Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: bud-- <remove.budnews@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:50:00 -0500
w_tom wrote:
No earth ground means
it must earth that surge somewhere. Published is this very first
conclusion in one 1996 IEEE paper:
Conclusion:
What does the 1994 (not 1996) paper really say about plug-in suppressors:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
In 2001 the same author wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.
Again, you are ignoring what the typically
destructive surge seeks - earth ground. Again, you are ignoring wire
impedance - or why that earthing connection must be so short. Again,
where is the surge energy dissipated?
Never fly in an airplane. They do not have the required short connection to earth to protect against surges and lightning strikes. (Jon is so stupid - he thinks airplanes are safe.)
What happens if that plug-in protector grounds a surge on neutral
wire? A transient is then induced on all other adjacent wires - more
transients inside a building. Where is the protection? Just another
reason why the plug-in solution is ineffective.
Surges that come into a house on the neutral wire are directly earthed by the neutral-ground bond in US power services. A plug-in suppressor clamps the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage on the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the equipment. The IEEE guide explains that earthing occurs elsewhere.
Does your telco install plug-in protectors adjacent to their $multi-
million switching computers? Of course not.
What a surprise! telcos don’t use plug-in suppressors to protect high amp hard wired switches with thousands of signal wires that would have to go through the suppressor.
The NIST defines what a protector does on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) .
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"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."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the NIST guide says about them.
How did Orange Country stop surge damage to their emergency response
facilities? Did they install plug-in protectors? Of course not.
Orange County fixed their earthing systems - nothing more:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
w_ has a fetish about tower antennas (including some other links). If you plan on erecting a 280 foot lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in your yard and connecting it to equipment in your house this may be relevant. But not for the rest of us.
It is the only solution for a house with
two wire receptacles.
Service panel suppressors are a good idea. They may not practical for the OP because the house is probably rented.
If relying only on a service panel suppressor, make sure the phone, cable, ... entry protectors are connected with a *short* wire to the earthing wire at the power service. Without a short wire, a high voltage can develop between power and signal wires that can damage equipment connected to both. That is why the NIST guide, above, says “No for two-link appliances”.
(That does not cover all surge possibilities, like voltage from cable center conductor to shield.)
Then where does that plug-in protector's
specs even claim protection from the type of surge that does damage?
It does not.
Complete nonsense.
The
effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance.
If you count light bulbs and outlets as appliances.
Instead, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
The requires statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are effective.
w_ has no links in his post that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
And no answers to the great questions of age:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?
- Why did Martzloff’s paper say “Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution ... is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”
--
bud--
.
- References:
- Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: w_tom
- Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: Jon Slaughter
- Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: w_tom
- Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: Jon Slaughter
- Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- From: w_tom
- Surge protection without grounded plugs
- Prev by Date: Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- Next by Date: Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- Previous by thread: Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- Next by thread: Re: Surge protection without grounded plugs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|