lighting protection vs. surge protection

[kevindd992002]

hello Pinoy....mabuhay...!!!

am I saying the right thing? mabuhay...

anyway a lightning will strike with 1 MILLION AMPERES , how are you going to block that?????????

what they mean by lightning strike would be more likely lightning induced over voltage. Try to do some home work, if you still don't understand.

Yup, correct on the mabuhay. Are you pinoy as well?

Well, I understand lightning induced over voltage. I just want to know the difference between a lightning arrester and a surge protector? Which is more "essential"?

 

[FvM]

a lightning will strike with 1 MILLION AMPERES

Yes, the term lightning arrester is in fact inappropriate as it usually refers to the discharge of direct lightning strokes. Surge arresters provide indirect lightning protection, which still can range up to kA current capability for power distribution systems. Usually a staggered protection is implemented, comprised of a coarse protection stage, e.g. located in the switchboard, and a fine protection stage nearer to the load.

 

[AL_GATEL]

I'm not a pinoy, I'm just your cousin

 

[kevindd992002]

Yes, the term lightning arrester is in fact inappropriate as it usually refers to the discharge of direct lightning strokes. Surge arresters provide indirect lightning protection, which still can range up to kA current capability for power distribution systems. Usually a staggered protection is implemented, comprised of a coarse protection stage, e.g. located in the switchboard, and a fine protection stage nearer to the load.

And again, which of these two is better?

 

[westom]

And again, which of these two is better?

Many different type of protectors use a same name. 'Better' is defined by what it does. All appliances have internal protection making most transients irrelevant. Your concern is transient that might be destructive. Many protectors only protect from transients that are typically non-destructive. Also called profit centers.

A surge protector must protect from typically destructive types of surges (ie lightning). Protectors adjacent to an appliance must stop, block, or absorb that surge. Impossible. Once inside a house, the destructive surge goes hunting for earth ground via appliances. Nothing (that 2 cm part inside) is going to stop what three kilometers of sky could not. So many claim otherwise due to advertising.

That transient must be connected to earth BEFORE it can enter the building. No effective protector stops a surge. Effective protectors connect that surge low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to single point earth ground. Either connect a surge harmlessly to earth. Or that surge is inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Lightning is typically 20,000 amps. So a protector that connects direct lightning strikes harmlessly to earth starts at about 50,000 amps. Any protector that fails did no protection. Failure promotes sales of grossly undersized and excessively profitable protectors. A protector must connect even direct lightning strikes to earth. And remain functional. Select protectors by always viewing relevant numbers. 50,000 amps or greater.

Many protectors have no dedicated wire to make that 'less than 3 meter' connection to earth. Those do not protect from the typically destructive surges. A 'whole house' protector is located at the service entrance so that its ground wire can make that short connection to earth via that always required and dedicated wire. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Not safety ground in a receptacle. Earth ground.

How to tell the difference between protectors? An effective solution always has that dedicated wire to single point earth ground.

Protection is about where energy dissipates. If energy is inside, then it dissipates destructively via appliances. Protection means energy dissipates harmlessly outside in earth. That defines at least two completely difference devices with the same name. The effective one is located where wires enter the building AND makes the always required low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meter') connection to single point earth ground.

Some phrases are so critically important as to be repeated often. Those phrases (ie single point earth ground) and a critically important number (50,000 amps) answer your question.

 

[bud--]

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is a major organization of electrical and electronic engineers).
And also:
**broken link removed**
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE surge guide is aimed at those with some technical background.

Protectors adjacent to an appliance must stop, block, or absorb that surge. Impossible.

How fortunate that protectors, plug-in and service panel, do not protect by "stopping", "blocking" or "absorbing" a surge.

Comments about plug-in protectors apply equally to UPSs that have surge protection added (probably all of them). High ratings are easier to find in plug-in protectors.

Once inside a house, the destructive surge goes hunting for earth ground via appliances. Nothing (that 2 cm part inside) is going to stop what three kilometers of sky could not. So many claim otherwise due to advertising.

Among those who claim plug-in protectors are effective are the IEEE and NIST surge guides.

The author of the NIST surge guide investigated how much energy can reach the MOVs (voltage protective elements) in a plug-in protector with US wiring. Branch circuits were 10m and longer, and surges coming in on power wires were up to 10,000A (which is the maximum probable surge, as below). The maximum energy was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less.

Plug-in protectors with much higher ratings are readily available. One of the protectors I am using has 3 MOVs connected H-N, H-G, N-G. Each has a rating of 590 joules, 30,000 surge amps, for a total of 1770 joules, 90,000 surge amps. With high ratings a properly connected plug-in protector is likely to protect from even a very near very strong lightning strike and never fail.

That transient must be connected to earth BEFORE it can enter the building. No effective protector stops a surge. Effective protectors connect that surge low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to single point earth ground. Either connect a surge harmlessly to earth. Or that surge is inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Westom believes surge protectors must directly earth a surge. Since plug-in protectors are not well earthed he believes they can not possibly work. The IEEE surge guide explains (starting page 30) that plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing a surge. They work by limiting the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the ground at the protector.

When using a plug-in protector all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same protector. External connections, like cable, also need to go through the protector. Connecting all wiring through the protector prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.

Lightning is typically 20,000 amps. So a protector that connects direct lightning strikes harmlessly to earth starts at about 50,000 amps.

Anther investigation by the author of the NIST surge guide found the maximum surge on incoming power wires that had any real probability of occurring was 10,000A per wire. There is a reference to that in the IEEE surge guide. It is based on a 100,000A lightning strike to the utility pole adjacent to the building in typical overhead power distribution.

Only 5% of lightning strikes are stronger than 100,000A. None are a million amps.

For a service panel protector, the IEEE surge guide recommends a minimum of 20,000 to 70,000A, or for high lightning areas 40,000 to 120,000A (per hot wire). The protector will not be hit with those surge amps, they just mean the protector will have a long life.

Many protectors have no dedicated wire to make that 'less than 3 meter' connection to earth. Those do not protect from the typically destructive surges.

Nonsense.

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

Perhaps westom could read the explanation of how plug-in protectors work in the IEEE surge guide.

A 'whole house' protector is located at the service entrance so that its ground wire can make that short connection to earth via that always required and dedicated wire.

A service panel protector is a good idea.
But from the NIST surge 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 service panel protector is very likely to protect anything connected only to power wires. The NIST surge guide suggests that most damage is from high voltage between power and phone/cable/... wires. A service panel protector does not, by itself, provide that protection.

===========================
I agree that a plug-in protector should not be used on the output of a UPS. A UPS can be plugged into one. Most UPSs do not output a simple sine wave voltage.

I would also not recommend, in general, plugging a surge protector into another surge protector.

I have no idea what "lightning protection" in an extension cord is.

 

[kevindd992002]

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is a major organization of electrical and electronic engineers).
And also:
**broken link removed**
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE surge guide is aimed at those with some technical background.

[from westom]Protectors adjacent to an appliance must stop, block, or absorb that surge. Impossible.

How fortunate that protectors, plug-in and service panel, do not protect by "stopping", "blocking" or "absorbing" a surge.

Comments about plug-in protectors apply equally to UPSs that have surge protection added (probably all of them). High ratings are easier to find in plug-in protectors.

[from westom]Once inside a house, the destructive surge goes hunting for earth ground via appliances. Nothing (that 2 cm part inside) is going to stop what three kilometers of sky could not. So many claim otherwise due to advertising.

Among those who claim plug-in protectors are effective are the IEEE and NIST surge guides.

The author of the NIST surge guide investigated how much energy can reach the MOVs (voltage protective elements) in a plug-in protector with US wiring. Branch circuits were 10m and longer, and surges coming in on power wires were up to 10,000A (which is the maximum probable surge, as below). The maximum energy was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less.

Plug-in protectors with much higher ratings are readily available. One of the protectors I am using has 3 MOVs connected H-N, H-G, N-G. Each has a rating of 590 joules, 30,000 surge amps, for a total of 1770 joules, 90,000 surge amps. With high ratings a properly connected plug-in protector is likely to protect from even a very near very strong lightning strike and never fail.

[from westom]That transient must be connected to earth BEFORE it can enter the building. No effective protector stops a surge. Effective protectors connect that surge low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to single point earth ground. Either connect a surge harmlessly to earth. Or that surge is inside hunting for earth destructively via appliances.

Westom believes surge protectors must directly earth a surge. Since plug-in protectors are not well earthed he believes they can not possibly work. The IEEE surge guide explains (starting page 30) that plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing a surge. They work by limiting the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the ground at the protector.

When using a plug-in protector all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same protector. External connections, like cable, also need to go through the protector. Connecting all wiring through the protector prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.

[from westom]Lightning is typically 20,000 amps. So a protector that connects direct lightning strikes harmlessly to earth starts at about 50,000 amps.

Anther investigation by the author of the NIST surge guide found the maximum surge on incoming power wires that had any real probability of occurring was 10,000A per wire. There is a reference to that in the IEEE surge guide. It is based on a 100,000A lightning strike to the utility pole adjacent to the building in typical overhead power distribution.

Only 5% of lightning strikes are stronger than 100,000A. None are a million amps.

For a service panel protector, the IEEE surge guide recommends a minimum of 20,000 to 70,000A, or for high lightning areas 40,000 to 120,000A (per hot wire). The protector will not be hit with those surge amps, they just mean the protector will have a long life.

[from westom]Many protectors have no dedicated wire to make that 'less than 3 meter' connection to earth. Those do not protect from the typically destructive surges.

Nonsense.

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

Perhaps westom could read the explanation of how plug-in protectors work in the IEEE surge guide.

[from westom]A 'whole house' protector is located at the service entrance so that its ground wire can make that short connection to earth via that always required and dedicated wire.

A service panel protector is a good idea.
But from the NIST surge 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 service panel protector is very likely to protect anything connected only to power wires. The NIST surge guide suggests that most damage is from high voltage between power and phone/cable/... wires. A service panel protector does not, by itself, provide that protection.

===========================
I agree that a plug-in protector should not be used on the output of a UPS. A UPS can be plugged into one. Most UPSs do not output a simple sine wave voltage.

I would also not recommend, in general, plugging a surge protector into another surge protector.

I have no idea what "lightning protection" in an extension cord is.

So in essence you're saying those extension cords with Surge Protection do really work unlike what westom said?

 

[westom]

So in essence you're saying those extension cords with Surge Protection do really work unlike what westom said?

He is a promoter paid to promote power strip protectors. If his products did what he claims, then he can post the specification numbers for that protection. He cannot. Specifications make some cryptic claims of absorbing hundreds of joules. Meanwhile, destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules.

View what the NIST says an effective protector must do on page 8 of 24:

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.

Let's see. Earth ground is defined as being critically important. bud says protectors do not need that earth ground. bud promotes protectors that have no such earthing. NIST says earth ground is necessary.

The NIST also describes bud's protectors on 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.

I simply defined it as ineffective. The NIST says bud's protector is "useless".

Why does bud never post spec numbers? Consumes who can most easily be scammed never demand numbers. bud is marketing to those easily manipulated by advertising, subjective claims, and hearsay.

Informed homeowner earth well proven and different devices also called protectors. Spend tens or 100 times less money by installing a protector found even in munitions dumps. Because damage is not an option. And because the technology is well proven by over 100 years of science and experience. So that surges such as lightning do not explode munitions dumps, well, Ufer grounds were pioneered in muntions dumps. Because lightning must never cause damage.

Protection means a surge is absorbed harmlessly and outside the building by earthing one 'whole house' protector. Upgrading the earth ground is often more important. Builders of new homes are so informed as to also implement Ufer grounds. To make the protector even more effective.

As the NIST, IEEE, and a long list of other professionals recommend. As was done even 100 years ago. A protector is defined by the quality of its earth ground. Protectors from more responsible companies such as GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Eaton, Polyphaser, Leviton, ABB, Square D, Keison, etc have a dedicated earth ground wire for the always required 'less than 3 meter' connection.

Ask bud for manufacturer specifications numbers that claim to make surges (ie hundreds of thousands of joules) magically disappear. He won't discuss 20,000 amps or other relevant numbers. His devices, also called protectors, do not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. Professional organizations cite earthing as critical to surge protection. View a sample of professional recommendations in **broken link removed** from lightningsafety.com.

BTW, why did he just join this group? bud is a troll who follows me everywhere to turn technical discussions nasty. It is his job.

Learn what is found in every facility that cannot have damage. A protector connects every incoming wire as short as possible to single point earth ground. Then energy dissipates harmlessly outside a building. As was installed in the 1890s so that telephone operators worked safely through every thunderstorm. But then what did the NIST say? The best surge protection in the world can be useless if not properly earthed. As every professional organization says. As is found in protectors from more responsible companies.

 

[FvM]

BTW, why did he just join this group? bud is a troll who follows me everywhere to turn technical discussions nasty. It is his job.

Sorry, but we can hardly judge your private stalking or whatever stories. In my opinion, you made both reasonable points and contributed to the discussion.

Of course, the feasibility of a two-wire surge protection (without available low-impedance ground) depends on the situation. There are many cases, where it serves a purpose as far as I see. I guess, that the quoted NIST research discusses the problem thoroughly and it doesn't make much sense to hold one report passage against the other.

I agree with the comments, that plug-in "lightning protection" literally can't work. I'm used to a term indirect lightning protection for protection against lightning induced surge. The term doesn't introduce a new kind of protection means but addresses an estimation of expectable surge levels for different lightning stroke scenarios. I don't know if the term is used in the U.S. discussion. When understood in this way, "lightning protection" refers to regular surge protection means, so there's effectively no difference in their technical properties.

 

[bud--]

So in essence you're saying those extension cords with Surge Protection do really work unlike what westom said?

Both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in protectors are effective. For instance, the only 2 actual examples of protection in the IEEE surge guide use plug-in protectors.

He is a promoter paid to promote power strip protectors.

If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie about me. My only association with surge protection is I am using a couple of surge protectors.

If his products did what he claims, then he can post the specification numbers for that protection. He cannot.

I provided specs in my post.

Specifications make some cryptic claims of absorbing hundreds of joules. Meanwhile, destructive surges are hundreds of thousands of joules.

Neither service panel or plug-in protectors protect by absorbing surges. (Both absorb some energy in the process of protecting.)

I provided results from Martzloff, the NIST surge guide author - even with a very strong very near lightning strike the energy absorbed at a plug-in protector was 35 joules maximum, usually under 1 joule. (There are a couple of reasons why if anyone is interested.)

View what the NIST says an effective protector must do on page 8 of 24:

Everyone is in favor of system earthing. The question is whether plug-in protectors work.
What does the NIST surge guide really say about plug-in protectors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

bud says protectors do not need that earth ground. bud promotes protectors that have no such earthing. NIST says earth ground is necessary.

1. I repeat what the IEEE surge guide says - plug-in protectors work primarily by limiting the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. (Read the source - starting page 30.)

2. The IEEE surge guide says eathing occurs, but not primarily through plug-in protectors.

3. I "promote" only accurate information

4. The NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors are effective - "the easiest solution"

The NIST also describes bud's protectors on page 19 of 24:

The quote is on page 17. The NIST guide then lists surge protection options. Number 6 is "plug-in"

The NIST says bud's protector is "useless".

They are not my protector.
The NIST spends considerable space on plug-in protectors. It says they are effective - "the easiest solution"

Why does bud never post spec numbers?

Why does westom repeat this lie?

Protection means a surge is absorbed harmlessly and outside the building by earthing one 'whole house' protector.

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."

Upgrading the earth ground is often more important.

Martzloff 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."

That is, look at the grounding of entry protectors for cable, phone, ....

If a strong surge is earthed, the building system "ground" will rise thousands of volts above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the protection is that power, phone, cable and other wires rise together. That requires a short ground connection from phone, cable,... entry protectors to the common connection on the earthing system. Short wires mean you don't have a high voltage between power and signal wires.

Protectors from more responsible companies such as GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Eaton, Polyphaser, Leviton, ABB, Square D, Keison, etc have a dedicated earth ground wire for the always required 'less than 3 meter' connection.

All of westom's "responsible companies" except Polyphaser and SquareD make plug-in protectors and say they are effective. For its "best" service panel protector SquareD says “electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use."

Ask bud for manufacturer specifications numbers that claim to make surges (ie hundreds of thousands of joules) magically disappear. He won't discuss 20,000 amps or other relevant numbers.

It is only magic for westom - if westom could only read and think....

I cited research by Martzloff:
- you can't get over 10,000 surge amps per wire.
- even with that current the worst case is only about 35 joules absorbed at a plug-in protector.
(These technical papers are probably still on-line if anyone wants to read them.)

BTW, why did he just join this group? bud is a troll who follows me everywhere to turn technical discussions nasty.

Westom thinks the IEEE and NIST surge guides (plus Martzloff) are nasty. That is where my information comes from.

Westom has an apparently religious (immune from challenge) belief in earthing. He is evangelical in his belief and googles for "surge" in his crusade to stamp out the scourge of plug-in protectors. Googling for ["westom" surge] returns about 20,000 hits. I got tired of seeing his drivel many times in a short period on a couple of forums I watch.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information on surge protection. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

Then read sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work. There are none.

 

[westom]

Of course, the feasibility of a two-wire surge protection (without available low-impedance ground) depends on the situation.

A typically destructive surge may be 6,000 volts. So a 300 volt protector between two wires might 'clamp' those wires together. Now 6,000 volts is on one wire and 5,700 volts on the other. Where is the protection? A destructive type of surge is now on more wires. And still hunting for earth ground.

If a 'whole house' protector connects each wire low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to earth, then all wires are now only at 300 volts. And hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside the building. Facilities that cannot have damage use the 'whole house' solution.

What increases protection? Telcos want their protectors separated up to 50 meters from switching electronics. Separation increase protection. Why do I have all these numbers? I have done actual protection. And investigated reasons for protector failure. Protectors adjacent to electronics even have a history of making damage easier. But again the numbers. 6000 volts on one wire and 5700 volts on the other. Where is that protection? It only exists when a protector connects energy harmlessly to earth.

Defined are two completely different types of devices. A profit center that gives a surge more destructive paths to find earth. A second that actually does what protectors have done for over 100 years.

For over 100 years, the effective 'whole house' protector has always connected destructive surges harmlessly to earth. Including direct lightning strikes. The latter is the solution found in telco switching centers and virtually every mobile phone tower. Every cell phone tower is struck. And must never suffer damage. Telcos need actual protection. Since each storm typically means about 100 surges to the switching center without damage. As the NIST said, a protector without earthing is "useless". As demonstrated by numbers, a protector between two wires leaves 6000 and 5700 volts surges still on those wires.

Best solution has always been protectors earthed where wires enter a building. Essential is the single point earth ground. A well proven solution also does not have an obscene profit margin. Even direct lightning strikes should not cause damage when a protector actually does protection. Even munitions dumps only use this well proven solution. Direct lightning strikes without damage even to the protector.

Of course, if bud's protector does effective protection, then he can post manufacturer spec numbers that define protection from each type of surge. He never will. No such protection numbers exist. He will spin subjecitve clams constantly. bud will insist he posted those numbers previously while never posting those spec numbers. Why? The NIST was quite blunt. A protector without that low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meter') connection to earth is "useless". His protectors do not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. It is protection from surges that typically cause no damage.

 

[FvM]

A typically destructive surge may be 6,000 volts. So a 300 volt protector between two wires might 'clamp' those wires together. Now 6,000 volts is on one wire and 5,700 volts on the other.

Common mode impedances will actually symmetrize the common mode surge to 3000 V, if it's a differential 6000 V surge. In so far, the calculation is incorrect.

You however don't need to convince me of the advantages of central surge protection. I already opted for staggered protection in a previous post.

 

[bud--]

A typically destructive surge may be 6,000 volts. So a 300 volt protector between two wires might 'clamp' those wires together. Now 6,000 volts is on one wire and 5,700 volts on the other. Where is the protection? A destructive type of surge is now on more wires. And still hunting for earth ground.

In addition to FvM's comment that the voltage is around 3kV, in the US system there is one supply wire (hot) and two ground wires (neutral and ground). The voltage is around 2kV. "Ground potential rise" is in the IEEE surge guide; it is not mysterious. With a properly connected plug-in protector the voltage between wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.

6,000V is probably not a random number. In the US system, at about 6kV there is arc-over from service panel busbars to the enclosure. After the arc is stabilized the voltage is hundreds of volts. Since the enclosure is connected to the earthing system that dumps most of the surge energy to earth. It is one reason why Martzloff found the energy dissipated in MOVs was so low.

And say there is a 2,000A surge current to the earthing system, with the resistance to earth is a quite good 10 ohms. The building "ground" will rise to 20,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. If the only earthing electrode is a ground rod, about 70% of the voltage drop away from the rod is in the first 3 feet. The earth more than 3 feet from the rod will be at least 14,000V from the building "ground" (One place this can be a problem is outside pad mounted air conditioning compressor units. The case can be at local earth potential which is thousands of volts from the power wires during an 'event'.)

If a 'whole house' protector connects each wire low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to earth, then all wires are now only at 300 volts. And hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside the building. Facilities that cannot have damage use the 'whole house' solution.

They a good idea and very likely protect anything connected to only power wires. They do not necessarily protect equipment also connected other wires, like cable and phone. In the example in the IEEE surge guide (starting page 30), a surge comes in on cable with the entry protector too far from the earthing system. In that case a service panel protector provides NO protection from the surge.

And investigated reasons for protector failure. Protectors adjacent to electronics even have a history of making damage easier.

Only if not connected correctly, which was the case with westom's computers. How to connect them was in my first post.

Of course, if bud's protector does effective protection, then he can post manufacturer spec numbers that define protection from each type of surge. He never will. No such protection numbers exist.

The lie repeated. Specs were in my first post.
A small part of what I posted was the total surge amp rating of 90,000A - higher than what westom wants for a service panel protector.

A 10 year old could find specs. Only westom is unable to.

He will spin subjecitve clams constantly. bud will insist he posted those numbers previously while never posting those spec numbers. Why? The NIST was quite blunt. A protector without that low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meter') connection to earth is "useless".

In other words, westom knows that specs don't exist because he knows plug-in protectors do not work. He apparently has mental blinders that prevent him from seeing anything that conflicts with his very limited views on surge protection. That is why he claims the NIST surge guide says plug-in protectors do not work.

But the NIST guide IS quite blunt.
Repeating for the 4th time what the NIST surge guide really says about plug-in protectors:
They are "the easiest solution".
and
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

His protectors do not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. It is protection from surges that typically cause no damage.

They are not my protectors.

Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in protectors protect from destructive surges. Martzlof's investigation (35 joules) used the largest surge that has any reasonable probability of occurring. Read the sources.

Believe westom or believe the IEEE and NIST.

Still never seen - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work.

 

[westom]

Where are specification numbers that claim his magic box does something "useful"? A sales promoter will make numerous subjective claims to avoid a reality defined by numbers. The 'so called' easiest solution is also “useless” if a 'whole house' protector does not exist. The easiest solution has a history of even creating house fires when a 'whole house' protector is not earthed. Did he forget to mention those fires and other problems? He cannot even provide manufacturer spec numbers that define protection. He is promoting a protector that does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

Grossly undersizing gets the naive to recommend and buy them. "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer." Nonsense. All appliances already contain superior protection. A grossly undersized protector failed on a surge too tiny to damage anything else.

bud cannot find protector spec numbers to support his claims. His sources (ie Martzloff) say power strip protectors can even make appliance damage easier.

Power strips undersized to fail often and to increase profits. Somehow his protector will make hundreds of thousands of joules magically disappear? So that power strips are not damaged by tiny surges, an informed consumer earths one 'whole house' protector. The least expensive solution. If energy is harmlessly earthed by the 'whole house' protector, then a grossly undersized power strip should not create a house fire.

bud must deny realities with subjective claims and mockery. He routinely denies that the IEEE recommends in multiple Standards including 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':

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. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ...

Destructive surges are rare since all appliances contain serious protection. So that a rare and destructive surge does not overwhelm existing protection, informed consumers simply earth one 'whole house' protector. To only have 99.9% protection. Then for tens or 100 times more money, we might add many power strips for another 0.2% protection.

Why does bud never provide numbers such as 50,000 amps, hundreds of thousands of joules, low impedance (ie ‘less than 3 meters’), or 99.5% protection? He is a sales promoter. Facts and numbers are only for the fewer informed consumers.

Why does Monster also sell those products? Monster has a long history of identifying scams. Then selling equivalent products for even higher profit margins. Monster does not sell 'whole house' protectors for obvious reasons. More responsible companies put your money into the protector. Not in advertising, spin, and sales promoters in discussion groups.

An honest bud postedpower strip specs in each post. He was challenged to in every post. He cannot post protection numbers that do not exist. Where do hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate? Damning question that says why the informed instead upgrade earthing for a 'whole house' protector.

Protectors are earthed so that even direct lightning strikes cause no damage. Critical is the low impedance (ie 3 meters or less) connection to what absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules. Only effective protectors make that connection. Each layer of protection (each protector) is defined by what does the protection - earth ground.

Best solution for the OP is to earth every incoming wire low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to single point earth ground. Some wires can be earthed directly (cable TV, satellite dish). Others must be earthed through a 'whole house' protector (telephone, AC electric). That is how it is done in every facility that can never have damage. That is how it was done over 100 years ago.

 

[bud--]

The 'so called' easiest solution is also “useless” if a 'whole house' protector does not exist.

Lie #1.

The easiest solution has a history of even creating house fires when a 'whole house' protector is not earthed. Did he forget to mention those fires and other problems?

Lie #2
In the US, since 1998 UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. With world markets they are probably included by all competent manufacturers everywhere.

He cannot even provide manufacturer spec numbers that define protection. He is promoting a protector that does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

Lie #3.
Specs were in my first post.

All appliances already contain superior protection. A grossly undersized protector failed on a surge too tiny to damage anything else.

Lie #4.
Many appliances have no protection. Unlikely any have as much protection as what is in plug-in protectors. If they did the manufacturers would have them listed under UL1449 (surge protection).

His sources (ie Martzloff) say power strip protectors can even make appliance damage easier.

Martzloff figured out long ago that multiport plug-in protectors protect equipment with power and signal connections. More recently Martzloff wrote the NIST surge guide, which also says plug-in protectors are effective.

If only westom was 1/1000th as smart....

Somehow his protector will make hundreds of thousands of joules magically disappear?

Lie #5.
I have described Martazloff's investigation where the strongest probable surge resulted in only 35 joules at a plug-in protector. Actually the strongest surge produced far less than that.

bud must deny realities with subjective claims and mockery.

Lie #6.
I give my sources (IEEE, NIST, Martzloff).
With westom you have his beliefs (and lies).

He routinely denies that the IEEE recommends in multiple Standards including 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding': < ....> To only have 99.9% protection. Then for tens or 100 times more money, we might add many power strips for another 0.2% protection.

Lie #7.
The percentages are for lightning rods, not service panel protectors.

Why does bud never provide numbers such as 50,000 amps, hundreds of thousands of joules, low impedance (ie ‘less than 3 meters’), or 99.5% protection?

Lie #8 (along with a couple previous ones).
The maximum probable surge on power wires is 10,000A per wire. There is a reference to it in the IEEE surge guide.

He is a sales promoter.

Lie #9.

More responsible companies put your money into the protector.

All weston's "responsible companies" say plug-in protectors are effective. Almost all of them make plug-in protectors.

An honest bud postedpower strip specs in each post.

An honest westom wouldn't lie.

Each layer of protection (each protector) is defined by what does the protection - earth ground.

It is westom's religious belief in earthing.
With minimal intelligence westom could read in the IEEE surge guide (starting page 30) that plug-in protectors work primarily by limiting the voltage on each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector.

Another typical westom post - filled with misinformation.

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

Still never seen - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work.

 

[westom]

Lie #1.

If he was honest, then bud posted the power strip spec numbers that claim protection. He cannot post what does not exist. So again, he spins subjective accusations. Distorts 100 years of well proven science. Protection is always about energy dissipated harmlessly in earth. As in always. He joined this group only because I posted here. Misinformation is his job.

How does a 2 cm part inside his protector stop what three miles of sky could not? A protector adjacent to appliances can only block or absorb surges. He will post more nasty denials rather than provide hard numbers and facts for that 2 cm part. How does that 2 cm part make hundreds of thousands of joules just magically disappear?

Every professional organization - including some he has misrepresented - says surges must be earthed. Lightning Safety.com posted excerpt from so many professionals who all say the same thing. Earthing is essential to surge protection. **broken link removed**.

Every facility that cannot have damage earths a 'whole house' protector. A solution even proven in munitions dumps. A solution implemented by any homeowner for tens or 100 times less money. A solution essential so that bud's protectors do not cause house fires. Australian firemen discovered a power strip protector causes their fire station to burn. bud says it never happened. But then it is his job to say that.

Where are plug-in protector specification numbers? He promotes the products and cannot provide spec numbers.

Another respected organization contradicts bud's sales claims. In the ARRL publication entitled "Lightning Protection for the Amateur Radio Station":

The purpose of the ground connection is to take the energy arriving on the antenna feed line cables and control lines (and to a lesser extent on the power and telephone lines) and give it a path back to the earth, our energy sink. The impedance of the ground connection should be low so the energy prefers this path and is dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low impedance the ground connection needs to be short (distance), straight, and wide.
...
The goal is to make the ground path leading away from the SPGP more desirable than any other path.

SPGP is the single point earth ground. Essential for all protection is earthing and a 'whole house' protector. Even power strips need to be protected. Otherwise house fires can occur. Professionals routinely define protection in properly earthed protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Where are his spec numbers that claim protection? Again he refuses to provide those numbers. Protection numbers for unearthed protectors do not exist. As I said up front. He will turn all discussion nasty. It is his job.

 

[bud--]

Every professional organization - including some he has misrepresented - says surges must be earthed.

Speaking of misrepresenting, one of the first times I saw westom was an electrical engineering forum where he misrepresented the views of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, 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."

Everyone, of course, is in favor of earthing building electrical systems. The ONLY question is whether plug-in protectors are effective. Westom loves to change the subject.

Ignoring the drivel that westom just keeps repeating that has been answered many times...

Some simple questions related to westom's professional organizations and experts:
- Why do the only 2 actulal examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- Why does the IEEE surge guide explain how plug-in protectors work - and it is not primarily by earthing?
- Why did the investigation by surge expert Martzloff find only 35 joules (actually far less) at a plug-in protector when the surge was the maximum that will occur?

And other simple questions:
- Why do your "responsible companies" make plug-in protectors?
- Why does "responsible company" SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

I eagerly await your answers.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Westom's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

Airplanes regularly get hit by lightning. Are they crashing? Or do they drag an earthing chain?

He will turn all discussion nasty. It is his job.

It is, of course, not nasty to call someone a company stooge.

The problem is all those nasty facts in the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information on surges and surge protection beyond what has come up here. But both guides say plug-in protectors are effective; nasty.

Still never seen - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work.
There are 198,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and westom can't find another lunatic that agrees with him.