UPS battery backup?

[Ken Maltby]

So what are you saying exactly? Lightning can't directly
strike? What about 10 feet way? What about 20? What about
the neighbor's house? If you only define "effective" as
prevention of damage from a surge that wasn't likely to
cause much damage in the first place, what have you really
protected against? Buy a $50 surge protector to save a $50
piece of equipment? You and he are talking about different
events.

So, no comment on the "three miles of sky" mantra.

I'm saying that data protection (and "UPS battery backup?"
is the subject of this thread.) is not limited to measures to
protect against lightning strike damage. It's not that we are
talking about different events, but rather his insistence that there
is only the one event, and only the one protection method.

If my house were hit by a lightning strike, I would have much
more than my power quality to worry about. The same for my
neighbor's house. 10 or 20 feet would be a problem if I were
out in the rain at the time. As it is I did have a strike take out
the pole and transformer feeding my house once. That was
probably 60 feet away. When the pole and transformer was
replaced, everything came back up with no damage. I have
no idea if the surge protection, I had in place, made any
difference, or not. I do know that what circuit protection
even if just breakers was sufficient to prevent damage to any
of many plugged-in devices. I expect that the transformer
case was well grounded.

But again a UPS isn't about protection from lightning strikes.
Ben Franklin figured lightning protection out some time ago.

Are surge protectors worth what you pay for them? I have
no idea. If you look back at my original posting in this thread
you should have a better idea of my position regarding their
value.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Ken Maltby]

Electronics atop the Empire State Building are directly struck
about 25 times annually - without damage. How does Ken Maltby explain
that?

The Empire State Building has applied Mr. Franklin's lightning
rod principles, which all structures that are expected to
withstand lightning, use. There are probably additional protections
applied to the power circuit supplying the electronics. But the
Electronics themselves are not exposed to direct lightning strikes.


Papers in Bell System Technical Journal cite hundreds of surges

due to lightning without damage. Telco electronics connect to
overhead wires everywhere in town. Telcos suffer damage with each
storm? Loss of telephone service for five days is common? Yes,
according to Ken Maltby.

Where do you get that from? When did I ever say anything like that?
Don't make me responsible for your total fabrications. I guess your
position would be that the TelCo circuits are only protected by the
method you have described, in that you would be very wrong.

Of course not, according to reality. Every
telco switching station must remain operational and connected to
overhead wires during every storm, suffer direct strikes, and suffer
no damage. Protection from direct strikes was that routine even long
before WWII. How does Ken Maltby explain that reality?

The protection evolved over the years, but the only protection
from direct lightning strikes are grounded towers/poles. There are
a number of measures applied to decouple incoming phone lines
and even provide some isolation. If you think any unprotected
equipment survives a direct strike, you are again very wrong.

If "surge suppression would never be expected to handle a lightning
strike", then 911 Operators remove headsets and abandon emergency
calls during thunderstorms. Or do emergency operators risk their
lives to keep answering calls? Neither. How does Ken Maltby explain
that? Surge protection routinely connects that 'three mile' lightning
strike to earth without damage.

AH, there is your problem again. Surge protection is NOT lightning
protection. Surge protection comes in only after effective lightning
protections are in place, remember Ben Franklin? No surge protector
should ever face the full effect of a lightning strike. It would never be
conducting a lightning strike to ground, (or any other place.) Phone
lines are protected by coils and have been since the twenties. The
audio signal is passed without any of your lightning "surge".


Effective protection from a direct

lightning strike is that routine - and in direct contradiction to what
Ken Maltby posts.

How does that come about? My position has always been
with Mr. Franklin in regard to LIGHTNING protection. You
are the one that keeps trying to make it that all surge protection is
somehow the same as protection from direct lightning strikes.

In each case - lightning rod or 'whole house' protector - protection
is about connecting that surge to earth ground. Some foolishly think
that sharpening a lightning rod makes it more effective. No earth
ground - for lightning rods or protectors - means no effective
protection. Earthing - not a sharp point and not a protector - is
the protection.

Some foolishly think direct lightning strikes are the only
thing to be protected from and that all protection should be
accomplished as lightning protection is. That only lightning
protection counts.

Those who promote plug-in protectors promote protectors for surges
that typically are not destructive. Such surges made irrelevant by
protection already inside all electronic appliances. No wonder plug-
in protectors have no dedicated earth ground AND do not even claim to
protect from typically destructive surges.

I'M not promoting anything. Some people may prefer some
protection from the less than totally destructive surges.

Your false statements about my position, and totally fabricated
TelCo arguments, trying to put me at odds with a "Bell System
Technical Journal" would be a little less laughable it I hadn't
worked for Western Electric for a number of years.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Vanguard]

in message

Meanwhile, do you think a
Surgex, et al device will stop what three miles of sky could not? Of
course not.

I know you love that phrase. 400 to 6000 volts on a wire in the house
is nothing compared to the 30 to 100 million volts of 20,000 to 100,000
amperes for a lightning bolt. At that high a voltage, no surge
protector, arrestor, or any other equipment will prevent the
high-voltage electricity from going wherever it wants, even completely
bypassing your protection by walking through the atmosphere around it.
Stop trying to equate lightning bolts with power-line surges. If your
house gets hit by lightning, that whole-home surge arrestor, ZeroSurge,
UPS with isolation transformer, or anything else will not stop the
lightning from taking whatever path its wants. After all, you think a
tree split by lightning was really a good electrical conductor?

The most common source for surges, other than within industrial plants
from their own equipment, is from ... drum roll ... the electric
company. Like when power resumes after an outage, due to switching to
compensate for loads (high-voltage crossover), or when grid shifting.
The next common source within a residence are from electric motors, like
the refridgerator, electric chain saws or trimmers, and air
conditioners. Of course, if the industrial or commercial places are on
your trunk then their surges when they power up and down their
high-current lathes and other gear, or when a nearby school or hospital
cycle their HVAC equipment, or a large motor at a gravel plant become
your surges, too. Those have nothing to do with lightning.

People that get nailed with fried electronics due to lightning strikes
have nothing and there is nothing that will protect them other than
burying their residence underground and using electric generators so
nothing of their power grid is connected outside. Your $20 or $50,000
anti-surge gear won't deter lightning from finding whatever path it
wants to travel.

 

[Ken Maltby]

in message


I know you love that phrase. 400 to 6000 volts on a wire in the house is
nothing compared to the 30 to 100 million volts of 20,000 to 100,000
amperes for a lightning bolt. At that high a voltage, no surge protector,
arrestor, or any other equipment will prevent the high-voltage electricity
from going wherever it wants, even completely bypassing your protection by
walking through the atmosphere around it. Stop trying to equate lightning
bolts with power-line surges. If your house gets hit by lightning, that
whole-home surge arrestor, ZeroSurge, UPS with isolation transformer, or
anything else will not stop the lightning from taking whatever path its
wants. After all, you think a tree split by lightning was really a good
electrical conductor?

The most common source for surges, other than within industrial plants
from their own equipment, is from ... drum roll ... the electric company.
Like when power resumes after an outage, due to switching to compensate
for loads (high-voltage crossover), or when grid shifting. The next common
source within a residence are from electric motors, like the
refridgerator, electric chain saws or trimmers, and air conditioners. Of
course, if the industrial or commercial places are on your trunk then
their surges when they power up and down their high-current lathes and
other gear, or when a nearby school or hospital cycle their HVAC
equipment, or a large motor at a gravel plant become your surges, too.
Those have nothing to do with lightning.

People that get nailed with fried electronics due to lightning strikes
have nothing and there is nothing that will protect them other than
burying their residence underground and using electric generators so
nothing of their power grid is connected outside. Your $20 or $50,000
anti-surge gear won't deter lightning from finding whatever path it wants
to travel.

The common thing you can do at home, is to disconnect
your sensitive equipment from the power grid, at the first
sign of an electrical storm. All the "must remain operational"
setups switch to locally generated power or can operate
from true protected isolation transformers (Big honking
things) sometimes both. The TelCo has functioned on
large banks of batteries in their exchange buildings with
isolation from the grid, ever since they first hooked up to
someone else's power grid and weren't generating their
own power on site.

Luck;
Ken

 

[bud--]

The common thing you can do at home, is to disconnect
your sensitive equipment from the power grid, at the first
sign of an electrical storm. All the "must remain operational"
setups switch to locally generated power or can operate
from true protected isolation transformers (Big honking
things) sometimes both. The TelCo has functioned on
large banks of batteries in their exchange buildings with
isolation from the grid, ever since they first hooked up to
someone else's power grid and weren't generating their
own power on site.

If you disconnect power also disconnect signal - particularly
telephone.


The idea that one cannot protect against lightning induced surges is
at odds with what I have read. (This does not include a direct hit to
a house.)

The vast majority of the energy of a strike is of course dissipated in
3 miles of sky as heat and light.

If a strike hits primary (high voltage) power lines more is dissipated
in lightning arresters. On a power line the strike will be conducted
in all available directions and dissipated at multiple points.

François Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges until he recently
retired. He wrote the NIST guide as well as may technical papers
including:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Neutral earthing.pdf
"The Effect of Neutral Earthing Practices on Lightning Current
Dispersion in a Low-Voltage Installation"

One of the test scenarios was a US system with 3 buildings connected
by separate service drops to a single transformer. All 3 houses had
service panel surge protection devices. One of the houses was hit with
a 100,000A surge with rise time of 10 microseconds and duration of 350
microseconds. This is a large hit with a very long duration. The hit
was to the neutral service connection at the house. In total this is
close to a worst possible case.

*1* The result was
21,000A was conducted to earth at the building (this lifts the ground
potential at the house)
33,000A flowed away from the building on the service neutral to the
transformer and other 2 buildings
23,000A went through each of the hot-neutral protectors and flowed
away from the building on each hot service conductor to the
transformer and other buildings.

Of the 100,000A surge, 2 of the 3 service panel surge protection
devices had a peak current of 23,000A

The dissipation at the building surge protector was 3500J

*2* If the same surge hit one of the other buildings the dissipation
at the surge protectors at this building was 840J.

*3* If the surge was shorter - 20 microseconds - which is probably
more realistic, the surge protector dissipation would be 200J, or if
the hit was to one of the other building the surge protector
dissipation at this building would be 80J

For comparison, the *plug-in* surge protector I recently bought had
rating between each pair of wires of 30,000A and 590J (1180J for both
hots to ground). But my plug-in protector was rated at a higher
current than occurred in any case, and the energy rating was higher
than occurred except the strong hit the building (*1*). Service panel
protectors would likely be rated higher. And this is near worst case.

The point is that you can survive a near strike. It is not practical
to protect against a direct hit to your building (unless you install
lightning rods), but direct hits are very rare.

==================================================
Another Martzloff paper looks at a MOV (simulating a plug-in
suppressor) at the end of a 10-50 meter branch circuit. The surge is
2,000-10,000A, and I believe 25 microseconds. There is an arc-gap at
the source end with a breakdown voltage of 6,000V. US systems will
have arc-over at panels and receptacles at about 6,000V. Arc-over
dumps a large percentage of the surge to earth. Branch circuit
impedance greatly limits the surge current to the MOV.

In all cases the energy dissipated at the MOV was less than 1J except
for a 10M branch circuit and, ironically, the lower current surges
below 5,000A. Contrary to intuition, at all branch circuit lengths the
energy dissipation at the MOV was lower as the surge current went up.
That was because the MOV acted to clamp the voltage at the source
spark gap. With the short branch circuit and lowest surge currents,
the MOV prevented the gap from arcing over at all. Higher current
surges forced the voltage at the gap up faster causing it to break
down faster and dump more of the energy to earth.

I don't remember the branch circuit current was indicated, but it
would be far below the max surge current of 10,000A. The max energy
dissipation at the MOV was 22J. Plug-in suppressors are readily
available with ratings higher.

===========
In another guide Martzloff said "In fact, the major cause of TVSS
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge."


What I have read, including the IEEE and NIST guides, indicates
surviving even relatively close lightning induced surges is quite
possible with adequately sized surge protectors. The IEEE guide list
of effective measures is:
earthing
single point ground
service panel surge protector
plug-in surge protector.

 

[w_tom]

The common thing you can do at home, is to disconnect
your sensitive equipment from the power grid, at the first
sign of an electrical storm.

So the telco disconnects everyones phone service at the first sign
of a thunderstorm? Radio and Tv stations shutdown out of fear?
Airport control towers are evacuated as storms approach? Of course
not. Every incoming surge path is connection to earth ground. Poles
and lightning rods are connected by hardwire. Utility wires make the
same earthing conneciton via protectors. These solutions were being
manufactured by Western Electric long before anyone here existed
because earthing - not disconnecting - is the only reliable solution
to destructive surges.

Humans are woefully too unreliable. If 30 thunderstorm days, then
you unplug everything - clock radio, microwave, TV, buglar alarm
system, dimmer switches, dishwasher - maybe 90 or 120 days every
year? And still that is not as reliable as proper earthing -
effective protection.

We install protection for direct lightning strikes so that all
surges are made irrelevant. Installing protection for trivial surges
that typically do not overwhelm protection inside all appliances?
Silly. But that is what plug-in protector - grossly overpriced
products - are purchased to accomplish.

Those who want real world protection do what the air force also
requires for all their buildings. Protectors connection to protection
- earthing.

 

[Ken Maltby]

So the telco disconnects everyones phone service at the first sign
of a thunderstorm? Radio and Tv stations shutdown out of fear?
Airport control towers are evacuated as storms approach? Of course
not. Every incoming surge path is connection to earth ground. Poles
and lightning rods are connected by hardwire. Utility wires make the
same earthing conneciton via protectors. These solutions were being
manufactured by Western Electric long before anyone here existed
because earthing - not disconnecting - is the only reliable solution
to destructive surges.

Humans are woefully too unreliable. If 30 thunderstorm days, then
you unplug everything - clock radio, microwave, TV, buglar alarm
system, dimmer switches, dishwasher - maybe 90 or 120 days every
year? And still that is not as reliable as proper earthing -
effective protection.

We install protection for direct lightning strikes so that all
surges are made irrelevant. Installing protection for trivial surges
that typically do not overwhelm protection inside all appliances?
Silly. But that is what plug-in protector - grossly overpriced
products - are purchased to accomplish.

Those who want real world protection do what the air force also
requires for all their buildings. Protectors connection to protection
- earthing.

Why do you need to mischaracterize my statements? You
quoted a part of the one paragraph in my last reply. Why
not the rest?

" All the "must remain operational" setups switch to locally
generated power or can operate from true protected
isolation transformers (Big honking things) sometimes both.
The TelCo has functioned on large banks of batteries in
their exchange buildings with isolation from the grid, ever
since they first hooked up to someone else's power grid
and weren't generating their own power on site."

Oh, I see the rest of the paragraph contradicts what you
wanted to claim I was saying.

For many of us there are only a few devices that are both
critical and sensitive to any storm related surges (power
line surges from lightning strikes somewhere, and more
likely, Power Co. created surges while making repairs.);
TV/home entertainment equip and computer equipment.

If you keep using those, keep them connected to your
power line, during an electrical storm, you are doing so
at a known risk. How large a risk would very a good
deal. In the case of the power available in San Antonio,
it's not often a great risk, the power utility does a very
good job and has significant protections in place to insure
clean power under most foreseeable circumstances.

Still when the thunderboomers start up, I usually
disconnect what I wouldn't like to have to replace,
and read a book until the storm passes. For most
home operations, that's a prudent and simple step.
For those with real reasons/needs to have power
connected to a critical device, during thunderstorms,
I would suggest that some local on-site power
generation capability is worth looking into.

Protection from lightning strike is largely something that is
addressed structurally, earthing, that Ben Franklin thing for
a direct strike.
For any major surge on the power line, (in addition to the
measures applied by your Power Co.) you have The Service
Panel surge protection.
To avoid creating paths to ground at different potential
there is "single-point ground potential referencing".

But you can't seem to get through your head that Lightning
isn't the only source of Transient Voltage Surges, So there
is also Transient Voltage Surge Suppression (TVSS). Now
this is also useful for any storm induced (Lightning as well as
any others) surge that gets into your home, it is primarily for
those other smaller jolts that your power may be encountering.

http://www.lightningmaster.com/TVSS.htm

Luck;
Ken

 

[w_tom]

But you can't seem to get through your head that Lightning
isn't the only source of Transient Voltage Surges, So there
is also Transient Voltage Surge Suppression (TVSS). Now
this is also useful for any storm induced (Lightning as well as
any others) surge that gets into your home, it is primarily for
those other smaller jolts that your power may be encountering.

Surges created by household appliances (refrigerator, microwave
oven, vacuum cleaner) are also destructive? Plug-in protector
promoters make that myth. Since the 1970s, we have been trooping
every day to hardware stores to replace dimmer switches and clock
radios? Of course not. Why? Because appliances already contain
protection from those trivial and irrelevant surges.

Install protection from rare surges that cause appliance damage.
That protection is so robust as to also diminish lesser and trivial
surges. Installed and earthed so that protection already inside all
appliances is not overwhelmed.

Topmost on a list of surges that do damage is lightning. We install
and earth protection so that lightning and other surges are made
irrelevant. Plug-in solutions just don't do that AND don't even claim
to do that. Some unplug everything 90 and 120 days every year?
Nobody should be so foolish when effective and properly earthed
protection solutions are available.

What must be protected? Smoke detectors. Bathroom and kitchen
GFCI. Dishwasher and microwave oven. Furnace controls. Burglar and
fire alarm system. Ken worries about his TV and entertainment
electronics. Ken unplugs his smoke detector and dishwasher when
thunderstorms approach? Devices even essential for human safety must
be operational especially when a potentially destructive surge occurs.
Smarter is to install a protector that actually protects the TV and
all those other 'human safety' electronics.

What provides protection? What makes lesser surges irrelevant?
Earthing. Products from more responsible companies are available for
AC electric: GE, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Intermatic, Square D,
Siemens, and others. So that direct lightning strikes do not
overwhelm protection inside appliances, some are available in Lowes
and Home Depot even for less than $50. Protection that also makes a
hypothetical 'inside the house' surge irrelevant.

Ken. To know why telco batteries do nothing for surge protection,
first learn some basic electrical concepts. Telcos install and earth
surge protection so that a battery backup system is not damaged. You
have again assumed all surges are the same type - which is how plug-in
protectors are promoted. Even a telco's building wide UPS needs
properly earthed 'whole house' protection from typically destructive
surges. Batteries do not provide surge protection. Obvious from basic
electrical characteristics of a typically destructive surge. It seeks
earth ground either destructively via that UPS system - or is earthed
before entering the building. No earth ground means no effective
protection.

 

[bud--]

Topmost on a list of surges that do damage is lightning. We install
and earth protection so that lightning and other surges are made
irrelevant. Plug-in solutions just don't do that AND don't even claim
to do that.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Only w_ says they are not . Some suppressors have equipment damage
warranties - the manufacturers think their products are effective. As
the IEEE guide explains for those with minimal reading ability, plug-
in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to
the common ground at the suppressor not earthing. The IEEE guide says
earthing occurs elsewhere.

some are available in Lowes
and Home Depot even for less than $50.

Never seen:
a link to any Lowes suppressor
a link to a Home Depot suppressor for sale near $50
Yet another stupid claim from w_ which he can not justify with a
link.

No earth ground means no effective
protection.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.


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

There are 98,615,938 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.

 

[kony]

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

Can be, at some, which is not same thing as comprehensive.

Only w_ says they are not .

Actually it's far more people than just w_tom, he's merely
the one actively posting about them.

Some suppressors have equipment damage
warranties - the manufacturers think their products are effective.

Actually no, the warranty is merely the most useful thing
about them as a replacement insurance policy of a sort,
besides that they might also be a convenient way to add a
multi-outlet-strip somewhere.

It all depends on what the magnitude and duration is of the
surge(s). For some purposes it wouldn't make sense to spend
a lot to protect equipment worth far less.

 

[Ken]

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

But not 100%

 

[w_tom]

But not 100%

Appliances also have internal protection. This from a Seasonic
power supply specification:

Dielectric withstand, input to frame/ground: 1800VAC, 1sec.
Dielectric withstand, input to output: 1800VAC, 1sec.

Review Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8. Because a protector was not
earthed and because it was too close to the TV, then 8000 volts
destroyed that TV. Protection already inside the TV was overwhelmed
because earthing all but did not exist.

How to make protection even better? Earthing connections must be
shorter, fewer bends, not inside conduit, all incoming utilities
connect to same earthing electrode, etc. All installed so that less
surge confronts protection inside all appliances.

Protection is never 100%. Nobody said it was. This is a discussion
about massively improving protection. What is the most important
function in a protection system? What makes overwhelming protection
inside all appliances less likely? Quality of and connection to the
earthing system. Therefore new buildings with massively improved
protection install that protection when footings are poured for the
foundation. Protection system gets even closer to 100% - for less
money. Why? They improved what defines protection - earthing.

Above discussion is only secondary protection. A homeowner should
also inspect his primary protection 'system':
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Another needed protection that was closer to 100% protection. Did
he buy UPSes or plug-in protectors? Of course not:
http://home1.gte.net/res0958z/
Improved earthing so that protection is even closer to 100%. Improved
so that protection already inside appliances is not overwhelmed.
Earthing is essential to surge protection - as was well proven more
than 70 years ago in GE and Westinghouse science papers.

 

[bud--]

Can be, at some, which is not same thing as comprehensive.

Assuming their ratings are adequate they protect what is connected to
them (used as indicated in the IEEE guide)..

Actually it's far more people than just w_tom, he's merely
the one actively posting about them.

Still not seen - a link to any reputable source (or even lunatic
source) that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective, which is what
w_ says.

In another post I provided a link to a technical paper "The Effect of
Neutral Earthing Practices..." which was published in an IEEE journal.
The paper indicates a good probability large lightning surges can be
suppressed with suppressors that are readily available. Also a
reference to another paper indicating the same. And the IEEE and NIST
guides both indicate plug-in suppressors are effective. How effective
depends on ratings.

Where are your links to similarly reputable sources that indicate plug-
in suppressors don't work.

My point only that plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE guide
recognizes earthing, single point ground, service panel suppressor,
plug-in suppressors. Use what is appropriate - may be nothing or may
be all.

Actually no, the warranty is merely the most useful thing
about them as a replacement insurance policy of a sort,
besides that they might also be a convenient way to add a
multi-outlet-strip somewhere.

Manufacturers would not have warrantees if they did not believe their
suppressors could provide effective protection. Plug-in suppressors
are available with high current ratings. Probability of getting that
high a current to a suppressor on a branch circuit away from the
service is very low. (Excluding a direct strike to a house, which it
is not practical to protect against, but is very rare.) The warranted
suppressors also have very high energy (Joule) ratings which means
they can absorb a large number of surge 'hits'.

It all depends on what the magnitude and duration is of the
surge(s). For some purposes it wouldn't make sense to spend
a lot to protect equipment worth far less.

Of course. The question of protection is always a trade-off of -
degree of risk - value of what you are protecting - cost of
protection.

The IEEE guide shows 2 examples of surge protection. One is a TV/home
theater. These systems can have rather high values these days.
Protection is with single point ground and plug-in suppressor.

The second example is a computer system with cable modem connection.
Even if a computer isn't real expensive these days, the information on
it may be. Protection is with a plug-in suppressor. A UPS that is
included is connected to the plug-in suppressor.

Both examples have signal wires (CATV, phone,...) that must go through
the suppressor. In another post, I noted from the to NIST guide that
US insurance information shows equipment most frequently damaged by
lightning has both power and signal connections. That includes both of
the above.

 

[kony]

Assuming their ratings are adequate they protect what is connected to
them (used as indicated in the IEEE guide)..

Then depending on the device, either:

A) rating is a lie
B) rating is inadequate for comprehensive protection rather
than "some" protection.

A surge protector is, at best, engineered to do a certain
thing within a certain threshold, acceptibly. High
magnitude surges cannot be effectively blocked by a small
dollars worth of parts. Perhaps a small number of times
it's possible, but nobody wants a surge device they replace
every other week, that sacrificies itself unless it was
quite lower in value than the protected equipment and even
then, it is quite an inconvenience to have to continually
replace it.

 

[bud--]

Can be, at some, which is not same thing as comprehensive.

Assuming their ratings are adequate and they are used as indicated in
both guides they protect what is connected to them

Actually it's far more people than just w_tom, he's merely
the one actively posting about them.

Still not seen - a link to any reputable source (or even lunatic
source) that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective, which is what
w_ says.

And the IEEE and NIST guides both indicate plug-in suppressors are
effective. Two technical papers in another post indicate surge
protection can be effective against lightning and that plug--in
suppressors can work. All the technical information I have read says
plug--in suppressors are effective.. How effective depends on
ratings.

Where are your links to similarly reputable sources that indicate plug-
in suppressors don't work.

My point is only that plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE
guide recognizes earthing, single point ground, service panel
suppressor and plug-in suppressors. Use what is appropriate - may be
nothing or may be all.

Actually no, the warranty is merely the most useful thing
about them as a replacement insurance policy of a sort,
besides that they might also be a convenient way to add a
multi-outlet-strip somewhere.

Manufacturers would not have warrantees if they did not believe their
suppressors could provide effective protection. Plug-in suppressors
are available with high current ratings. Probability of getting that
high a current to a suppressor on a branch circuit away from the
service is very low. (Excluding a direct strike to a house, which it
is not practical to protect against, but is very rare.) The warranted
suppressors also have very high energy (Joule) ratings which means
they can absorb a large number of surge `hits'.

It all depends on what the magnitude and duration is of the
surge(s). For some purposes it wouldn't make sense to spend
a lot to protect equipment worth far less.

Of course. The question of protection is always a trade-off of -
degree of risk - value of what you are protecting - cost of
protection.

The IEEE guide shows 2 examples of surge protection. One is a TV/home
theater. These systems can have rather high values. Protection is with
single point ground and plug-in suppressor.

The second example is a computer system with cable modem connection.
Even if a computer isn't real expensive these days, the information on
it may be. Protection is with a plug-in suppressor. A UPS that is
included is connected to the plug-in suppressor.

Both examples have signal wires (CATV, phone,...) that must go through
the suppressor. In another post, I noted from the to NIST guide that
US insurance information shows equipment most frequently damaged by
lightning has both power and signal connections. That includes both of
the above.

 

[bud--]

Then depending on the device, either:

A) rating is a lie
B) rating is inadequate for comprehensive protection rather
than "some" protection.

I have seen nothing to indicate that suppressors have fraudulent ratings.

A surge protector is, at best, engineered to do a certain
thing within a certain threshold, acceptibly. High
magnitude surges cannot be effectively blocked by a small
dollars worth of parts. Perhaps a small number of times
it's possible, but nobody wants a surge device they replace
every other week, that sacrificies itself unless it was
quite lower in value than the protected equipment and even
then, it is quite an inconvenience to have to continually
replace it.

Another post had information from a Martzloff technical paper which
looked at a plug-in suppressor with no service panel surge suppressor.
The maximum energy dissipated in the plug-in suppressor was 35 Joules.
In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 Joule or less. That was with surges from
2,000 to 10,000A. I recently bought a plug-in surge suppressor that had
ratings of 30,000A and 590J per MOV for each of the 3 MOVs - H-N, H-G,
N-G. Depending on the surge, the energy may be split between multiple
MOVs. My suppressor can withstand many 35J hits - which was the worst
case in the paper. And high current lightning induced surges are quite
uncommon. It is not possible to get a current surge over the rated
30,000A on a branch circuit. The numbers are why this suppressor has a
connected equipment warranty. Suppressors with high ratings are readily
available.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are an effective
protection method. Some plug-in suppressors have low ratings, provide
minimal protection and in my opinion are not worth buying. But
everything I have read indicates suppressors with high ratings are quite
reliable.

Protection from high magnitude surges can be provided with a plug-in
suppressor.

Best protection would include all of the methods in the IEEE guide -
earthing, single point ground, service panel suppressor and plug-in
suppressor. A system earthing defect or major single point ground defect
could compromise plug-in suppressors. But, as indicated in the IEEE
guide, a plug-in suppressor can provide protection with a poor single
point ground. That is why plug-in suppressors are particularly useful
for equipment that has both power and signal connections - but both have
to go through the suppressor.


You still have provided no links to reputable sources that agree with you.

 

[kony]

I have seen nothing to indicate that suppressors have fraudulent ratings.

The lie is when you reinterpret the rating to say it's
"effective at stopping surges". An overly simplified
consumer guide with vague statements and pictures is hardly
evidence. Specifics matter.

It's like saying "a spoon is effective in eating a meal".
It depends a lot on what you're eating.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are an effective
protection method.

"Can be", "at some".
Being overly vague is doing nobody any favors.
Depends on device design, magnitude, frequency of surges.
We can actually, completely ignore your vague claims and
consider each device and the ratings of components and
design. There is no need for a 3rd party reinterpretation
of it.

Some plug-in suppressors have low ratings, provide
minimal protection and in my opinion are not worth buying. But
everything I have read indicates suppressors with high ratings are quite
reliable.

This statement is a start. The more it is elaborated upon
towards a limitation for specific devices and surges, the
more true it becomes... which is the opposite of a
generalized statement that they're effective protection.

 

[w_tom]

My point only that plug-in suppressors are effective. The IEEE guide
recognizes earthing, single point ground, service panel suppressor,
plug-in suppressors. Use what is appropriate - may be nothing or may
be all.

What do they do without properly earthed 'whole house' protection?
Plug-in protectors may even earth that transient, 8000 volts
destructively, via an adjacent TV. Multiple decades ago, we traced this
same surge through a few powered off computers. Adjacent plug-in
protector compromised protection already inside the computers, in part,
because that surge was not earthed where it entered the building.
‘Whole house’ protecetion.

So what did that expensive plug-in protector do for so much more
money? Protection already inside computers is effective IF a
destructive surge - one that can overwhelm internal computer protection
- is not earthed before entering a building

Bud implies a plug-in protector needs a properly earthed 'whole
house' protection system to be effective. But if that 'whole house'
system is installed, then protection inside appliances should be
sufficient. Furthermore, if better protection is required, then
enhanced earthing - not protectors - increases protection. Earthing for
both secondary protection ‘system’ (also called ‘whole house) AND
earthing for primary protection ‘system’ (installed by the utility).

Returning to Orange County FL facilities where surge damage occurred.
How did Orange County FL solve surge damage at multiple facilities?
Did they install plug-in protectors? Of course not. Orange County
needed superior protection at less cost. Orange County enhanced
earthing so that protection already inside electronics would not be
overwhelmed:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground ... which is why
surge protector professionals discuss earthing extensively. Does a
telco install plug-in protectors for their $multi-million switching
computer? A computer connected to overhead wires all over town can
suffer hundreds of transients during each thunderstorm. What does the
telco do? 'Whole house' type protectors connected short to earth ground
AND distant from the electronics. Not adjacent to electronics. Up to
50 meters distant from electronics and single digit meters to earth
ground means better protection. Homeowners can install equivalent
superior protection; for less money. Protection that does not apply
8000 destructive volts through an adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure 8.

Protectors are not the protection as demonstrated by Page 42 Figure
8. Earth ground is the protection. Professionals install better
protection by enhancing the earthing system. Protector is nothing more
than a connecting device to the most critical component in any
protection 'system': single point earth ground. No earth ground means
no effective protection.

 

[w_tom]

Another post had information from a Martzloff technical paper which
looked at a plug-in suppressor with no service panel surge suppressor.
The maximum energy dissipated in the plug-in suppressor was 35 Joules.
In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 Joule or less. That was with surges from
2,000 to 10,000A. I recently bought a plug-in surge suppressor that had
ratings of 30,000A and 590J per MOV for each of the 3 MOVs - H-N, H-G,
N-G.

If that were true, then no protectors have tripped the indicator
light - are no longer operational. That light trips only when surges
exceed MOV Absolute Maximum Ratings - vaporize - or disconnect quickly -
or blow 'fire and sparks' as in these scary pictures do not happen:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm

If surges were so small, then those failed indicator lights would
never trip. Then those scary pictures would not happen. These scary
pictures exist because too much energy is absorbed by a protector in
direct contradiction to Bud's post. 'Sparks and fire' protection failed
to disconnect MOVs that were grossly undersized.

To achieve UL1449 ratings, many protectors disconnect protection
circuits so quickly that even the most trivial surge will trip an
indicator light. Why? Protector is grossly undersized. Undersized
plug-in protectors promote more sales. A surge too small to overwhelm
protection inside the adjacent computer still killed a plug-in
protector. But Bud says this protector only sees 35 joules. Therefore
those scary pictures and tripped indicator lamp do not exist?

So what happens when a grossly undersized protector does not abandon
an adjacent computer to surges fast enough? Above scary pictures of
protectors on a rug or adjacent to desktop papers. Just another reason
why superior protectors from more responsible manufacturers
(Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, GE, Siemens, Leviton, etc) are
located at the service entrance. Superior protection at tens of times
less money per protected appliance. Protection that actually has the
essential earthing connection.

Bud tells us that surges are so trivial - only 35 joules? In which
case, protection inside all appliances makes the plug-in protector
irrelevant. Just another reason why one 'whole house' protector is so
effective when combined with earthing and with protection already inside
appliances. One 'whole house' protector costing about $1 per protected
appliance.

 

[Bud--]

What do they do without properly earthed 'whole house' protection?

If you could read you could find out in the IEEE guide.

Plug-in protectors may even earth that transient, 8000 volts
destructively, via an adjacent TV.

The repeated lie. The plug-in suppressor in the IEEE illustration
protects the TV plugged in to it. It reduces the voltage at another TV,
that is not adjacent, from 10,000V to 8,000V. The point to anyone who
can read and think is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector
located at TV2 is required".

Bud implies a plug-in protector needs a properly earthed 'whole house'
protection system to be effective. But if that 'whole house' system is
installed, then protection inside appliances should be sufficient.

A w_ hallucination. Service panel suppressors are a good idea. Plug-in
suppressors work in their absence.

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,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV 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."

Returning to Orange County FL facilities where surge damage occurred.
How did Orange County FL solve surge damage at multiple facilities? Did
they install plug-in protectors? Of course not. Orange County needed
superior protection at less cost. Orange County enhanced earthing so
that protection already inside electronics would not be overwhelmed:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

A stupid comparison. This is interesting information if you erect a 200
foot lightning rod in your backyard and want to connect it to electronic
equipment in your house.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground ... which is why
surge protector professionals discuss earthing extensively.

The professionals who wrote and reviewed the IEEE guide says plug-in
suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING , not earthing. They say earthing
occurs elsewhere in the system. Since this violates w_’s religious
belief in earthing he believes plug–in suppressors can’t work. The
question is not earthing. The *only* question is if plug-in suppressors
work.

Does a
telco install plug-in protectors for their $multi-million switching
computer?

A plug-in suppressor for hard wired high amp equipment with thousands of
signal wires for a multiport suppressor to protect? Another stupid
comparison.

Protection that does not apply
8000 destructive volts through an adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure 8.

The repeated lie repeated

Protectors are not the protection as demonstrated by Page 42 Figure
8.

The repeated lie repeatedly repeated.

Earth ground is the protection.
No earth ground means
no effective protection.

The required statements of religious belief.

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
For kony: nothing provides absolute protection from surges or any other
hazard; get suppressors with adequate ratings (see the IEEE guide) and
use them as advised in the IEEE guide.

Still never seen - a reputable source from w_ that says plug-in
suppressors are not effective. Could be because there aren’t any?