Whole house surge suppressors

Oddly you dismiss the test results of research labs.

Charles Perry P.E.

Your statement was: " BTW, surge protectors absorb surges just like wire also absorbs surges."

That statement was shown to be incorrect. Nothing in what you have posted below makes your statement correct or addresses what I posted in response to your statement.

I did not dismiss results of research labs. I have insufficient details of those lab results to even review. Furthermore I have seen plug-in protectors contribute to damage of adjacent equipment when installed in a building without a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Those lab results should not contradict real world examples. And so I have serious problems with lab conclusions that come from a so credible source. They were not dismissed. They were contrasted to so many real world examples and the underlying theory.

A special note is required here. Some posters who have substantial credibility. Charles Perry is on that list. I just cannot agree with his conclusions that plug-in protectors will enhance a protection system because 1) appliance internal protection makes the plug-in protectors redundant if a properly installed 'whole house' protector and single point earth ground is installed. Furthermore, 2) plug-in protectors are grossly overpriced for what they claim to accomplish and are often grossly undersized. 3) If the plug-in protector were so effective, then those inexpensive components would already be inside that appliance. The plug-in protector does not even have the dedicated, short connection to single point earth ground. Somehow the plug-in protector will earth long distance to same earth ground used by the 'whole house' protector; the secondary protection system? Just not reasonable.

Furthermore, 4) devices that require protection such as GFCIs, dimmer switches, digital timer switches, dishwasher, smoke detector, etc - what protects these? Not a plug-in protector. If 'whole house is required for these, then what is another protector connected too far from earth ground suppose to accomplish? Just another reason why I see no reason to spend so much money on a device that does not even claim to protect from the typically destructive common mode transient.

Anyth>> I have no connection to any company that I have listed as

The repairman (a different guy than last week) came out this morning and said he talked to his supervisor and it's the customer's responsibility to ground the NID (!) I pointed out that the ground connection is inside the telco half of the box and customers don't have access to the ground terminal. He said if the customer has a ground wire sticking out of the wall when they install the NID they hook it up, otherwise they leave it disconnected. He said the phone cable is low-voltage so the national electric code doesn't apply -- the NFPA *thinks* it applies, but Qwest has a lawsuit or something where they are challenging it. Sounds like bullshit to me.

I didn't argue with the guy; I asked him if he could unscrew the box so I could attach an earth wire without having to cut the box open. He unscrewed the fancy-headed locking screw and showed me where to attach the wire and to make sure I tighten the customer-side screw when I was done to keep the weather out. I have a 1000' roll of #12 green wire that I'll never use up, and I've fished the end of it through the siding and exterior wall already. It'll take me less than 15 minutes to finish the job this evening.

Next time I see my friend who's a supervisor at the city's building safety office I think I'll mention this and see what he says. It's disturbing that Qwest's policy is to install aerial phone lines without earthing them at all. And I assume they only connect buried cable's metal shield to the ground block and don't connect it to the building's ground electrode system.

Best regards, Bob

From the FCC Part 68 Connection of Terminal Equipment to the Telephone Network:

zxcvbob wrote:

w snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (w_tom) wrote in :

The Qwest guy was blowing smoke. He was too lazy to bond the protector properly and wanted to get you to do his work for him. If he worked for me he'd be looking for a job now. As pointed out above, the telco side has the ground lug. It is essential that this be connected to a low resistance ground. It is preferable to bond this to the MGN if avaialble. If there is no MGN, then the building's electrical service ground is used. Lacking any other suitable ground, the telco tech should have driven a ground at the protector and grounded to it. No ground = no protection. The Qwest tech was either woefully misinformed or an outright liar. The NEC has a whole chapter (8) covering communications systems. Article