First we wish to create potential equalization. But try as we must - and that means all homes should be constructed with so inexpensive ufer grounds - we still cannot obtain equipotential. So we attempt to make earthing as conductive as possible. But everything has impedance. We can never make earthing sufficiently conductive. So we also seek to make a building equipotential. Protection means we must do both which is why earthing is so critical to effective protection. Earthing in conjuction with 'whole house' protectors address both requirements for effective protection. Plug-in protectors do not.
If equipotential could be obtained, then a 'point of use' protector would be effective. But as demonstrated in a previous post, too many alternative paths exist. Equipotential at the appliance cannot be achieved. To have equipotential, the entire room must be constructed using techniques found in airplanes. So we address THE most critical component of a protection system to attempt equipotential. It is called a single point earth ground. As trivial as an earth ground rod or as superior as Ufer grounds when the building footings are poured. Either way, earthing is what defines electronic appliance protection.
Provided is a very long list of citations in which virtually everyone defines earthing as THE most essential component of a protection system. Citing airplanes, etc is not part of this topic. But airplanes accomplish the same thing in a more complex manner.
Even Martzloff has slowly conceded to earthing as being essential to protection which was not what his original work said. I had read much from Martzloff and NIST when I repeated what has so long been known by others - earthing as the most essential component for protection.
For example cited in you own URLs is this NIST publication:
Furthermore, this figure of fax machine protection is also from NIST. Notice again that earthing and how earthing is connected defines that fax machine protection:
So yes even the NIST says earthing is necessary. Earthing is the purpose of protectors. More from Martzloff later. Just a warning - I know this stuff which is why this is a very abridged list of citations. I don't know how one can talk about effective protection and not discuss earthing. Earthing is literally exampled of every case study in a 4 Nov 1998 issue of IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility. For example a maritime communication facility was damaged by lightning. How did they fix it? Fix the earthing system and how protectors connected to that earthing system (van der Laan and Deursen). Or Montandon and Rubenstein's "Some Observations on the Protection of Buildings Against the Induced Effective of Lightning" demonstrate how to earth lightning through buildings without damage or data interruption. Their figure nine shows "Avoiding current through the building" with Bad and Good earthing techniques. But again protection from transients is about earthing.
Indeed the list of professionals that discuss earthing as essential to electronics protection is so long that another post is referenced with but a sampling - maybe one days worth of reading - in alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe"
and
Figure on page 14 demonstrates what is meant by "equipotential earth bonding" and "Common earth bar connected to all electronic equipment and bonded to the earth ring". BS6651 demonstrates how earthing is essential to protection. Both for equipotential AND for conduction of the direct strike to earth.
Demonstrated by numbers (impedance) and other factors (including induced transients) in the previous post is why plug-in protectors are not effective. Wire impedance is why serious and more reputable protector manufacturers (and even all telcos) require short connections to a single point 'earth' ground.
Polyphaser - an industry benchmark - discusses earthing in every if not almost every post.
I just do not see how anyone can claim earthing is not important since virtually every IEEE example of terrestrial protection includes and discusses earthing - the most essential component of a protection system.
Martzloff in his early days in NY for GE did much promotion of a GE product - Varistors - also called MOVs. In his original work, Martzloff made no serious mention of earthing that I ever saw. I assume he was an author of that famous GE application note on varistors that also did little to discuss earthing when promoting GE's MOVs. Even Martzloff has changed. Martzloff and Mansoor in 2002 wrote "The Role and Stress of Surge-Protective Devices in Sharing Lightning Current":
As the NIST noted, earthing is the purpose of a protector. Earthing is fundamental to what virtually every industry professionals requires. Service entrance is the single point earth ground - the most critical component in building protection. BTW, we are not discussing airplanes which must address 'shunting without damage' - a much more complex problem that involves same principles.
Martzloff still says that MOVs must 'cascade' protection. IOW he has slowly conceded to earthing as being essential which was not in his original work. His work now includes the all so important 'whole house' protector. In this paper, he notes how the 'point of use' protector is not sufficient without the 'cascade' - the earthed 'whole house' protector.
NIST says (quoted above) the purpose of a protector is
No earth ground means no effective protection. Some incoming utilities do not even need a protector. Cable, for example, has protection by direct connection to single point earthing. With a direct connection, cable needs no protectors to provide earthing.
Finally another professional defines earthing bluntly:
I posted:
I stand by that statement citing many who would recommend plug-in protectors in direct violation of basic and so well proven electrical principles. Some such as Charles Perry do cite responsible publications. However it is embarrassing to be an engineer and see how Roy L Fuchs uses personal insults to defend his technically irresponsible recommendations of a "750 VA or more UPS". He is especially a reason why I used the word "Wow".
The original poster asked:
Any recommendation using a plug-in protector was wrong AND was not based in generations of proven science. No earth ground - which is plug-in protectors - means no effective protection. Those utility wires are similar to antenna connecting to radios - from lightning's perspective. Either lightning finds earth destructively via your appliances, OR a human earths before lightning can enter a building. The latter is called effective protection. Effective 'whole house' protectors are even sold in Home Depot and Lowes (however I believe the OP is in Britain). The most critical component in a protection system
- the s> Earthing is not that important. Potential equalization is. Think aircraft,