Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ?

[blackboab]

I am using a Belkin 4-way surgemaster to protect my laptop while in a
3rd world country with very variable power supply.

Twice yesterday the on-off rocker switch reset itself when I was out
of the building,

There are 2 possibilities

1) the hotel owner is unhappy at my laptop being on 12 hours a day and
came into my room and switched the surgemaster rocker switch to the
off position

2) the surgemaster itself switched to the off position in response to
a power surge

In the country I am in in option 1 is a definite possibility as hotel
owners/managers often come into your room when you are out.

Is option 2 a possibility ?
Does the surgemaster switch itself off when there is a spike or
surge ?

TIA

 

[Paul]

I am using a Belkin 4-way surgemaster to protect my laptop while in a
3rd world country with very variable power supply.

Twice yesterday the on-off rocker switch reset itself when I was out
of the building,

There are 2 possibilities

1) the hotel owner is unhappy at my laptop being on 12 hours a day and
came into my room and switched the surgemaster rocker switch to the
off position

2) the surgemaster itself switched to the off position in response to
a power surge

In the country I am in in option 1 is a definite possibility as hotel
owners/managers often come into your room when you are out.

Is option 2 a possibility ?
Does the surgemaster switch itself off when there is a spike or
surge ?

TIA

There are many products that go by that description. This document,
is the most detailed one I could find, showing some of the possible
features. Your part number could be different.

http://www.belkin.com/uk/product_bulletins/F9H410uk2M.pdf

Generally speaking, a breaker would trip, if something on the load
side exceeds the rating (15A or whatever). If a MOV clamps the line,
and continues to clamp after the transient disappears, then the
breaker (or another fuse device inside), may open.

My guess would be, if all else appears to be OK, someone just flipped
the switch.

In some surge strip designs I've read about, the MOV devices are supposed
to have some free space around them. When they blow (fail while protecting
your equipment), they need room so the exploding bits can get out of the
way.

If you don't trust any status indicator on the front of the unit, that
says the MOVs are still working, taking a screwdriver and visually inspecting
is one option. Any signs of violent physical damage, would tell you the
device did its job, and now isn't providing full protection. They don't last
forever, and after clamping enough big transients (like lightning adjacent
to the building), they can fail.

Not all units can be opened up. Some will be sealed shut, so you
cannot see the crappy construction. The document above certainly looks
classy, but there are some butt ugly designs out there, that would
scare you if you looked at them. Volume production at the cheapest
cost, doesn't always lead to nice looking assemblies like the
cutaway pictures in the above document.

BTW - now that the word "surge" has appeared in this thread, be prepared
for the usual discussions about how useful the protector is. I won't be
back to read this thread, because of the deluge of comments to come

Paul

 

[blackboab]

blackboab wrote:

BTW - now that the word "surge" has appeared in this thread, be prepared
for the usual discussions about how useful the protector is. I won't be
back to read this thread, because of the deluge of comments to come

Paul

Thanks for your reply, it is the one off switch which was flipped to
off twice.
I suspect it was the hotel staff unhappy at the laptop being left on
when i was out.

 

[w_tom]

Generally speaking, a breaker would trip, if something on the load
side exceeds the rating (15A or whatever). If a MOV clamps the line,
and continues to clamp after the transient disappears, then the
breaker (or another fuse device inside), may open.
...
In some surge strip designs I've read about, the MOV devices are supposed
to have some free space around them. When they blow (fail while protecting
your equipment), they need room so the exploding bits can get out of the
way.

Surge protectors do not operate as posted. First, breaker will not
open due to MOV clamping. MOVs inside plug-in protectors are a fire
threat. Therefore MOVs have their own thermal fuse to disconnect only
MOVs on a tiniest current - to completely disconnect MOV protectors
leaving a surge connected to the appliance. Oh! MOVs disconnect fast
and early? Yes, because the protector is typically undersized and
because the disconnected MOVs (what the status light reports) will get
the naive to buy more undersized protectors.

Why must MOVs disconnect so quickly? 'Scary pictures' demonstrate a
problem with some current technology (and undersized) surge
protectors:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

In one zerosurge.com picture, MOV (the protectors) are completely
removed. Status light says protector is OK. Status light can only
report a defective protector (only due to catastrophic, unacceptable
failure) AND cannot report a good protector. Just because a light
implies OK does not mean the protector is OK. But yYou might learn a
'blowing' protector is completely unacceptable - means no effective
protection. So they remain mute - leaving the naive convert
speculation into facts as Paul has done.

"Scary pictures" are but another reason why a protector is best
switched off when not in use.

Second, MOVs must never protect by 'blowing'. That catastrophic
failure, common in plug-in protectors, is completely unacceptable to
MOV manufacturers. No manufacturer numbers exist for operation by
'blowing' (catastrophic failure). Blowing exceeds manufacturer's
Absolute Maximum Parameters - is unacceptable. MOV protectors must
shunt (earth) a surge AND remain operational. Manufacturers even
provides charts for normal operation by defining current, length of
surge, and number of surges. Number of surges may be 10, 100, 1000,
10000, etc. Yes, effective protectors are not a 'one shot' devices
despite popular myth.

When is the MOV degraded? Degraded - not catastrophically
destroyed. When its voltage changes 10%. It must remain completely
functional and only degrad. Status lamp will not indicate
degradation. Status lamp only indicates a catastrophic (unacceptable)
failure.

An effective protector earths a surge and remains operational.
Human should never know a surge even existed. But properly sized
protectors would not have the naive promoting myths. Grossly
undersized protectors that 'blow', instead, are promoted by myth
purveyors as 'one shot' devices.

A common myth is, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my
computer". What really happened? A surge too small to overwhelm
protection already inside the computer, instead, catastrophically
destroyed the grossly undersized protector. Surge struck both
protectcor and computer simultaneously. Better is to undersized a
protector the naive will promote myths. If a protector was effective,
the myth purveyor would not know a surge even existed and would not
recommend that protector to friends.

Any protection attached to its power cord is already inside the
computer and other household appliances. Protection already inside
the appliance makes a small surge irrelevant. But that same 'so
small' surge catastrophically and unacceptably destroys an undersized
protector - as statud light indicates.

Third, protection inside all appliances means a surge must be
earthed before entering the building. Surges must be earthed (not
stopped or absorbed) by a protector. Energy that was not stopped by
three miles of sky must be dissipated somewhere. An effective
protector connects a surge *to* protection. An effective protector
connects that energy to earth where surge is harmlessly dissipated.
But if the protector has no dedicated earthing wire, then where does
that energy get dissipated? Destructively inside household appliances
or destructively inside a grossly undersized protector.

How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacture avoid all discussion about earthing.

Effective protector remains functional after every surge. Status
light must not report a failure. But grossly undersizing a protector
gets the naive to recommend these products and increases a massive
profit margin. Sometimes a backup safety circuit does not work. Then
'scary pictures' occur. An effective protector is identified by a
dedicated, short (less than 10 foot) connection to earth. Plug-in
protectors have no such earthing connection. No problem. It will
blow on a surge too small to harm the computer anyway. Resulting
myths will promote more profits. Profit - not protection - are its
function.

Scary pictures demonstrate why turning off the protector is advisable
(as staff is probably doing). Protectors do not operate as Paul has
posted. Paul has read popular myths rather than manufacturer data
sheets. Exploding MOVs are unacceptable operation. Breaker does not
trip as Paul states.

 

[blackboab]

posted. Paul has read popular myths rather than manufacturer data

sheets. Exploding MOVs are unacceptable operation. Breaker does not
trip as Paul states.

I am talking about the external on-off switch only. does it trip ?ie
does it go from an on position to an off position ?

 

[w_tom]

I am talking about the external on-off switch only. does it trip ?ie
does it go from an on position to an off position ?

First, if switch tripped as Paul has suggested, then that switch is
a circuit breaker and would have a current rating on it. MOVs also
would not trip a circuit breaker.

Second, if switch was a circuit breaker, then another 15 amp circuit
breaker would not exist. All power strips must have a circuit breaker
(or fuse) for human safety reasons. (However some power strips don't
which might then be a reason to dispose of that power strip).

 

[bud--]

MOVs are intended to protect from surges. A surge is by definition a
very short duration event. Very unlikely a breaker would trip from
clamping a surge. Breakers are to protect from too much load plugged
into the strip. I suspect the breaker was switched off.


As noted below, for many years plug-in suppressors have been required by
UL to have thermal disconnects for failing MOVs. In the US, only listed
suppressors should be used.

Surge protectors do not operate as posted. First, breaker will not
open due to MOV clamping. MOVs inside plug-in protectors are a fire
threat. Therefore MOVs have their own thermal fuse to disconnect only
MOVs on a tiniest current - to completely disconnect MOV protectors
leaving a surge connected to the appliance. Oh! MOVs disconnect fast
and early? Yes, because the protector is typically undersized and
because the disconnected MOVs (what the status light reports) will get
the naive to buy more undersized protectors.

“Undersized” and “disconnect early” - only with an incompetent
manufacturer. A competent manufacturer carefully matches the protection
to the MOVs.

For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

Why must MOVs disconnect so quickly? 'Scary pictures' demonstrate a
problem with some current technology (and undersized) surge
protectors:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

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 requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. w_ has no
links that say overheating is a problem under the UL standard in effect
since 1998.

In one zerosurge.com picture, MOV (the protectors) are completely
removed. Status light says protector is OK.

This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see
if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.

Status light can only
report a defective protector (only due to catastrophic, unacceptable
failure) AND cannot report a good protector.

MOVs fail by conducting at too low a voltage resulting in thermal
runaway. That causes the thermal disconnects to open. Status lights
indicate if the MOVs have been disconnected, and conversely if the MOVs
are OK.

Second, MOVs must never protect by 'blowing'. That catastrophic
failure, common in plug-in protectors

The NIST guru on surges has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge."

In fact a plug-in suppressor with high ratings is very unlikely to fail.
That is why manufacturers can offer warranties on not only the
suppressor but connected equipment.

Better is to undersized a
protector the naive will promote myths. If a protector was effective,
the myth purveyor would not know a surge even existed and would not
recommend that protector to friends.

w_ appears to believe all plug-in suppressors are undersized. Plug-in
suppressors with very high ratings are readily available and relatively
inexpensive.

Any protection attached to its power cord is already inside the
computer and other household appliances. Protection already inside
the appliance makes a small surge irrelevant. But that same 'so
small' surge catastrophically and unacceptably destroys an undersized
protector - as statud light indicates.

Complete nonsense.

Energy that was not stopped by
three miles of sky must be dissipated somewhere. An effective
protector connects a surge *to* protection. An effective protector
connects that energy to earth where surge is harmlessly dissipated.
But if the protector has no dedicated earthing wire, then where does
that energy get dissipated?

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. 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. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport
suppressors are described in both guides.

How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacture avoid all discussion about earthing.

With minimal reading skills w_ could find in the IEEE guide that plug–in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

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.

Never answered:
- 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"?

–
bud--

 

[Eric]

MOVs are intended to protect from surges. A surge is by definition a
very short duration event. Very unlikely a breaker would trip from
clamping a surge. Breakers are to protect from too much load plugged
into the strip. I suspect the breaker was switched off.


As noted below, for many years plug-in suppressors have been required by
UL to have thermal disconnects for failing MOVs. In the US, only listed
suppressors should be used.

Surge protectors do not operate as posted. First, breaker will not
open due to MOV clamping. MOVs inside plug-in protectors are a fire
threat. Therefore MOVs have their own thermal fuse to disconnect only
MOVs on a tiniest current - to completely disconnect MOV protectors
leaving a surge connected to the appliance. Oh! MOVs disconnect fast
and early? Yes, because the protector is typically undersized and
because the disconnected MOVs (what the status light reports) will get
the naive to buy more undersized protectors.

“Undersized” and “disconnect early” - only with an incompetent
manufacturer. A competent manufacturer carefully matches the protection
to the MOVs.

For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

Why must MOVs disconnect so quickly? 'Scary pictures' demonstrate a
problem with some current technology (and undersized) surge
protectors:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

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 requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. w_ has no
links that say overheating is a problem under the UL standard in effect
since 1998.

In one zerosurge.com picture, MOV (the protectors) are completely
removed. Status light says protector is OK.

This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see
if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.

Status light can only
report a defective protector (only due to catastrophic, unacceptable
failure) AND cannot report a good protector.

MOVs fail by conducting at too low a voltage resulting in thermal
runaway. That causes the thermal disconnects to open. Status lights
indicate if the MOVs have been disconnected, and conversely if the MOVs
are OK.

Second, MOVs must never protect by 'blowing'. That catastrophic
failure, common in plug-in protectors

The NIST guru on surges has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge."

In fact a plug-in suppressor with high ratings is very unlikely to fail.
That is why manufacturers can offer warranties on not only the
suppressor but connected equipment.

Better is to undersized a
protector the naive will promote myths. If a protector was effective,
the myth purveyor would not know a surge even existed and would not
recommend that protector to friends.

w_ appears to believe all plug-in suppressors are undersized. Plug-in
suppressors with very high ratings are readily available and relatively
inexpensive.

Any protection attached to its power cord is already inside the
computer and other household appliances. Protection already inside
the appliance makes a small surge irrelevant. But that same 'so
small' surge catastrophically and unacceptably destroys an undersized
protector - as statud light indicates.

Complete nonsense.

Energy that was not stopped by
three miles of sky must be dissipated somewhere. An effective
protector connects a surge *to* protection. An effective protector
connects that energy to earth where surge is harmlessly dissipated.
But if the protector has no dedicated earthing wire, then where does
that energy get dissipated?

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. 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. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport
suppressors are described in both guides.

How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacture avoid all discussion about earthing.

With minimal reading skills w_ could find in the IEEE guide that plug–in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

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.

Never answered:
- 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"?

–
bud--

Also the OP was in a hotel room. NO possibility for "earthing".
Eric

 

[w_tom]

Also the OP was in a hotel room. NO possibility for "earthing".
Eric

Bud's citations warn that a protector without proper earthing may
earth that surge, 8000 volts destructively, through electronics. Page
42 Figure 8 shows an adjacent plug-in protector earthing a surge
destructively through an adjacent TV. The protector was too far from
earth ground AND too close to electronics. Protector's numeric specs
do not even claim to provide protection. So Bud posts half-truths.

Bud promotes for plug-in protectors. He disparages posts that
accuracy describe his protectors. He posts technical citations that,
if not technically understood, may appear to promote his protectors.
His plug-in protector does not even claim to provide protection.
Where are the numbers? Bud will provide no numbers AND will routinely
avoid this question. Why? Profits are too high. Protector does not
claim to provide protection. And then we have those 'scary pictures';
what happens to current technology protectors including a building
last September in Boston

Grossly undersizing plug-in protectors maximize profits AND get the
naive to promote protection myths. Protectors that don't even claim
to provide protection are promoted by Bud. Those 'scary pictures' are
why hotel staff would be encouraged to switch off such power strip
protectors. 'Scary pictures' because undersizing a protector
increases profits. Bud's job: to promote more myths.

So where do plug-in protector spec numbers actually claim to
protect? They don't.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as Bud's
citations bluntly state. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Where does that energy get dissipated when the protector has no
earth ground? Page 42 Figure 8 - destructively through adjacent
electronics. The effective protector connects a surge to earth long
before that surge can get near to computer. Effective protector is
located distant from the computer and at the earth ground.

Since a plug-in protector does not even claim to provide protection,
then undersizing it increases profits and promotes more sales.
Unfortunately, undersizing may also create those 'scary pictures' if a
safety thermal fuse fails.

Protector circuits do not turn off the power switch despite what
another suggested. Recommended is to switch off that protector when
not in use - as the hotel staff may be doing to reduce a fire threat.

 

[bud--]

Yes - nice point.

Bud's citations warn that a protector without proper earthing may
earth that surge, 8000 volts destructively, through electronics. Page
42 Figure 8 shows an adjacent plug-in protector earthing a surge
destructively through an adjacent TV.

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”.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.

Bud promotes for plug-in protectors.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.

Grossly undersizing plug-in protectors maximize profits AND get the
naive to promote protection myths.

Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized
suppressor. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available for
relatively low cost.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as Bud's
citations bluntly state.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide
says plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

Then read w_’s sources - oops - he still hasn’t found another lunatic
that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still no answers to simple 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Eric]

Yes - nice point.


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”.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.


To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.


Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized
suppressor. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available for
relatively low cost.


The required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide
says plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.


What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

Then read w_’s sources - oops - he still hasn’t found another lunatic
that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still no answers to simple 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.
Eric

 

[w_tom]

Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.

Why does Bud cut and paste same replies everywhere - like a bot.
Why does Bud post incessantly so that only Bud gets the last reply?
Who is the troll? One who discusses many electrical subjects (besides
protectors) to deflate popular myths? Or Bud who cut and pastes myths
to promote for plug-in protectors? Why, Eric, do you ignore Bud who
posts same myths everywhere? Ask Bud for numbers that define
protection. A bot cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. A plug-
in protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Did Eric
notice that fact - or instead attack the messenger?

According to Bud's citations, a hotel power strip protector cannot
protect:

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

How does it 'divert to ground' when, as Eric notes, no earth ground
exists? Where would a surge go without an earth ground? Page 42
Figure 8. Surge was dissipated 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. Effective protectors are (as Bud's citations note) close
to earth ground (not in a hotel room) where surge energy is harmlessly
dissipated.

 

[Eric]

Why does Bud cut and paste same replies everywhere - like a bot.
Why does Bud post incessantly so that only Bud gets the last reply?
Who is the troll? One who discusses many electrical subjects (besides
protectors) to deflate popular myths? Or Bud who cut and pastes myths
to promote for plug-in protectors? Why, Eric, do you ignore Bud who
posts same myths everywhere? Ask Bud for numbers that define
protection. A bot cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. A plug-
in protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Did Eric
notice that fact - or instead attack the messenger?

According to Bud's citations, a hotel power strip protector cannot
protect:

How does it 'divert to ground' when, as Eric notes, no earth ground
exists? Where would a surge go without an earth ground? Page 42
Figure 8. Surge was dissipated 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. Effective protectors are (as Bud's citations note) close
to earth ground (not in a hotel room) where surge energy is harmlessly
dissipated.

No attack from me.. I have no disagreement really. Your posts just
seem..artificial somehow. You seem to be on a crusade of sorts..
Probably pearls before swine for the most part. Why not just forget the
whole thing?
Eric

 

[bud--]

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups
for "surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens.

w_ never posts a link to a site that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. I wonder why?

w_ never answers 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

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

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Eric]

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups
for "surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens.

w_ never posts a link to a site that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. I wonder why?

w_ never answers 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

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

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

Maybe he worships the Earth Mother..
Eric

 

[w_tom]

No attack from me.. I have no disagreement really. Your posts just
seem..artificial somehow.

Feelings are irrelevant when discussing science. Is a perception
relevant; or do we bluntly go after the facts? Facts were provided
the only way I know how - with numerous supporting sources, numbers,
citations, etc. And with myths bluntly exposed. Is that a crusade OR
seeking an irrefutible fact in direct contradictionm to popular myth?

Contrary to what was posted, a protector does not operate by
tripping a circuit breaker, fuse, or switch. Even millisecond verses
microsecond numbers prove that does not happen. But then a plug-in
protector also has another problem - trying to do something useful.

An effective protector has a short connection to earth. A grossly
undersized and obscenely profitable protector could even be a fire
hazard - 'scary pictures'. Protector is best switched off or
unplugged when left in the hotel room - which may be what the hotel
staff is doing to reduce fire risk.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message
<[email protected]> w_tom

Feelings are irrelevant when discussing science. Is a perception
relevant; or do we bluntly go after the facts? Facts were provided
the only way I know how - with numerous supporting sources, numbers,
citations, etc. And with myths bluntly exposed. Is that a crusade OR
seeking an irrefutible fact in direct contradictionm to popular myth?

Contrary to what was posted, a protector does not operate by
tripping a circuit breaker, fuse, or switch. Even millisecond verses
microsecond numbers prove that does not happen. But then a plug-in
protector also has another problem - trying to do something useful.

So why is it that both NIST and IEEE refer to plug-in surge protectors?

 

[bud--]

Facts were provided
the only way I know how - with numerous supporting sources, numbers,
citations, etc.

NO supporting sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Only w_’s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.

And just the usual drivel.

An effective protector has a short connection to earth.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE
guide says plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Still no answers to simple 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

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

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

–-
bud--

 

[w_tom]

So why is it that both NIST and IEEE refer to plug-in surge protectors?

"Refer" - not 'recommend'. Page 42 Figure 8 refers to one of so
many problems with plug-in protectors - ineffective protectors. An
effective protector earths surges as the NIST says bluntly:

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

If the protector has no dedicated earthing connection? Then it must
suppress or arrest (absorb or stop) a surge. Page 42 Figure 8 - the
surge is earthed, 8000 volts destructively, through an adjacent TV
because no earth ground existed to *divert* to.. We who did this
stuff decades ago understood why a protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.

IEEE is even more blunt in Standards where plug-in protectors are
also not recommended. For example, IEEE Red Book (IEEE Standard 141):

In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

Plug-in protectors don't do that, have no such earthing connection,
and cannot do what the IEEE requires for surge protection. IEEE Red
book discusses what provides the protection - earth ground.

A first page article from Electrical Engineering Times on 1 Oct and
8 Oct 2007 is entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". This article discusses major facts in surge protection.
This article never discusses plug-in protectors. The article, instead,
discusses effective protection. Protection has always been about
earth ground AND the connection to that earth ground. Did you read
what professionals say in those engineering discussions, or do you
only see what Bud misrepresents from two publications? Read what
engineers - not sales promoters - write:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807127
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807830

Standards and professionals state what provides protection. Earth
ground - what plug-in protectors do not *divert* to. Why does your
telco suffer maybe 100 surges in every switching center (Central
Office) during every thunderstorm and suffer no damage? They use no
plug-in protectors. Telcos don't like wasting money. They use one
'whole house' type protector on every incoming wire of every cable.
Telcos make their earth ground better. Why? Protection is not found
in a protector as Bud promotes. Protection is defined by earthing.
What do the protectors promoted by Bud not have? That earthing
connection. What do effective protectors from responsible companies
have? A short and dedicated earthing wire.

Same principles, used by every telco in every switching station,
standard in cell phone towers, amateur radio (ARRL), by the US Air
Force, .... literally everywhere that damage is not acceptable.
Upgrade earthing and use 'whole house' type protectors. Why do
munitions storage lockers suffer direct lightning strikes and no
explosion? That earthing technology is called Ufer ground. Earthing
is always required for surge protection so that even munitions do not
explode. Plug-in protectors have no earthing.

More examples: Orange County Florida stopped damage to their
emergency response system electronics. They installed no plug-in
protectors. They fixed connections to earth ground -
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Another professional, using significant experience, is quite blunt
about what provides protection-
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning 30
years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct lightning
strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and careful layout,
but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At WXIA-TV, my other job,
we take direct lightning strikes nearly every time there's a
thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes is almost non-existant.
The last time we went down from a strike, it was due to a strike on the
power company's lines knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes.
The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is
*myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple, and
surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a single
point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And you must
present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go. That's most
generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a low ohm DC path.

Bud, to intentionally distort facts, says homeowners don't operate
commercial broadcasting stations. But an AC utility wire out on the
street, to surges, is nothing more than an antenna connected directly
to every household appliance. We learn how to protect everything in
a home from what commercial broadcasters and utilities learned even
100 years ago. Bud will say anything do distort reality. Protection
is not in Bud's 'magic box'. Protection was always about earthing
surges. We do with a 'whole house' protector what Ben Franklin
demonstrated in 1752. Plug-in protectors ... enrich manufacturers who
will not even claim protection (in writing). Where is that
manufacturer spec that claims protection? Bud never provides a spec
because no plug-in protector - their complete 'magic box' solution -
will claim to provide protection.

Bud's citation 'refers' to plug-in protectors. It notes what they
can and cannot do. But effective protection has always been about
earthed protectors. A protectors is only as effective as its earth
ground. A protector without earth ground may simply earth that surge
(8000 volts destructively) through the adjacent TV. Or it may create
those 'scary pictures'. Technical facts that Bud must ignore.

What does Page 42 Figure 8 teach? Telco puts protectors as close at
earth ground - and distant from electronics. Protection made better
when an earthed protector is *farther* from electronics. In telco
COs, that protector may be up to 50 meters separated from electronics
because separation *increases* protection.

Those who do this stuff routinely define earth ground as
protection. Bud says his plug-in protector will absorb the entire
surge. But an effective protector *diverts* (shunts, connects,
clamps, shorts, switches) a surge to earth where energy is harmlessly
dissipated. DevilsPGD - what does a plug-in protector do with all
that energy? Bud pretends that energy does not exist. Which should
we believe - Bud or industry professionals?

An industry benchmark, Polyphaser, discusses protectors for
protection. Polyphaser sells highly regarded products. Why then does
Polyphaser discuss earthing in app notes? Polyphaser is selling
effective protection - and not the myths promoted by Bud:
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx

Do we believe Bud, or do we believe what the US Army requires for
protection? Do we believe Bud, or do we believe what Sun Microsystems
requires for protection. Do we believe Bud or do we believe two
'front page' articles about protection from EE Times? Do we believe
Bud or do we believe another IEEE Standard - the Emerald book:

It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement
may result in hazardous potential being developed between
the telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items
that personnel may be near or might simultaneously contact.

Failure to provide grounding is what the plug-in protector does.

A plug-in protector that will somehow absorb all surge energy? A
silly one inch device will somehow stop what three miles of sky could
not stop? Bud promotes that myth. Where damage is not acceptable,
then earthing (not a plug-in protector) provides the protection.

No earth ground - then no effective protection. Protectors do not
operate as Paul has suggested. Open breaker does not provide
protection. MOVs must not explode (catastrophic failure) during
protection. The effective protector means a human does not even know
a surge exists. Properly sized protector remains operational after
each surge.

How curious. Remaining operational are protectors from responsible
manufacturers including Siemens, Leviton, Square D, Culter-Hammer,
Intermatic, GE and others. How curious. Protectors that may fail
during a first surge are plug-in type. Latter were recommended
because "My protector sacrficed itself to save my computer". What kind
of science is that? Plug-in protector gets recommended on myths from
Bud.

Every responsible source defines protection as earthing. And then
those 'scary pictures' - another problem with some current technology
plug-in protectors. Do we ignore the North Carolina fire marshal and
those the 'scary pictures'?

When will Bud provide a manufacturer spec number to prove plug-in
protector protection? Plug-in manufacturer will not even make claims
that Bud posts. Bud never provides manufacturer spec numbers for each
type of surge and protection from that surge. No wonder plug-in
protectors are not used where effective protection is required.

 

[bud--]

"Refer" - not 'recommend'.

Ya gotta be really stupid to say the IEEE guide does “not recommend”
when it has 2 examples of surge protection and both use plug-in
suppressors. And the guide discusses plug-in suppressors at great length.

Ya gotta be really stupid to say the NIST guide does “not recommend”
when it says plug-in suppressors are “the easiest solution.”
And further:
"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,
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."
The NIST guide then shows how plug-in suppressors protect “two link”
equipment.

Bud says his plug-in protector will absorb the entire
surge.

Bullcrap. Repeating:
"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.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40)."

Do we believe
Bud or do we believe another IEEE Standard - the Emerald book

Believe the Emerald book. It recognizes plug-in suppressors as an
effective protection device. As usual w_ twists sources to say the
opposite of what they really say.

No earth ground - then no effective protection.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is
for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work.

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

Still missing - a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Only w_’s opinions based on his religious belief in
earthing.

Still no answers to simple 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

–-
bud--