyway).

Two wires shorted somewhere within the run is actually 4 total wires meeting at one point. A surge arriving at such a junction will have to see an impedance change merely because there are many paths to go. The only exception would be where the characteristic impedance of ONE wire is 1/3 of what the other three in parallel are. And that is a case that won't happen when you are dealing with TWO of them arriving together as a transmission line pair. What this means is that the surge arriving at the junction will go back out on all FOUR wires, not just the other three.

Given a differential surge coming in on two wires, that is the same as two surges of opposite polarity. Both go out all four wires. But over the two wires the surge did not come from (e.g. the two that go on to the protected appliance), these two opposite polarity surges will go in about equal amounts. So they have the effect of (mostly) cancelling out. In addition to that, both wires going to the appliance will have any latent surge now in common mode rather than differential mode. The common mode surge is more subject to external inductance. So you could, for example, wrap the power cord (both wires in parallel) to the appliance in a loop around a toroid and reduce the very high frequency components that might still be there even more.

Given a common mode surge is different. The MOV is going to have little or no effect since there is little or no voltage across it. Fortunately as described above, the common mode surge is more easily blocked with inductance on a "whole cord" bases (both current carrying conductors in parallel through the inductive winding). The branch circuit length itself will be significant, too.

Surges don't all come from the same place. They can also be induced on any circuit directly from a nearby strike. The common mode aspect of a pair of wires that makes it inductive enough to reduce the high frequency components of a surge is also its disadvantage to an induced surge. You can end up with these high frequencies, anyway. So it is better to have line inductance added with your plug-in surge protection close to the appliance to be protected. My plug-in surge suppressors include some. I'm looking at adding substantially more at some point.

| And provide a source that agrees with you that transmission line | characteristics apply.

Why don't you just actually discuss the technical details yourself instead of trying to "involve" someone who is actually not a part of the discssion. Or is this beyond your level of understanding to do?

|> |> The proportions depend on the characteristic |> |> impedance, as that is the only impedance that has an immediate effect with |> |> reflection time frame short enough to not need to be considered. |> | . |> | Francois Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges. He did research and has |> | many published papers on surges and surge suppression. |> | On transmission line behavior Martzloff writes: |> | "From this first test, we can draw the conclusion (predictable, but too |> | often not recognized in qualitative discussions of reflections in wiring |> | systems) that it is not appropriate to apply classical transmission line |> | concepts to wiring systems if the front of the wave is not shorter than |> | the travel time of the impulse. For a 1.2/50 us impulse, this means that |> | the line must be at least 200 m long before one can think in terms of |> | classical transmission line behavior." |> |> You've quoted this before. In all cases I can remember, you quoted it |> inapplicably. The evidence of your error exists right there in the words |> you quoted. The part that says "if ..." is a conditional. It means that |> the statement being made only applies under certain circumstances. Yet |> you (who don't seem to understand this) quote this even where it does not |> apply (e.g. in cases where the if-clause is not met). | . | Martzloff?s 1.2/50 us waveform is a standard IEEE surge waveform. It is | a standard waveform because it is characteristic of waveforms of surges | produced by lightning. Martzloff, an expert in the field, used an | appropriate and representative waveform.

Not all lightning strikes are alike. There is a *HUGE* span of differences in specific strikes. A "standard waveform" has uses in making comparisons between different protective devices within the characteristics of those waveforms. But no _one_ waveform is going to even come close to describing the range of possibilities of individual lightning strikes _and_ the varying proximities to such strikes.

| One of w_'s favorite professional engineer sources says an 8 microsecond | rise time for a surge produced by lightning is a "representative pulse", | with most of the spectrum under 100kHz.

I don't care what w_tom says. I don't consider him to be any more of an expert than you.

| You claim surges resulting from lightning have rise times about a | thousand times faster than accepted IEEE standards - which are | experimentally derived.

Again, you have some reading comprehension problems. I do not say that all surges have the same rise times. Instead, I say there is a wide variety. The lightning itself has a wide variety, but can easily have rise times well over 10A/ns. Leader strikes and even the first stroke typically have much less. But secondary strokes can have a lot more depending on the timing and the associated channel field. Just how much voltage you get from that current depends on many factors, including proximity, and the possibility of direct contact with the lightning current.

A standard waveform might might provide a good means to study and research various devices, and compare them. But it does not model reality of nature. I have seen lightning strikes hit small wires and do nothing to them, and I have seen lightning strikes that have blown a detached garage to pieces. I've seen the results of strikes that merely leave a dead radio front end transistor, and strikes that vaporized the transmission line and left a fraction of the radio present.

| Provide a source that agrees with you.

I'm here ONLY to discuss the issue, not to proxy the discussion to others that are not participating.

Why don't YOU invite Martzloff to join in on the thread?

|> | I have posted this at least twice previously in response to your |> | comments on transmission line behavior. Your response was that Martzloff |> | "flubbed the experiment". You have never provided a supporting source |> | for you belief. |> |> The "supporting source" is the very statement you quote. Again, it is a |> conditional statement that depends on a specific kind of impulse/waverform |> timing. | . | Waveforms that are well accepted as characteristic real world surges by | people that are competent in the field.

One waveform is not the real world. Anyone who thinks one waveform models the vast variety of lightning is a fool. I'm sure Martzloff is not doing that. It must be you that is misreading the paper it misapplying what is read.

|> His "flubbed" experiment was not one to characterize all surges. I say |> it was "flubbed" because it did not meet the needs YOU are trying to apply |> it to (which seems to be the assumption that all surges are alike). | . | If Martzloff was as stupid as you think he is his papers would not be | published.

Or maybe the "flubb" is that he wasn't actually doing the experiment you think he was doing. Maybe he was doing a standardized waveform test, and not one with real lightning.

| Provide a source that surges produced by lightning are far faster than | the 1.2/50 us Martzloff used.

Experience in the field.

And you really need to try to understand that I am NOT, and never have, said that every lightning strike is faster. I am saying, and always have said, that _some_ strike-to-surge situations are. There is a wide range of lightning strikes and a very wide range of proximities involved.

|> | Provide a source that agrees with you that transmission line effects |> | have to be considered for surges in other than large buildings. |> |> I don't intend to do that. I don't need to. | . | In other words you can?t. You prefer phils phantasy physics.

This is a technical discussion, not a paper-show-off forum. What I note is that you never have, and I highly suspect never will, find any way to actually discuss the technical aspects of this YOURSELF.

|> This is a guide for people who are only going to be doing minimal levels |> of protection. A minimal level happens to be adequate for most people. |> This guide does not cover the extensive protection needed that balances |> between special requirements and the rare and very destructive extreme |> surges. | . | Not hardly for minimal levels. It is consistent with standards for | surges conducted in on utility wires. The standards are based on a | 100,000A lightning strike (very strong) to a utility pole behind your | house, a near worst case. If you combine the 4 methods above using | suppressors with high ratings and connect plug-in suppressors correctly | you are very unlikely to have a loss.

Sorry, but that is not a worst case scenario. But even that scenario can, depending on many factors, result in a vaporized plug-in suppressor. I have had at least 3 direct strike events myself.

| Connected correctly all interconnected equipment is connected to the | same plug-in suppressor and external wires, like cable, go through the | suppressor.

Parroting the proper way to connect the equipment wins you no points. It's helpful to people that don't know. But you aren't making any kind of technical discussion out of this.

| Still excluded are direct strikes to a building which require lightning | rods for protection.

That is ONE form of protection. It is not an alternative form. The best protection involves the maximum set of protection methods deployed in a non-conflicting way. But you have to understand how the surges come in and transmit to be sure you haven't combined protections in way that ends up making things worse.

|> | My comments in response to w_ are disproportionately about plug-in |> | suppressors because of the nonsense w_ posts about them. |> |> Maybe you should just disregard him entirely. | . | Maybe you should disregard the discussion aimed at w_.

I respond to obvious errors, including errors of omission where readers may misunderstand something due to the omission.

|> | For surges coming in on utility wires, the impedance of the branch |> | circuit greatly limits the current, and thus energy, that can reach a |> | plug-in suppressor. Investigations by Martzloff with surges up to |> | 10,000A at a power service (the maximum reasonable surge) and branch |> | circuits 30 ft and longer with a MOV at the end, showed surprisingly |> | small energy absorption at the MOV. The maximum energy dissipated in the |> | MOV was 35 Joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 Joule or less. One reason |> | is the branch circuit impedance. The other is that at about 6,000V (US) |> | there is arc?over from service panel busbars to |> | enclosure/ground/neutral/earth. After the arc is established the arc |> | voltage is hundreds of volts. That dumps most of the surge energy to |> | earth. Receptacles (US) will also arc-over at about 6,000V. |> |> First of all, an MOV is not going to absorb much energy. It is a device |> that creates a low impedance path between two conductors. The energy it |> absorbs is the current, times the voltage DROP, integrated over time. | . | A MOV in a service panel suppressor absorbs a lot more energy than a | plug-in suppressor because it is not isolated by the impedance of a | branch circuit and is not protected by arc?over at the panel (it clamps | the voltage far below arc-over). As I wrote, MOVs absorb energy in the | process of protecting (energy absorbed as in your post). They don?t | protect by absorbing the energy in the surge.

The energy absorbed by an MOV would be the voltage drop across the device, times the current through the device, integrated over time. In its non- conductive state, the current through an MOV is virtually zero. In its conductive state, the voltage drop across an MOV is virtually zero. If the MOV absorbed any substantial energy, it would be vaporized. The MOV is a current diversion device. Where it diverts a surge wavefront to some other path where it can do no harm, that is good. Where it diverts a surge wavefront to merge with its opposite polarity counterpart (in the case of a differential surge), that is good.

|> What is of more concern is where the rest of the energy went. It goes |> out in all directions in response to impedance characteristics. | . | You have provided no source that agrees with you that transmission line | characteristics are relevant. | | And Martzloff contradicts you.

I have seen no post here, nor any paper, where he has specifically said that anything I say is wrong. Basically, he hasn't addressed anything I say. You are the one that is _interpreting_ Martzloff's writings as being in conflict with my posts. Yet you have not correctly pointed to any relevant difference.

|> |> | There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, |> |> | and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT |> |> | effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief |> |> | in earthing. |> |> |> |> Why is it that you always seem to want a binary answer about whether a |> |> surge protection device is or is not effective? The true and correct |> |> answer will be "it depends". |> | . |> | w_ says never. What I have read from many Martzloff papers and other |> | sources is that plug-in suppressors with high ratings connected properly |> | are very unlikely to fail. That is why some plug-in suppressors can have |> | connected equipment warrantees. |> |> The existance of a warrantee does not ensure protection. Surges do not |> give a damn about the warrantee. If they did, they'd probably make more |> of an effort to destroy everything just to spite the owner of the devices. | . | The existence of a warrantee indicates the manufacturer doesn?t think | the device will fail. Manufacturers for some devices have a lot more | confidence in the devices than you do.

You also have a lack of understanding of business and product marketing.

Manufacturers _know_ that these devices can and do fail. Some don't care. Some do care, and will cover the losses because part of what they are selling is the peace of mind. They are not selling absolute protection. But they can (and many do) sell protection that is adequate for most people.

|> |> | Never answered - embarrassing questions: |> |> | - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in |> |> | suppressors? |> |> |> |> Because the IEEE guide you looked at is a guide about how to use plug-in |> |> suppressors to their greatest effectiveness. |> | . |> | Your comment is beyond stupid. Perhaps if you read the guide.... |> |> Perhaps if you applied the guide correctly. | . | The IEEE guide is much broader than plug-in suppressors, which is what | your post said.

It has been misread by bud.

|> I read it a long time ago. It didn't cover all aspects of protection. Since |> it was intended for specific readers, it doesn't even need to cover all aspects. | . | The "specific readers" the guide was aimed at are "electricians, | architects, technicians, and electrical engineers".

... who are deploying typical or average protection systems.

|> |> | ? Why don?t airplanes drag an earthing chain? |> |> |> |> That would make it too easy for terrorists to grab hold of and yank the plane |> |> down. |> |> |> |> Silly question, silly answer. |> | . |> | It is a serious question. w_ says you can?t protect without the |> | protector directly earthing the surge. Then it is not possible to |> | protect airplanes. |> |> It seems you have a broad lack of understanding, despite reading all these |> various guides. | . | It seems you have a broad lack of understanding of logic.

Point out some specifics if you think so.

| Start with a statement often repeated by w_ "no earth ground means no | effective protection."

I do not support that statement. But I do stand by the statement that a plug-in suppressor used exclusively cannot provide 100% protection. I do say that the maximum level of protection you can get will involve an earth ground as the least harmful place to divert the bulk of the surge energy.

|> | My comments in response to w_ are disproportionately about plug-in |> | suppressors because of the nonsense w_ posts about them. |> |> Maybe you should just disregard him entirely. | . | Maybe you should disregard the discussion aimed at w_.

If you were to specifically address w_tom's errors with technical discussion that was applicable and correct, there would be no need to refute.

Airplane protection is complex because the 'earth ground' (that outgoing path for that surge) can appear at numerous spots:

Airplanes integrate and engineer a complex single point ground. Building owners easily implement one. Bud is here only to argue. So he brings up the airplane and lightning example again. Even airplanes implement a more complex version of 'whole house' protection and do not waste money on plug-in protectors. Plug-in protector even on airplanes would only protect from surges that do not exist. Airplanes also do not waste money on 'whole house' protectors.

Every appliance has a potentially destructive outgoing path to earth. Washer and dryer sitting on a concrete floor have incoming path on AC electric; outgoing via an excellent conductor - concrete. Why did lightning strike Franklin's church steeples? Wood is a conductor, as is linoleum and other household materials.

How do we make a potentially outgoing path irrelevant? Equipotential. The 'whole house' protection is so effective because it provides superior conductivity and provides equipotential. A plug- in protector provides neither. Equipotential means earth beneath a building is at same potential. Therefore a surge incoming on AC mains need not find earth ground destructively through washer and dryer via concrete floor. No plug-in protector provides this necessary equipotential and conductivity.

When facilities institute a single point ground inside a room (a faraday cage), everything in that room must be integrated into the single point ground. That includes linoleum floor tiles and even air ducts inside walls. A rule used by professionals who don't make surge energy magically disappear with plug-in protectors: anything within four feet of electronics or connection to that electronics must be integrated in the protection 'system'. Even wall paint can become a destructive outgoing path for surges.

We don't do all that groundings so as to spend $25 or $150 on a plug- in protector for one appliance. Instead, we install and properly earth one 'whole house' protector. Now the entire building has no surges inside (due to conductivity) AND earth beneath the building provides equipotential.

Why do we divert massive funds from obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors? Why do we instead upgrade earthing for the 'whole house' protectors? Because the less expensive solution means even better protection for everything including GFCIs and smoke detectors. Most critical devices that must be working after every surge and that cannot be protected by any plug-in protector - GFCIs and smoke detectors. Just another reason why 'whole house' protector is superior, effective, and tens or 100 times less expensive. What protects that washing machine or dishwasher? Only a 'whole house' solution.

Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide the implied protection. Plug-in protectors protect from a type of surge that is typically not destructive - made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances. Typically non-destructive surge is made further irrelevant by one =91whole house=92 protector. Just another reason for not wasting obscene amounts of money on plug-in protectors. Just another reason why plug-in protectors are not used even in airplane designs. Why waste money on something that does not even claim to provide that protection?

Did Bud again forget to post a plug-in protector spec that claims protection? He cannot. No such manufacturer numeric specification exists. It does not protect from the type of surges that typically cause damage - not matter how much a sales promoter is paid to spin otherwise.

Airplane protection is complex because the 'earth ground' (that outgoing path for that surge) can appear at numerous spots:

Airplanes integrate and engineer a complex single point ground. Building owners easily implement one. Bud is here only to argue. So he brings up the airplane and lightning example again. Even airplanes implement a more complex version of 'whole house' protection and do not waste money on plug-in protectors. Plug-in protector even on airplanes would only protect from surges that do not exist. Airplanes also do not waste money on 'whole house' protectors.

Every appliance has a potentially destructive outgoing path to earth. Washer and dryer sitting on a concrete floor have incoming path on AC electric; outgoing via an excellent conductor - concrete. Why did lightning strike Franklin's church steeples? Wood is a conductor, as is linoleum and other household materials.

How do we make a potentially outgoing path irrelevant? Equipotential. The 'whole house' protection is so effective because it provides superior conductivity and provides equipotential. A plug- in protector provides neither. Equipotential means earth beneath a building is at same potential. Therefore a surge incoming on AC mains need not find earth ground destructively through washer and dryer via concrete floor. No plug-in protector provides this necessary equipotential and conductivity.

When facilities institute a single point ground inside a room (a faraday cage), everything in that room must be integrated into the single point ground. That includes linoleum floor tiles and even air ducts inside walls. A rule used by professionals who don't make surge energy magically disappear with plug-in protectors: anything within four feet of electronics or connection to that electronics must be integrated in the protection 'system'. Even wall paint can become a destructive outgoing path for surges.

We don't do all that groundings so as to spend $25 or $150 on a plug- in protector for one appliance. Instead, we install and properly earth one 'whole house' protector. Now the entire building has no surges inside (due to conductivity) AND earth beneath the building provides equipotential.

Why do we divert massive funds from obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors? Why do we instead upgrade earthing for the 'whole house' protectors? Because the less expensive solution means even better protection for everything including GFCIs and smoke detectors. Most critical devices that must be working after every surge and that cannot be protected by any plug-in protector - GFCIs and smoke detectors. Just another reason why 'whole house' protector is superior, effective, and tens or 100 times less expensive. What protects that washing machine or dishwasher? Only a 'whole house' solution.

Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide the implied protection. Plug-in protectors protect from a type of surge that is typically not destructive - made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances. Typically non-destructive surge is made further irrelevant by one =91whole house=92 protector. Just another reason for not wasting obscene amounts of money on plug-in protectors. Just another reason why plug-in protectors are not used even in airplane designs. Why waste money on something that does not even claim to provide that protection?

Did Bud again forget to post a plug-in protector spec that claims protection? He cannot. No such manufacturer numeric specification exists. It does not protect from the type of surges that typically cause damage - not matter how much a sales promoter is paid to spin otherwise.

Bud is only posting to create confusion and argument. Bud well knows that every responsible source used the 8x20 microsecond waveform for testing. Another waveform used for testing is 1.2/50. Bud says that is proof that lightning is a 1.2/50 us waveform. Nonsense. That is only another testing waveform. That does not say lightning is only an 8x20 or 1.2/50 microsecond waveform. But Bud is only posting to confuse layman - to protect sales of his scam protectors.

Lightning contains many waveforms including some with faster rise times. Even IEEE says that. Bud distorts even what the IEEE says only to argue.

There are some fundamental facts. Bud is not an engineer. Bud did not design and see lightning test those designs over many decades. Bud is a sales promoter whose protectors do not even claim to protect from lightning surges. Bud promotes a protector that protects from other 'typically not destructive' surges. Bud post lies, myths, and irrelevant nonsense (ie lightning striking an airplane) so that the layman will be confused; buy those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors.

As phil says in response to Bud's intentionally misleading post:

Of course, Phil is correct and Bud knows it.

Lightn> A standard waveform might might provide a good means to study

Professional learns from these waveforms that Bud disparages. And then professionals put their protectors into the field to learn more. We did. We learned how ineffective plug-in protectors are =96 sometimes even contributing to damage of adjacent appliances. Lightning has numerous characteristics. But one thing about that surge that is common. The current seeks earth ground. Any attempt to block or absorb that current only results in higher voltages and damage.

You want to discuss your opinions.

I am interested in the real world. Martzloff writes about the real world. The IEEE standard surge waveforms represent the real world. w_'s favorite professional engineer writes about the real world. All indicate the fast waveforms you claim are not a factor in surges produced by lightning.

Still missing - a source that agrees with your opinions that transmission line effects have to be considered surge protection of reasonable sized buildings. .

. The IEEE is sure stupid defining standard surge waveforms. Martzloff is sure stupid using those waveforms. But that is redundant - Martzloff is a member of the IEEE. I?ll bet w_'s professional engineer is a member too. .

. The source is a "professional engineer", not w_. Perhaps if you read what I wrote.... But you seem to have as much regard for engineers as for w_. The article is from an online technical magazine that appears to be associated with EE Times. .

Provide a source that agrees with you that surges have frequency components that require wiring in reasonable sized buildings to be viewed as transmission lines. .

The IEEE was sure stupid thinking they could model the "reality of nature." But the IEEE is just a club of lusers. .

. You are only here to see phil's phantasy physics in print.

I am interested in the real world. Martzloff, the IEEE and the "professional engineer" write about the real world. .

. The IEEE is full of fools. (And they have several waveforms. And they model surges arriving on utility wires, not lightning.) .

. Sure phil. Everyone experiments with real lightning. .

. Of course you don't want technical papers. They conflict with phil's phantasy physics .

. The calculated (Martzloff again) average probability of a worse event is once in 8000 years. For most of us that is a reasonable worst case scenario. .

. Which is exactly why I often repeat it. It was indirectly aimed at Eric who mentioned "other connection referenced to ground". .

The voltage across the MOV while protecting is the clamp voltage, not "virtually zero". For power circuits that is typically 330V or higher. High surge current results in significantly higher voltage.

For a service panel suppressor the MOV dissipation is negligible relative to the energy in the lightning strike. But it is not negligible

- high device ratings are required. .

. Sure phil. You hire electrical engineers all the time to provide "average protection".

Of course I do "specifically address w_tom's errors with technical discussion."

Recently you had little idea what either of us were saying (recent thread on this newsgroup):

phil: "Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing about entirely different issues."

trader4: "I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors, as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer protection and can be part of an effective solution."

But then trader4 also said of some of your arguments "I have to agree that this is Phantasy Physics."

w_tom wrote: . Ignoring most of the drivel... . > Those waveforms

. Failure (which must be completed safely) is only allowed after tests show significant surge protection capability. .

Lacking valid technical arguments poor w_ uses scare tactics. w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since

Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are not effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

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

. You forgot your religious mantra "No earth ground means no effective protection." How can you possibly protect a flying airplane??? .

. Repeating: "If a surge comes in on power wires and produces 1000A to earth through a very good 10 ohm impedance to earth, the 'ground' at the service panel rises 10,000V above 'absolute' ground potential. "If the only earthing electrode is a single ground rod, as a rule of thumb 70% of the voltage drop is in the first 3 feet from the rod. If you have 10,000V to 'absolute' ground, there will be 7,000V from the power 'ground' to earth 3 feet from the rod."

Service panel suppressors do not by themselves provide equipotential. .

. Service panel suppressors are a good idea. 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 [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable 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." .

. Forget? No one asked. Specs provided often and ignored. For example:

Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are not effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

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

A protector need only prove it has some protector components. Bud says that proves it provides protection. UL does not care whether it provides protection. UL only cares that internal protectors are connected to AC wires. Then UL1449 applies a serious surge. Bud admits the protector can completely fail during that surge and still get a UL1449 approval. Bud is a sales promoter. So Bud must obfuscate a fact. Plug-in surge protectors can completely fail during UL1449 testing and be UL registered.

What happens to these protectors when that emergency safety fuse does not disconnect protector circuits fast enough? Most fire companies have seen these scary pictures with plug-in protectors:

Bud always replies to deny this reality. A grossly undersized protector can disconnect protector circuits even faster to obtain UL1449 approval. Irrelevant whether it provides effective protection. Relevant is that scary pictures do not occur during UL testing.

=93A protector need only prove it has some protector components.=94 Not true

=93Bud says that proves it provides protection.=94 Bud is correct; UL1449 and SVR rating verify it works.

=93UL only cares that internal protectors are connected to AC wires.=94 ?

=93Then UL1449 applies a serious surge. Bud admits the protector can completely fail during that surge and still get a UL1449 approval.=94 Same for =93Whole House=94 protectors, they must also disconnect =93fail=94 it=92s required for UL1449.

=93Bud is a sales promoter.=94 Bud does a wonderful service.

=93So Bud must obfuscate a fact.=94 Don=92t think so.

=93Plug-in surge protectors can completely fail during UL1449 testing and be UL registered.=94 It=92s required, same for =93whole house=94 panel protectors.

Both of Bud's IEEE and NIST guides show how plug-in protectors create appliance damage. Bud is a sales promoter with no engineering knowledge or experience. Since he cannot provide technical facts, then Bud posts mockery and insults. An informed layman should review all his posts. Nowhere does Bud provide a single technical fact. Bud only posts half facts and popular myths. If the plug-in protector was effective, then where is the manufacturer spec that make that claim? It does not exist.

Page 42 Figure 8 of Bud's citation shows a protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively via an adjacent TV. A plug-in protector did exactly what its manufacturer claims. Bud says a plug- in protector makes surge energy magically disappear. Of course not. Otherwise there 8000 volts would not exist on Page 42 Figure 8. Surges seek earth ground. Either surge energy must be dissipated in earth ground OR surge energy will find destructive paths to earth inside a building. Page 42 Figure 8. Surge energy in the protector still had to find earth ground - 8000 volts destructively via adjacent appliances.

Bud's other citation from the NIST says same - bluntly:

Every professional knows that surge energy earthed before entering a building means no damage, as both IEEE and NIST state. But Bud is a sales promoter. If he keeps posting insults, a layman's eyes will glaze over; buy a popular but ineffective and obscenely overpriced solution. The effective (and properly earthed) protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. Bud promotes $25 or $150 for every appliance - including smoke detectors, bathroom GFCIs, and dishwasher.

UL does not care whether any appliance works. UL is a safety organization. UL1449 was created in 1985 to address problems even published in two early 1980s issues of PC Magazine. Protectors then too often spit flame. UL1449 only tests protectors for human safety. Protector can completely fail during UL1449 testing. But if it does not spit flame - does not threaten human life - then it gets a UL approval.

Does UL test a washing machine to measure cleaner clothes? Of course not. UL approval tests for threats to human life. UL does not care if an egg cooker can cook eggs. UL does not care if a protector provides protection. UL is only about human safety.

Plug-in protectors even with UL1449 approval can sometimes create human safety risks. Most every fire company has seen this problem. One citation from a NC fire marshal even says why these human threat exist:

"UL evaluates surge suppressors 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."

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:48:07 -0500 bud-- wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:19:55 -0500 bud-- wrote: |> |> |> | My comments in response to w_ are disproportionately about plug-in |> |> | suppressors because of the nonsense w_ posts about them. |> |> |> |> Maybe you should just disregard him entirely. |> | . |> | Maybe you should disregard the discussion aimed at w_. |> |> If you were to specifically address w_tom's errors with technical discussion |> that was applicable and correct, there would be no need to refute. | . | Of course I do "specifically address w_tom's errors with technical | discussion."

No, you use stupid points like "how do you protect an airplane". That is not pointing at a flaw; that's expecting someone to expand the discussion with no direction to resolve the issue.

| Recently you had little idea what either of us were saying (recent | thread on this newsgroup): | | phil: | "Both do not appear to be wrong to me. They appear more to be arguing | about entirely different issues."

That's a while back on a different thread. Some things Tom says are right. Some things you say are right. These things often apply in different situations.

Should I wear hearing protection or eye protection when shooting at the gun range? It's like one of you insists on hearing protection and the other insists on eye protection. I suggest that the best protection is both.

. w_ is so dumb. UL requires surge suppressors (service panel and plug-in) to survive a series of surges (20?). After that the "suppressed voltage rating" in fl_fly_boy?s post is measured. .

The lie repeated. w_'s own hanford link says overheating was fixed by a revision to the UL standard. w_ has no source that says plug-in suppressors made under UL1449 2nd Edition (effective 1998) are a problem.

But with no valid technical arguments all poor w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.

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

. w_ is a pathetic troll. .

. Since he cannot provide technical facts, w_ tries to discredit opponents. .

. The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service 'ground' is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

w_ either lies about what the IEEE guide says or is too stupid to understand.

Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are not effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why does the IEEE guide say in the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?

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