Lightning Strike and surge

[w_tom]

Very unlikely that alightningbolt that went 1000 feet to 5 miles in
the air would be deterred by a 10 pound surge protector (or even a 100
pound surge protector) if yourcomputerwas in the direction that the
discharge was taking.

Assumption is not based in science. An effective protector does not
stop, absorb, or discharge surges - except in myths. Effective
protector *diverts* (shunts, clamps, connects) massive surges AND
remains functional A minimally sufficient protector routinely
shunts direct lightning strikes into earth - remains functional - does
not require replacement.

Those who saw grossly undersized plug-in protectors damage by surges
somehow know that surges routinely damage protectors. False. A
minimally effective protector earths direct lightning strikes ... and
humans do not even know the surge existed.

One 'whole house' protectors from responsible companies such as
Square D, Leviton, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, Polyphaser,
Intermatic, and GE - all will earth direct lightning strikes without
damage. Even spec numbers make that obvious.

Why? Because effective protectors don't absorb kilojoule surges.
Protectors absorb trivial energy while dissipating Megajoules
harmlessly in earth. Notice the difference between 'protector' and
'protection'.

Effective protection is where surges get dissipated. Earth ground.
Protectors are not protection. Protectors are connecting devices so
that surges get diverted into and dissipated harmlessly in earth.
Earth ground is the protection. Earth ground - not inside protectors
- is where surge energy must be dissipated.

A protector without earth ground will somehow absorb those
megajoules? Will that silly little inch part stop what three miles of
sky could not? Your post implies that assumption. An effective
protector dissipates surge energy harmlessly in earth ... and remains
functional. When not damaged, the naive will not recommend them. The
naive know of surges when grossly undersized protectors are damaged.
The naïve assume all protectors are damaged during surges. They know
only what they saw – not the science.

APC, Belkin, Tripplite, Monster Cable and others get the naive to
recommend their products by undersizing them. Protectors that are
damaged (even by surges too small to overwhelm protection inside all
appliances) are too often recommended by the naive. Effective
(properly earthed) protectors mean direct lightning strikes result in
no appliance damage. The protector only being as effective as its
earth ground.

BTW, that ten pound protector. Surges can even use the green safety
wire to completely bypass ten pounds of protection. Did the protector
manufacturer forget to mention that part? Effective protectors do not
stop or absorb surges. Effective protectors harmlessly *divert* that
energy into protection.

 

[bud--]

Bud promotes plug-in protectors as a complete protection system.

..
I promote only accurate information. For advice on protection read my
sources - the IEEE and NIST guides.
..

Bud will reply and still never provide those specs.

..
Posted often and ignored. For example:
http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
..

a protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

..
w_'s religious mantra protects him from evil thoughts (aka reality).

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

 

[bud--]

..
Direct strikes to a building require lightning rods for protection.
Direct strikes are very rare unless a building is very exposed.

When lightning hits utility wires there are multiple paths to earth.

Francois Martzloff was the NIST surge guru and wrote the NIST guide. He
has also written numerous technical papers on surges and surge
protection. One of them looked at a lightning strike to the primary wire
on top of a pole behind a house for typical urban distribution. The
lightning strike was an extremely strong 100,000A. On average for the
US, the estimated probability of a worse event is once in 8,000 years.
Of the 100,000A, 33,000A went toward the house on the neutral. The surge
that stayed on the neutral is earthed by the neutral-ground-earth
connection at US services. A fraction of the 33,000A would couple to the
`hot' wires. The result is more like 10,000A on a 'hot' wire for a
near-worst-case lightning strike. Service panel suppressors with far
higher ratings are readily available. A service panel suppressor dumps
almost all of the surge energy to earth.

If there is no service panel suppressor, when the voltage from service
bus bars to the enclosure reaches about 6,000V (US) there is arc-over.
Once the arc is established, the voltage across the arc is hundreds of
volts. Since the enclosure is connected to
ground/neutral/earthing-electrode, this dumps most of the remaining
surge energy to earth. (Receptacles will also arc-over at about 6,000V
(US)).

In a different paper Martzloff looks at the amount of energy absorbed in
a MOV on a branch circuit with no service panel suppressor. The
impedance of a branch circuit greatly limits the current, and thus
energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. With surge currents up to
10,000A (the maximum likely above), the amount of energy absorbed by the
MOV was surprisingly small, 35J max. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 Joule or
less. The reason is arc-over at the service panel and the branch circuit
impedance. The highest energies that reached the MOV were for short (30
meter) branch circuits and surprisingly for low surge currents. With
lower surge currents the MOV could clamp the voltage at the source to
below 6,000V so there was no arc-over. With arc-over the max energy
absorbed was 1.1J max.

Note that neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors
protect by absorbing the surge energy. But both absorb energy in the
process of protecting.


..

One 'whole house' protectors from responsible companies such as
Square D, Leviton, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Keison, Polyphaser,
Intermatic, and GE - all will earth direct lightning strikes without
damage.

..
All of these "responsible companies" but SquareD and Polyphaser also
make plug-in suppressors.

For it's 'best' service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."

And repeating 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."
..

A protector without earth ground will somehow absorb those
megajoules? Will that silly little inch part stop what three miles of
sky could not?

..
w_ is referring to plug-in suppressors.

Repeating:
"Poor w_ can't understand how plug-in suppressors work. It is explained
in the IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) if poor w_ could only read.
Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires
to the common ground at the suppressor. The guide says they do not work
primarily by earthing. And nobody but w_ says they work by stopping or
absorbing. The guide explains that earthing occurs, just not primarily
through the plug-in suppressor."

 

[w_tom]

I promote only accurate information. For advice on protection read my
sources - the IEEE and NIST guides.

Both NIST and IEEE guides show why plug-in protectors can earth
surges - 8000 volts destructively - through adjacent appliances. Page
42 (of 61) Figure 8. Since not connected to earth, a plug-in
protector earthed that surge 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. Even the NIST guide says why plug-in protectors do not
claim to provide protection from typically destructive surges (Adobe
page 19 of 24):

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Protection even 100 years ago was about earth grounding surges. But
we have a new form of scientist - the sales promoter - who knows plug-
in protectors will magically make surge energy disappear. Hardly.
Every responsible source defines what provides surge protection:
earthing. Every wire inside every cable is earthed either directly or
via a 'whole house' protector. Effective protection that costs about
$1 per protected appliance is not promoted by a sales promoter.

Bud will now do what he always does. Bud's proof is in insults
because profit margins on plug-in protectors must be protected. A $3
power strip with some ten cent parts sells for $25 or $150. Profits
must be protected. So Bud will post insults.

A sales promoter could provide those manufacturer specs that claim
surge protection. Bud has been asked 600+ times for numeric specs
from any plug-in protector that claims protection from each type of
surge. Bud cannot provide what does not exist. Plug-in protectors
are protection from surges also made irrelevant by protection inside
all appliances. Plug-in protectors do not and cannot claim to protect
from the typically destructive surge. Bud will never provide those
spec numbers.

No plug-in protector (Bud's complete solution) protects from the
typically destructive surge. Bud must post insults to avoid that
embarrassing fact. Bud never provides specs for protection from each
type of surge.

Meanwhile, your telco connected to overhead wires all over town,
suffers about 100 surges during every thunderstorm - and no damage.
How many times has your phone service been off for five days while
they replace that computer? Telcos don't use plug-in protectors.
Telcos use a 'whole house' protect on every incoming wire. Best
protector is located up to 50 meters distant from their computer AND
as close to earth ground as is practicable. Protection is defined by
what? Earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

Just another reason why Bud must post insults - and no facts. Bud
posts spin - half truths - and calls that accurate information. Even
his IEEE and NIST guide discuss why plug-in protectors fail to protect
from the typically destructive surge. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

From Atlantic Scientific at:

"Lightning And Surge Protection - Basic Principles"
Surge protection devices should ideally operate instantaneously
to divert a surge current to ground with no residual
common-mode voltage presented at the equipment terminals.
Once the surge current has subsided, the SPD should
automatically restore normal operation and reset to a state
ready to receive the next surge.

An effective protector earths direct lightning strikes and remains
functional. Effective protection means surge energy dissipated
harmlessly in earth. Protectors without earthing ... magically make
surge energy disappear? Hardly - but that is what a plug-in protector
must do. A protector is only as effective as that 'less than 10 foot'
earthing connection and the earthing electrode. Only effective
protectors have that dedicated earthing wire.

 

[w_tom]

Francois Martzloff was the NISTsurgeguru and wrote the NIST guide. He
has also written numerous technical papers on surges andsurge
protection.

Even Francois Marzloff describes a problem with plug-in protectors.
In his 1996 IEEE paper, a very first conclusion addresses failures
made possible by plug-in (point of connection) protectors:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Plug-in protectors protect for the typically non-destructive surge -
with massive profit margins. Only companies with well earned and
respected names make 'whole house' protectors. The most hyped plug-in
protectors come from companies who don't make 'whole house' protectors
- but sell a $3 power strip with ten parts and fancy paint for up to
$150. Plug-in protectors are about profits. 'Whole house' protector
is about surge protection.

Surge protection has always been about earthing surges. Earthing
surges is routine where surge protection is required - no exceptions.
Plug-in protectors cannot earth a typically destructive surge;
therefore can even earth surges destructively through adjacent
appliances. How was demonstrated in the IEEE guide Page 42 (of 61)
Figure 8. Same is noted by Francois Martzloff.

Effective protection, when damage is not acceptable, always requires
properly earthed protectors. Surges not earthed before entering a
building will seek earth, destructively, inside the building.
Protection from a typically destructive surge has always been to earth
before a surge can enter the building. No wonder that long list of
responsible companies are sources of 'whole house' protectors.
Companies such as APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable do not
sell 'whole house' protectors - profit margins are too small. Former
are about protection. Later are about maximizing profits. Even
Martzloff describes the problem with a plug-in (point of connection)
protector: it can even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance.

One minimally acceptable 'whole house' protector is rated for 50,000
amps. That means even the rare 100,000 amp lightning strike,
dissipated to earth in many directions, will not overwhelm and destroy
a smallest 'whole house' protector. Of course, one can also install
100,000+ amp 'whole house' protectors. But why? One 'whole house'
protector means protection inside appliances is not overwhelmed. And
that protector remains functional after any direct lightning strike.

Effective protectors have that necessary, short ('less than 10
foot') connection to earth so that even direct strike energy is
dissipate harmlessly in earth. Typical lightning strike is 20,000
amps - distributed in various directions. A 20,000 amp surge might
send 5,000 down one service. One 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector
(costing about $1 per protected appliance) should routinely earth that
kilojoule or megajoule energy surge without damage. However so many
have seen pathetic plug-in protectors damaged by surges - then assumed
nothing can protect from direct lightning strikes. The problem is not
energy in the surge. The problem is a $25 or $150 power strip
protector that does not even claim to provide that protection.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where surge
energy must be absorbed.

 

[bud--]

Even Francois Marzloff describes a problem with plug-in protectors.
In his 1996 IEEE paper, a very first conclusion addresses failures
made possible by plug-in (point of connection) protectors:

..
The village idiot forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same
document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

And Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors
are effective.

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

Only companies with well earned and
respected names make 'whole house' protectors.

..
They also make plug-in suppressors.
..

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground

..
The required religious mantra.

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

 

[bud--]

a plug-in
protector earthed that surge 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV.

..
The lie repeated.

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

Even the NIST guide says why plug-in protectors do not
claim to provide protection from typically destructive surges (Adobe
page 19 of 24):

..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are the "easiest solution"9.

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

Bud will never provide those
spec numbers.

..
The lie repeated.

Specs provided often and ignored - including this thread.
..

No plug-in protector (Bud's complete solution)

..
Yet another lie.

Repeating:
"For advice on protection read my sources - the IEEE and NIST guides."

..

Just another reason why Bud must post insults - and no facts.

..
Facts:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"
- The IEEE guide says in one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In an IEEE example a service panel suppressor would not provide any
protection.
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

And fact:
w_ has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.


Poor w_ is insulted by facts.
..

A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground.

..
And the required religious mantra.

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

 

[w_tom]

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

Again Bud posts half facts. Then noted is the easiest solution also
does not protect from typically destructive surges. As the NIST says,
the easiest solution "in the world can be useless if grounding is not
done properly." The NIST - like all responsible sources - says a
protector without earth ground is not effective.

Well, if a plug-in protector was effective - if it protects from all
types of surges - then Bud will simply post those specs. Bud cannot
post a spec that does not exist. How many plug-in protectors are
marketed? But not one even claim to protect from the typically
destructive surge. Protection inside all appliances makes a typically
non-destructive surge irrelevant.

Surges that typically overwhelm protection inside all appliances
require earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection. But
those plug-in protectors also have massive profit margins. A $3 power
strip with some ten cent parts selling for up to $150 means sale
promoters will routinely post half truths and myths.

Who promotes 'whole house' protectors that have that earthing
connection? Not APC, Tripplite, Belkin, or Monster Cable. Effective
protectors come from more responsible companies such as Keison, Cutler-
Hammer, Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Siemens, and Square D. Some examples
of protectors, without massive profit margins, intended to protect
from all types of surges:
http://www.smarthome.com/4860.html
http://tinyurl.com/64mnob
http://www.keison.co.uk/furse/furse06.htm

w_ has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

Because no one - except Bud - posted that. Plug-in protectors
protect from a type of surge that typically causes no damage AND does
not protect - does not even claim to protect - from surges that
typically cause damage. Bud must again lie and distort what was
posted because profits are at risk.

Where is that manufacturer spec that claims to protect from a
typically destructive surge? Plug-in protectors don't provide that
protection. No earth ground means no effective protection. So Bud
posts insults. Profits are at risk. Again Bud refuses to provide
that plug-in spec - that does not exist.

 

[w_tom]

And Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors
are effective.

Bud again posts a half fact. Martzloff describes how a plug-in
protector protects from the typically not destructive surge. Then
Martzloff says how a plug-in (point of connection) protector can even
contribute to appliance damage. The very first conclusion in
Martzloff’s 1996 IEEE paper:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Telcos connect $multi-million switching computers to overhead wires
all over town. Computer destruction means no telephone service for
five days. Telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors. How does
a telco suffer about 100 surges during every thunderstorm without
damage? Telcos use a less expensive solution that has been standard
for 100 years AND that is well proven effective - a 'whole house'
protector located distant from electronics (up to 50 meters) and as
close to earth ground as is practicable.

Facts posted without insults. Bud does not understand that
concept. Sales promoter post insults to protect obscene profit
margins. Bud has been asked 600+ times for plug-in specs that claim
such protection. He refuses. No plug-in manufacturer claims to
provide protection. Protection is standard when using only one
properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Effective protection costs
about $1 per protected appliance. An effective ‘whole house’
protector even remains functional after earthing a direct lightning
strike. Superior protector also costs tens or 100 times less money.

Manufacturers of 'whole house' protectors have sterling reputations
such as Square D, Keison, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens,
Polphaser, and GE. Not on a list of responsible companies are APC,
Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable.

How to identify Bud’s ineffective protectors. 1) No dedicated
connection for that 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground.
2) Manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing. A surge
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That is the
science. Martzloff describes how plug-in protectors can even
contribute to appliance damage. Bud's IEEE guide Page 42 (of 61)
Figure 8 also demonstrates a plug-in protector earthing a surge *8000
volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. So where are those plug-
in protector specs? Bud cannot provide what never existed. The
effective protector makes a short (ie ‘less than 10 foot’) connection
to earth.

Facts are posted without insults. Facts that threaten those profit
margins. A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
No earth ground means no effective protection – and no manufacturer
specs to claim protection. 600+ times and Bud still refuses to
provide a single spec. He cannot. He is a promoter of plug-in
protectors who can only reply with insults.

 

[bud--]

The very first conclusion in
Martzloff’s 1996 IEEE paper:

..
Poor w__ just repeats the same lies.

On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ similarly misconstrued the views of
Martzloff coauthor Arshad Mansoor, and provoked a response from an
electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."
..

Telcos don't waste money on plug-in protectors.

..
Geez - telcos don’t use plug-in suppressor for high amp hard wired
switches with thousands of phone lines that would have to go through the
plug-in suppressor. What a surprise.
..

Sales promoter post insults to protect obscene profit
margins.

..
w_ is so pathetic. Apparently it is not an insult to lie that an
opponent sells plug-in suppressors.
..

Bud has been asked 600+ times for plug-in specs that claim
such protection. He refuses.

..
Another of w_'s favorite lies. Specs provided often including this thread.
..

Manufacturers of 'whole house' protectors have sterling reputations
such as Square D, Keison, Intermatic, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens,
Polphaser, and GE.

..
All but SquareD also make plug-in suppressors.
..

Not on a list of responsible companies are APC,
Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable.

..
Maybe that is because it is w_'s list.
..

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
No earth ground means no effective protection

..
Ho-hum - the required religious mantra. If poor w_ could only think....


Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

 

[bud--]

Again Bud posts half facts.

..
Facts:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"
- The IEEE guide says in one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- In the IEEE example a service panel suppressor would not provide any
protection.
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Martzloff said "One solution, illustrated in this paper, is the
insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

And fact:
w_ has never provided a source that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

For real science 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.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
Fact: w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

Facts:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.

Fact: IEEE makes recommendations in Standards. Multiple IEEE
Standards - even those that mention plug-in protectors - require
earthed (whole house) protectors for effective protection. Red Book
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.

IEEE does not say "make surge energy disappear" as Bud claims. It
says a surge must be diverted into earth. No mystery there. Even Ben
Franklin demonstrated the concept in 1752.

From IEEE 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

What neither makes nor provides that earthing? Plug-in protectors.
Low impedance is why that earthing connection should be 'less than 10
feet, no sharp bends, etc'. IEEE make recommendatons in Standards.
Another IEEE Standard entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' (Green Book) also states same and contradicts the plug-in
promoter Bud:

Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection.

IEEE even provides a number. A low impedance path to earth ground
provides significant protection. Where is surge energy dissipated
harmlessly? Inside household appliances? Of course not. Surge
protection means surge energy is diverted to and dissipated harmlessly
in earth ground. Surge protection means that energy does not even
enter the building.

Why does Bud's IEEE guide show a TV 8000 volts destroyed? No
earthing and no 'whole house' protector means a plug-in protector on
Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8 earths a surge 8000 volts destructively
through the adjacent TV. Damage because the surge was permitted inside
a building.

How curious. Bud also claims that 8000 volts could not exist. So
why does Bud's IEEE guide show 8000 volts destroying the TV? Spins
and lies are a sales promoter's tools.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides where both say a
protector without earthing is ineffective - can even create damage to
nearby appliances. NIST Guide bluntly contradicts Bud:

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.

Bud's plug-in protectors do not have a low impedance earthing
connection. But his NIST guide says that ground is necessary. Bud
says his plug-in protector suppresses or arrests a surge; makes surge
energy magically disappear. NIST contradicts Bud:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as quoted from
Sun Microsystems, the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr
Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting,
Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer
from WXIA-TV, engineers who eliminated damage to Orange County FL 911
facilities, every telephone company, commercial broadcasters, nuclear
hardened radio stations, etc. Even Bud's only two citations say a
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Bud must deny
this. Profits are at risk.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work

But the only person making that statement is Bud. Bud lies again.
Plug-in protectors work just fine protecting from a surge made
irrelevant by protection inside all appliances. It does what it is
designed for. As every above source notes, earthing - not plug-in
protectors - protect from typically destructive surges. Page 42
Figure 8 even demonstrates the problem. The only person making that
bizarre statement is the sales promoter. Honesty is not Bud.

Where is that plug-in protector specs that claims protection? Bud
again refuses to post those specs. No plug-in protector makes those
protection claims.

 

[bud--]

Fact: IEEE makes recommendations in Standards.
From IEEE Emerald Book:

..
The Emerald Book recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective
protection device.

Because it plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing
w_ tries to twist what the Emerald Book (and everyone else) says.
..

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides where both say a
protector without earthing is ineffective

..
Still missing - quotes from the IEEE or NIST guides (or anyone else)
that agree with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

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

And 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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why does Martzloff say "One solution, illustrated in this paper, is
the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald Book recognize plug-in suppressors as an
effective protection device.

 

[w_tom]

The Emerald Book recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective
protection device.

So says Bud - and nobody else. As usual, Bud does not quote his
source. Why? Nobody - not even the Emerald Book - says that Bud
lie. Emerald Book only repeats what all responsible sources say. A
plug-in protector is for a type of surge that typically causes no
damage. A surge made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances
and made further irrelevant by installing only one 'whole house'
protector.

Bud's solution does not protect from the typically destructive surge
– per all three IEEE Standards. No plug-in protector provides that
low impedance earthing connection *bluntly* required by 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.

A 'whole house' protector provides that solution. Emerald Book then
says what happens when that low impedance earthing connection is not
provided:

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

Hazardous potential developed between equipment and ground? How
curious. That same plug-in protector failure is exactly what another
Bud citation shows: IEEE Guide Page 42 Figure 8. A plug-in protector
with all but no earth connection (let alone a low impedance one),
earths 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. IEEE Guide
shows in Figure 8 what the Emerald Book cautions about, what Francois
Martzloff's IEEE paper says can happen, and what the NIST guide says.
Also quoted (and never by Bud) are these other professionals who all
demand earthing for protection: US Air Force, QST (the ARRL), Dr
Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times, Schmidt Consulting,
Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a station engineer
from WXIA-TV, engineers who eliminated damage to Orange County FL 911
facilities, every telephone company, commercial broadcasters, nuclear
hardened radio stations, etc.

Bud routinely misquotes his own citations. Its called sales
promotion. Bud refuses to post one plug-in manufacturer spec. Why?
No plug-in protector manufacture claims to protect from the typically
destructive surge. Not one. Did Bud also refuse to quote any plug-
in manufacturer specs– after 600+ requests for those specs? Honesty
is not Bud.

 

[bud--]

Bud routinely misquotes his own citations.

..
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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why does Martzloff say "One solution, illustrated in this paper, is
the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald Book recognize plug-in suppressors as an
effective protection device.
..

Bud refuses to post one plug-in manufacturer spec.

..
w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often
enough, people will believe it.
..

Honesty is not Bud.

..
Intelligence is not w_.

Still missing - quotes from the IEEE or NIST guides (or anyone else)
that agree with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

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

 

[Ed Medlin]

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

suppressors are effective.

I have whole house protection and use a couple of ups units and power
strips. Before I added the ups' and power strips I had problems, especially
with sound cards and modems for some reason getting blown during our many
bad storms here in tornado alley. We get some of the most destructive
lightning in the world here. About all the homes built in this area have had
whole house protection for the last 30yrs or more. I am not an electrical
engineer or anything close to it, but there seems to be some sort of
protection given by the power strips since I haven't had any damage since I
started using them and had a lot before. Maybe it's the combination.....I
don't know. I do know that there are a lot of different types of lightning
strikes, and with a direct or near-direct strike there is not a lot that can
be done. My neighbor, about 100yds away, had a direct strike that completely
uprooted a mature 100' oak, lost virtually every electrical component in his
house and he had both whole house and ups/power strips. I once lost my
breaker box to what the electrician called "positive" lightning. I use
anything that may help..........

Ed

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

About all the homes built in this area have had
whole house protection for the last 30yrs or more. I am not an electrical
engineer or anything close to it, but there seems to be some sort of
protection given by the power strips since I haven't had any damage since I
started using them and had a lot before.

It's always useful to have anecdotal evidence, but I'm for one not
surprised that w_tom's absurd belief that whole-house protection is the
be-all and end-all of surge protection is unfounded.

Your experience that a combination works well *in your partuclar
circumstances* mirrors precisely the advice given in the NIST guide that
Bud frequently refers to.

 

[w_tom]

My neighbor, about 100yds away, had a direct strike that completely
uprooted a mature 100' oak, lost virtually every electrical component in his
house and he had both whole house and ups/power strips. I once lost my
breaker box to what the electrician called "positive" lightning. I use
anything that may help..........

No difference in negative or positive lightning as far as damage is
concered. The surge was radio frequency electricity when a cloud
connects to earth. Either that connection is via paths that are not
destructive OR via household appliances. 'Positive' lightning as
reason for damage is a myth. Electricity that causes damage is radio
frequency - AC - electricity.

When damage results, analysis starts with learning (finding) path(s)
to earth. If earth ground (that a 'whole house' protector connects
to) is insufficient, then, well, a protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. One needs no engineering training to understand
that. Lightning seeks earth ground via a 'whole house' protector. If
that earthing is insufficient, then lightning seeks earth ground
sometimes destructively through other conductive materials such as
concrete, wall paint, linoleum floors, heat ducts, electronics, wood,
etc.

A typical example is modem damage - incoming on AC electric and
outgoing to earth ground via a telco 'installed for free' 'whole
house' protector. All North American phone lines already have a
'whole house' protector installed for free because such protectors are
so inexpensive and so effective. Does that telco installed 'whole
house' protector connect to the same (and superior) earth ground used
by a 'whole house' protector? A layman need only verify a protection
system meets those simple rules. Is that phone protector earthed to
the same electrode?

Another simple rule. Bare copper ground wire from breaker box
'whole house' protector is less than 10 feet, no sharp bends, and
separated from other non-grounding wires If not, then the advantage
of a 'whole house' protector has been compromised.. Again, a
fundamental fact. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. The naive who suffer damage will look at protectors. The
informed layman will look at the single point earth ground and
connections to that one, common earthing system.

You had damage. Most often reason for damage is insufficient
earthing. What type soil? Do you need an expanded electrode system?
Do all incoming utilities (including satellite dish) make a short
connection to that same (single point) earth ground electrode? Does a
ground wire from breaker box go up over the foundation, then down to
earth ground? Superior protection means that ground wire goes
through a foundation and down to an earthing electrode - less bends
and a connection that is many feet shorter. Removing feet from that
ground wire improves protection - makes the 'whole house' protector
more effective.

It is radio frequency electricity. Positive and negative is
irrelevant. Radio frequency means foot longer wire, every sharp
bend, every splice, etc all compromise earthing. As every lightning
protection professional knows, a protector is only as effective as (is
only a connecting device to) earth ground.

Do not think of a 'whole house' protector as a solution. It is
not. No protector provides protection. Protectors are connecting
devices to protection. Earth ground is the protection. Even a
'whole house' protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Did
your electrician know why that breaker box earth ground wire must be
shorter - should be through foundation and not over the top (a longer
wire with sharp bends)? Many electricians do not learn these concepts
- may even believe myths about positive lightning. Simple rules for
earthing include everything connected to the same (single point) earth
ground when each wire (in each cable) enters the building. Where is
a corrected defect in your earthing system?

A surge entered your building to find earth ground. Was that defect
corrected? Where is the plug-in solution for the dishwasher - another
path to earth? Appliances can fail weeks or months after the surge.
Repeated surges seeking earth via household appliances can mean
dishwasher failure maybe weeks after the storm. Eventually protection
inside the dishwasher may fail due to too many surges if surges are
not earthed before entering the building. Where is the plug-in
protector for your furnace? Where is a correction that kept surge
energy outside the building?

 

[bud--]

No difference in negative or positive lightning as far as damage is
concered.

..
Lightning can be positive or negative. Positive is likely to be higher
current and may be far in front of the storm. I wouldn't bet that an
electrician could tell the difference.
..

The surge was radio frequency electricity when a cloud
connects to earth.

..
A lightning bolt is DC. It produces and radiates RF as any spark does.

The RF from a near strike can be picked up directly on house wiring with
the wires acting as a long wire or loop antenna. An example of a loop is
a cable wire and power wires, with the wires connected at the ground
bond, and the open end of the loop at a TV. A service panel suppressor
does not protect from voltages induced on house wires directly by a very
close lightning strike.

A near strike can also produce ground potential differences, for example
with a pad mounted A/C compressor/condenser unit at a very different
ground potential from the power wiring.
..

Electricity that causes damage is radio
frequency - AC - electricity.

..
Lightning produced surges on utility wires are usually a DC pulse.
Because the pulse is very short it has high frequency components.
..

You had damage. Most often reason for damage is insufficient
earthing.

..
More common is probably phone/cable entry protectors not connecting with
a *short* wire to the 'ground' at the power service. You want the wire
to the 'ground' at the power service, not usually the grounding
electrode. With a strong current to earth, the 'ground' in the house can
rise thousands of volts above 'absolute' earth potential. Protection is
for the power and phone and cable ground references to rise together.
The author of the NIST guide, has written "the impedance of the
grounding system to 'true earth' is far less important than the
integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system."

Sound cards and modems can be vulnerable because high voltages can be
produced between the signal wires and power ground reference.

If you use a plug-in suppressor, all wires (power, phone, cable, ...)
going to a set of protected equipment must go through the suppressor.
Plug-in suppressors work by clamping the voltage on all wires to the
common ground at the suppressor.
..

a protector is only as effective as (is
only a connecting device to) earth ground.

..
Of course w__ has still not figured out how plug-in suppressors work.

Still missing - any source that agree with w_ that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still missing - answers to 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 one example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- In the IEEE example how would a service panel suppressor provide any
protection?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why does Martzloff say "One solution, illustrated in this paper, is
the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- Why does the IEEE Emerald Book recognize plug-in suppressors as an
effective protection device.

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