Are surge surpressors still necessary today?

[bud--]

So every child must be taught even how to connect his game to the TV.

Fortunately children are smarter than westom.

From the IEEE Emerald Book:

The IEEE Emerald Book explicitly recognizes plug-in protectors as effective.

And the IEEE surge guide says plug-in protectors are effective.

From the IEEE Green Book Standard 142:

The 99+% figures are for lighting rods. They have nothing to do with surge protectors.

In every IEEE Standard, the solution is always about earthing a surge BEFORE it enters a building.

Every relevant IEEE standard recognizes plug-in protectors as effective.

Without obscene profit margins that pay bud's salary.

And the lie repeated. Doesn't the forum TOS prohibit personal attacks?

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

Then read westom's sources that say plug-in protectors do NOT work. Never seen.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It started in the early 19th century, one stormy night, when Dr. Westom tried to bring the dead to life by harnessing the energy in lightning.

I thought that Professor Bud, using Silver Bullet shaped capacitors, managed to sort it out, despite a lack of an Earthing rod ?

 

[westom]

I thought that Professor Bud, using Silver Bullet shaped capacitors, managed to sort it out, despite a lack of an Earthing rod ?

To attract lightning, get an A-rod.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

To attract lightning, get an A-rod.

He did, but it kept on killing off all his assistants.
Dr Frankenstein, managed to revive all the assistants, using the A-rods, and lightning strikes.
But now, Professor Buds insistence on having widespread adoption of All Home Surge protectors, means that Dr Frankenstein is no longer getting big enough "surges" of lightning to revive anyone.

Tensions have got so high, that Professor Bud and Dr Westom are fighting it out, Professor Bud seems to have a pile of MOV's, ready to throw.
Whereas Dr Westom is arming himself with piles of papers, full of information on how surge protectors work.

Forums around the internet, are buzzing with their plights.

 

[westom]

Forums around the internet, are buzzing with their plights.

When can we expect the movie?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

When can we expect the movie?

It's presented in a relatively new format, called "text", which does not yet readily produce 3D, HD, or even sound effects, but who knows what the future holds for it ?

In order to get the next installment, what you do is the following, two steps:

1. Post a forum question, on the lines of "Are surge surpressors still necessary today?"
2. Wait, for a Westom/Bud set of responses

Unfortunately, the above joke, is not a joke, as far as I can see.
And eyes can C quite well, it appears.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

It's presented in a relatively new format, called "text", which does not yet readily produce 3D, HD, or even sound effects, but who knows what the future holds for it ?

In order to get the next installment, what you do is the following, two steps:

1. Post a forum question, on the lines of "Are surge surpressors still necessary today?"
2. Wait, for a Westom/Bud set of responses

Unfortunately, the above joke, is not a joke, as far as I can see.
And eyes can C quite well, it appears.

Its amazing. Its almost if there's some sort of super robot combing through all interweb forums looking for surge protector related posts!

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Here is your tl;dr guide to surge protection:

1. Live in a bad power area or have a lot of thunder storms? More protection is better.

2. Whole house protection is the best protection against external power surges caused by things like brownouts, indirect lightning, whatever other blips can occur.

3. Generally speaking, most appliances will have some surge protection built into them (i.e. MOVs). If you're worried about them failing or you live in aforementioned bad area, throw in a few $5 Home Depot protectors at them. They are basically MOVs in a small little outlet.

4. Surges can be generated by stuff inside the house too like turning a high load device on/off (hair dryer, vacuum) but they are generally small surges.

5. Computer UPSs have a surge protection circuit built into them. They are generally good enough.

6. Expensive electronics like a home theater should get something a little nicer like a $50-$100 Tripplite Isobar (my personal favorite).

 

[smackababy]

Don't surge protectors only protect against a single surge and then are useless for protection purposes?

 

[westom]

Don't surge protectors only protect against a single surge and then are useless for protection purposes?

Two completely different devices exist. Both are called protectors. One adjacent to appliances is a 'single surge' protector. Protects from a type of surge that typically does no damage. And so grossly undersized as to often be damaged by rare and destructive surges.

Appliances already contain significant protection. A surge too small to overwhelm existing appliance protection can also damage that grossly undersized and highly profitable 'single surge' protector. Protector failure gets many to recommend it. Protector failure means ineffective protection.

The other device ('whole house' protector) harmlessly earths direct lightning strikes. Even provides spec numbers that says why it is robust; remains functional even after a lightning strike.

Lightning and other transients that connect to earth BEFORE entering a building do not overwhelm protection inside appliances. Destructive transients also do not damage a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. The 'whole house' protector is necessary to even protect 'single surge' protectors.

Be concerned for undersized protectors that fail. Either a 'single surge' protector disconnects its MOVs as fast as possible (leaving the appliance connected to that surge). Or a fire can occur. Fire is another concern with 'single surge' protectors.

Many speculate, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer." Nonsense. An appliance protected itself from a tiny surge that also damaged the grossly undersized protector. Grossly undersizing gets the naive to recommend it. Effective protection means nobody even knew a surge existed. An effective protector is never a 'single surge' protector - it remains functional after every surge.

 

[westom]

4. Surges can be generated by stuff inside the house too like turning a high load device on/off (hair dryer, vacuum) but they are generally small surges.
5. Computer UPSs have a surge protection circuit built into them. They are generally good enough.

An appliance generated spike (ie hair dryer or vacuum) is a very popular urban myth. It exists where hearsay replaces numbers. That spike is a single digit or as much as ten volts. Also called near zero or 'noise'. Even grossly undersized 'single surge' protectors ignore spikes less than 330 volts. A number on each protector box that is disregarded by hearsay.

Noise from a vacuum or refrigerator was always made irrelevant by protection inside every appliance. Otherwise a surge generating appliance would first destroy itself. How often do appliance generated surges damage dimmer switches, clocks, and GFCIs? Daily? Hourly? Obviously, appliance generated surges are fables. Fear created by ignoring facts and numbers. Fears created by advertising.

If noise from a vacuum causes damage, then a UPS in battery backup mode routinely damages electronics. For example, this 120 volt UPS outputs 200 volt square waves with a spike of up to 270 volts. Since protection inside electronics is so robust, then that UPS's 270 volts spike is ideal power - also called noise. What does 6 volts generated by a hair dryer, refrigerator, or vacuum damage? Nothing.

Review numbers for a UPS. It has even *tinier* protection. A UPS is called a surge protector because its hundreds of joules are near zero. Even a grossly undersized 'single surge' protector would have more joules. UPS does surge protection when a recommendation is subjective - no numbers.

Advertising hypes near zero protection even from Tripplite. Informed layman post numbers. Such as a 6 volt spike. Spikes below 330 volts are ignored even by 'single surge' protectors. Or near zero joules inside a UPS.

Effective protectors conduct 50,000 amps without damage. Are necessary to protect even a Tripplite. Or the electrically equivalent protector selling in Walmart for $10.

Facilities that cannot have damage always use the other and proven device - one properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

Subjective posts typically recommend ineffective protectors by reciting from advertising and hearsay - without numbers. Effective protection, even from direct lightning strikes, is by earthing another and less expensive device - a 'whole house' protector. With numbers that define protection - ie 50,000 amps.

 

[bud--]

Don't surge protectors only protect against a single surge and then are useless for protection purposes?

As I have posted more than once, an investigation by the surge expert at the NIST found the energy that can get to a plug-in protector is surprisingly small, even with the worst surge with any reasonable probability of occurring. UL listed plug-in protectors have ratings well above that. To pass UL tests a protector has to survive a series of test surges intact. (Later tests check whether the protector will fail safely.)

A plug-in protector, *wired correctly*, is very likely to protect from a very near very strong lightning strike. With high ratings the protector is not likely ever fail. That is why some of them can have protected equipment warranties.

One adjacent to appliances is a 'single surge' protector. Protects from a type of surge that typically does no damage. And so grossly undersized as to often be damaged by rare and destructive surges.

Complete nonsense.

Westom googles for "surge" to compulsively spread this misinformation all over the internet. He has joined an astonishing number of forums to save the world from plug-in protectors.

Appliances already contain significant protection. A surge too small to overwhelm existing appliance protection can also damage that grossly undersized and highly profitable 'single surge' protector.

More complete nonsense.

The other device ('whole house' protector) harmlessly earths direct lightning strikes.

Service panel protectors are a real good idea.
But repeating 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"

The 'whole house' protector is necessary to even protect 'single surge' protectors.

And more complete nonsense.

But SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use."

Be concerned for undersized protectors that fail. Either a 'single surge' protector disconnects its MOVs as fast as possible (leaving the appliance connected to that surge).

Maybe for the cheap junk westom buys. Buy from a competent manufacturer.

And the IEEE surge guide explains the protected load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected with them, or can be connected across the incoming wires. If connected across the MOVs the protected load is not exposed if MOVs fail. Connecting this way is another reason some manufacturers can have protected equipment warranties.

According to the IEEE surge guide, starting 2005 UL requires manufacturers notify buyers if disconnecting the MOVs does NOT disconnect the protected equipment.

Or a fire can occur. Fire is another concern with 'single surge' protectors.

UL1449 has, since 1998, required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. Where is the record of fires in UL listed protectors made since 1998?

For real science read the IEEE surge guide
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
and NIST surge guide.
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Surges happen!.pdf

Both are completely reliable and have excellent information on surges and surge protection.

And both surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Effective protectors conduct 50,000 amps without damage. Are necessary to protect even a Tripplite. Or the electrically equivalent protector selling in Walmart for $10.
...
Subjective posts typically recommend ineffective protectors by reciting from advertising and hearsay - without numbers. Effective protection, even from direct lightning strikes, is by earthing another and less expensive device - a 'whole house' protector. With numbers that define protection - ie 50,000 amps.

I really don't want to feed this thread but if you truly belief a few 40mm MOVs wired in parallel (which is essentially what most whole house protectors are) will stop a 50kA surge, I have a bridge to sell you. The high joule and ampere ratings from these units are as much a marketing ploy as the GHz game from computer ads. Essentially the manufacturers add up the amp ratings for every MOV and call it a day ignoring many other factors like differing MOV tolerances.

As cited from IEEE, you won't see beyond a category C surge in a residential setting. And that's out the premises before the box. There are physical limitations to how much load the power lines can carry hence the cat C rating. The only place you'll see the surges you cited are on poles or substations where units like GE Tranquell industrial MOVs are installed. These are distribution grade and usually wrapped in ceramic accordion looking things. They also have true grounding.

Anyway this is *way* off topic. So yeah, surge bad, toasty bagel good!

 

[westom]

I really don't want to feed this thread but if you truly belief a few 40mm MOVs wired in parallel (which is essentially what most whole house protectors are) will stop a 50kA surge,

Mocking or denying spec numbers does not change reality. You know 50,000 amps is wrong because you feel? Helpful is a few decades of experience earthing direct strikes without damage. Specification numbers are the manufacturer committing to a reality. A UPS, with only hundreds of joules, is a manufacturer claiming near zero protection. Why would anyone recommend that UPS? Numbers do not change because advertising successfully deceives.

Nothing "stops a 50kA surge". No protector *stops* destructive surges. 'Stop a surge' exposes naivety. Instead, an effective 50kA protector 'connects' (diverts) hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly to earth. Informed home owners spend less money for this superior solution: earth a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector. Only rationalizing would 'stop a surge'.

Inexperience also explains confusion of "Category C". Category C defines a minimal device. Experience and industry convention exceed that standard. Reliable protection means an earthed protector starting at 50,000 amps from many more responsible companies.

NIST defined two completely different protectors. An adjacent protector requires an earthed 'whole house' protector. If missing, the NIST shows the 8000 volt damage on Page 42 Figure 8. Category A says voltage is much less than 8000? Of course. Since a destructive surge was not earthed BEFORE entering, then interior voltages may even be 8000 volts. Damage and danger is averted by earthing a properly sized (50kA) 'whole house' protector at the service entrance. Then an adjacent protector would not earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

OP asked if protectors are needed. Obviously yes. Spend less money to earth a minimally sufficient protector. One 'whole house' solution protects everything. And costs many times less money than power strip and UPS protectors.

Another answer to the OP's question: fire. For example, Norma in "The Power Outage" in Oct 2008 describes it:

Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well the cable man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose their "ground" wire. The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because sparks and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

Protectors that barely meet their Category ratings are grossly undersized; can cause fires. And are extremely profitable. A Boston TV station also demonstrates the threat in: http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

Fire rips through apartment home to college students
The two alarm fire engulfed an apartment building on Louis Prang Street. The fire was sparked by a surge protector on the second floor.

A NC fire marshal summarized why undersized protectors cause fires and how some investigations overlook that threat:

Recent fires involving multiple outlet devices toted as surge suppressors raised attention at the Gaston County Fire Marshal’s office primarily when one such fire occurred in a fire station. Investigation of a fire that started behind a desk in an office revealed the ignition source was a surge suppressor. ...
Fire fighters noted fluctuations in their radio and other electronics thus started to disconnect all electronics from the system. In the office area they discovered a small fire burning behind the desk. ...

Within that firehouse, three separate surge suppressors were recovered and examined. Each had failed, the one caught on fire, another suppressor ceased working, while the third continued working but later was found to have failed internally. These findings, coupled with suspicion of suppressor involvement in other fires, prompted in-depth examination of possible reasons.

Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector to even protect grossly undersized power strips; to reduce risk of fire. Because protectors must not fail; must not create a fire risk.

More pictures of potential fires: http://www.zerosurge.com/technical-info/truth-about-movs/
All six MOVs were removed.

All 6 MOVs removed from circuit board, but "Protection Working" LED remains lit.

Even a protector's light does not report all protector failures.

OP asked if a protector is needed. One 'whole house' protector is essential to even protect power strip protectors - to avert fire. It even protects near zero joules inside a UPS. Mocking or denying engineering numbers does not change reality.

Answers provided to the OP's original questions about why an effective protector is needed. And the difference between well proven effective protectors verses others that do not even claim to provide that protection.

 

[bud--]

Mocking or denying spec numbers does not change reality. You know 50,000 amps is wrong because you feel? Helpful is a few decades of experience earthing direct strikes without damage. Specification numbers are the manufacturer committing to a reality.

As Scipio posted, and the IEEE surge guide confirms, the maximum surge current that has any reasonable probability of occurring is 10,000A per service wire. That is based on a 100,000A lightning strike to a utility pole adjacent to a house in typical urban overhead distribution. Only 5% of strikes are stronger, and the strike is extremely close.

You won't get a 50,000A surge and a residential service panel protector is not designed to handle it. So what does 50,000A mean? The protector can withstand many very large hits (as the IEEE surge guide says "to provide a longer service life and higher reliability"). It is exactly like a high joule rating.

But the 50kA protector rating is 'real'. The service wire can conduct 50,000A. They just won't see a surge that large.

Inexperience also explains confusion of "Category C". Category C defines a minimal device. Experience and industry convention exceed that standard. Reliable protection means an earthed protector starting at 50,000 amps from many more responsible companies.

It is all westom's opinion.

The IEEE surge guide has suggested ratings, from experts in the field, on page 18.

If missing, the NIST shows the 8000 volt damage on Page 42 Figure 8. Category A says voltage is much less than 8000? Of course. Since a destructive surge was not earthed BEFORE entering, then interior voltages may even be 8000 volts. Damage and danger is averted by earthing a properly sized (50kA) 'whole house' protector at the service entrance.

In fact a service panel protector would provide NO protection in this IEEE (not NIST) example. The surge does not come in on power service wires.

And 8,000V (actually 10,000V) in the example is from power wires to the cable wire and is irrelevant to service panel protectors.

The maximum voltage at a service panel is about 6,000V. When the voltage goes above about 6,000V there is arc-over from the busbars to the enclosure. Since the enclosure is connected to the earthing system that dumps most of the surge to earth. The voltage across the arc is hundreds of volts. Arc-over is one reason the worst case energy at a plug-in protector is only 35 joules. Damage is likely more of a problem with weaker surges that do not cause arc-over (and a weaker surge caused the 35 joules).

Arc-over also happens at receptacles at about 6,000V.

Then an adjacent protector would not earth a surge 8000 volts destructively via TV2.

The lie repeated.

With no protector at TV1 the voltage (power wiring to cable wire) at TV2 is 10,000V. With the protector at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. The protector at TV1 does not cause damage at TV2. The point of the example, for anyone who can think, is "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

And in the circumstances of the example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

Another answer to the OP's question: fire. For example, Norma in "The Power Outage" in Oct 2008 describes it:

Anyone with minimal understanding of surges can recognize that what happened (if anything) was not a surge.

And westom's service panel protector would have not prevented it.

A NC fire marshal summarized why undersized protectors cause fires and how some investigations overlook that threat:

The fire marshal confirms that "more modern surge suppressors are manufactured with a Thermal Cut Out mounted near, or in contact with, the MOV that is intended shut the unit down overheating occurs."

Still missing - the record of fires in UL1449 listed protectors made since 1998.

More pictures of potential fires: All six MOVs were removed. Even a protector's light does not report all protector failures.

This is a serious problem if you have a MOV theft ring in your neighborhood.

It is another typical westom post, full of misinformation already debunked many times.


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

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

 

[Scipio Africanus]

Mocking or denying spec numbers does not change reality. You know 50,000 amps is wrong because you feel? Helpful is a few decades of experience earthing direct strikes without damage. Specification numbers are the manufacturer committing to a reality. A UPS, with only hundreds of joules, is a manufacturer claiming near zero protection. Why would anyone recommend that UPS? Numbers do not change because advertising successfully deceives.

Wow, ok, did you even read what I wrote before you took it personally? Those big huge 50kA ratings from whole house units are *not* to stop a single 50kA surge. I don't have the literature reference memorized but its a marketing game these guys play. They basically sum up MOV ratings which are wired in parallel. What they *are* is an indicator of lifespan for the unit if it is in fact designed well.

You are basically mixing up the amplitude of a lightning struck with the amplitude of a transient surge. Let me cite an article from Eaton:

Stuff in BOLD is by me to show you what you are mixing up.

Regardless, the magnitude of strike currents is irrelevant when specifying surge suppressors. Why? Because when a strike hits a power line, service entrance, or building follows the paths of least resistance. Most of its energy is shunted to ground through the power provider’s arresters installed on distribution poles, other arresters installed at the facility’s service entrance, the building’s structural and plumbing systems, and lightning rods. (see Figure 2) The remaining energy, by now a small fraction of the energy in the initial lightning strike, enters the facility’s power system by inductance or capacitance.

Several major conclusions can be drawn from these facts:

1. The induced or capacitive current creates a transient impulse (Fig.3) that lasts less than one-half cycle with a maximum amplitude of 20kV, 10kA (8x20 μs surge as recognized
by IEEE 62.41
.
2. BIL limitations prevent higher currents from traveling down conductors to valuable equipment, causing arcing. In fact, low voltage wiring (defined as fewer
than 1000 volts by the IEEE) would have trouble carrying a combination wave of 20 kV, 10kA without exceeding 6000 V BIL ratings. Therefore it is impossible for the
high current (ie > 50 kA) claimed by some surge suppression manufacturers to travel into a facility.

Those faculty and pole arresters they refer to are the GE Tranquell type I was referring to which are very large MOVs wrapped in ceramic which resemble a round accordion.

More pictures of potential fires: http://www.zerosurge.com/technical-info/truth-about-movs/
All six MOVs were removed. Even a protector's light does not report all protector failures.

All due respect, zerosurge's entire corporate model is based on MOV-less designs. They have huge diatribes against MOVs on they're website. Needless to say, its not the best place to find literature on the failure mode of MOVs which is actually what nearly ALL whole house units use. How they work or how well they work is a whole other can of worms. Needless to say undersize MOVs anywhere, like your photos, is a recipe for disater. There is also photos and literature out there on the same exact type of thermal runaway failure you cite with larger commercial and whole house units. MOVs with no other mitigating technology like very specialized high end stuff the Eaton IT Protectors (encased in a cooling/non-conducting dialectic) or Raycap Strikesorbs (using high pressure seal to prevent thermal expansion) will blow up when faced with a very large transient surge that's way too big.

OP asked if a protector is needed. One 'whole house' protector is essential to even protect power strip protectors - to avert fire. It even protects near zero joules inside a UPS. Mocking or denying engineering numbers does not change reality.

Answers provided to the OP's original questions about why an effective protector is needed. And the difference between well proven effective protectors verses others that do not even claim to provide that protection.

Noone said whole house units aren't useful, in fact I completely agree with you. However, saying individual units are useless is not true. Look at the NIST or IEEE guides on surge protection. They recommend whole house units combined with smaller point of use units. The better versions of these units like the aforementioned Tripplite Isobars can stop category A and sometimes category B surges from outside the house OR generated within the house. Not to say APC or whoever don't make decent units but the Isobars have been use in very harsh commercial environments and they perform well for many years. The combination of an inductor to slow a surge combined with relatively large MOVs plus all the RFI filters make them very well made products.

 

[westom]

Noone said whole house units aren't useful, in fact I completely agree with you. However, saying individual units are useless is not true. Look at the NIST or IEEE guides on surge protection. They recommend whole house units combined with smaller point of use units.

No one said those 'point of connection' protectors are useless. Especially not me. You have translated weighted relationships into a black and white (good or bad, does or does not work) conclusion.

That adjacent protector does what is already inside appliances. As manufacturer specs said it would do. It only claims to protect from one type of transient that typically does no damage. (Typically does not mean never.) The other transient (that typically does damage) is ignored by an adjacent (point of connection) protector. Even worse, that adjacent protector may provide a surge with even more potentially destructive paths into adjacent appliances. In one obvious example, it bypassed protection inside a computer's PSU.

Since it need not protect from destructive surges, then it may be undersized. Popularly known as a 'single surge' protector. Or sold at obscene profits under brand names such as Monster.

Page 42 figure 8 demonstrates what so many IEEE papers discuss when that other and typically destructive surge is not earthed BEFORE entering a building. A 'point of connection' protector connected a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. That power strip protector did what its manufacturer said it would do. Best connection to earth was any nearby appliance - destructively.

Martzloff was blunt in his 1994 IEEE paper:

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

Martzloff was only saying what we had seen many times many years previously.

Concern is for another type that actually does damage. A 'point of connection' protector does not claim to protect from nor discuss a typically destructive surge.

An IEEE standard defined this reality with numbers:

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 ... Protection at 99.5% is the practical choice.

So yes, a 'point of connection' protector does provide maybe 0.2% more protection. And costs tens or even 100 times more money per protected appliance. I never said it was useless. Perspective is defined by numbers. Its near zero joules and no low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth defines it for another type of surge.

Whereas Zerosurge does make silly arguments about MOVless protectors, still, those pictures are damning and true. 'Point of connection' protectors doing as designed. Since not protected by a 'whole house' protector, then even fire is a risk. A fire marshal describes why fires happen. In fact, telco switching centers (COs) and munitions dumps might release an employee for using one. They cannot afford such risks.

Zerosurge does not target the other and completely different device - a 'whole house' protector. A series mode filter sold by Zerosurge also needs that protection.

A 1979 IEEE paper discusses how lightning far down the street distributes its potentially destructive currents. A rare 100 kamp surge means maybe 40,000 amps earthed by the utility pole transformer (the 'primary' protection layer). Another 30,000 amps approach household appliances (earthed by the 'secondary' protection layer - ie an earthed 'whole house' protector). And another 30,000 amps goes elsewhere. This large and extremely rare surge is also why a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector is properly earthed. Because nobody should know that a surge existed. And because a 'whole house' protector is so inexpensive.

A 50,000 amp number (which means it can conduct 50,000 amps without damage) addresses additional electrical concepts. 50,000 amps even says how it performs on many lesser transients. For example, compare a 50,000 amp protector to a 20,000 amp one. A resulting voltage is significantly higher for a 20K protector. MOV datasheet numbers make this obvious.

Nobody said a 'point of connection' protector is useless. However it does near zero protection for typically destructive surges. And needs protection provided by earthing and a 'whole house' protector. The 'whole house' solution always exists in any facility that cannot have damage. To protect from ALL types of surges. And remain functional even after direct lightning strikes.

So yes, buy a 'point of connection' protector. But remember, it should be protected by proper earthing and a 'whole house' protector. Perspective was provided by ballpark numbers: 30 years verses 6000 years. Advantage of a properly earthed 'whole house' protector is that significant.

 

[bud--]

No one said those 'point of connection' protectors are useless. Especially not me.

It is humor from westom.

Google for [westom surge scam].

Page 42 figure 8 demonstrates what so many IEEE papers discuss when that other and typically destructive surge is not earthed BEFORE entering a building. A 'point of connection' protector connected a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV.

The lie repeated, at least the third time.

Martzloff was blunt in his 1994 IEEE paper:

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

At the time of the paper multiport surge protectors were just a concept or very new. The point of the paper is that multiport protectors (where signal wires also go through the protector) are effective. Westom says the opposite of Martzloff's conclusion.

And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in protectors are effective.

Concern is for another type that actually does damage. A 'point of connection' protector does not claim to protect from nor discuss a typically destructive surge.

Complete nonsense. Some of them even have protected equipment warranties.

An IEEE standard defined this reality with numbers:

The 99+% figures are from the IEEE "Green" book. They are for lighting rods. The have nothing to do with surge protectors.

So yes, a 'point of connection' protector does provide maybe 0.2% more protection.

Since the 99% figures have nothing to do with surge protection this is more nonsense.

A 1979 IEEE paper discusses how lightning far down the street distributes its potentially destructive currents. A rare 100 kamp surge means maybe 40,000 amps earthed by the utility pole transformer (the 'primary' protection layer). Another 30,000 amps approach household appliances (earthed by the 'secondary' protection layer - ie an earthed 'whole house' protector). And another 30,000 amps goes elsewhere. This large and extremely rare surge is also why a 50,000 amp 'whole house' protector is properly earthed.

The 30kA "approaching household appliances" winds up as 10kA on each hot wire and 10kA on the neutral. This is where the 10kA quoted by Scipio, and also in the IEEE surge guide, comes from. (The neutral is connected to the earthing system at US services.)

With this extreme event you have 10kA per service wire.

Nice reference on this by Scipio.

A 50,000 amp number (which means it can conduct 50,000 amps without damage)

More lack of understanding from westom.

A 50kA protector is likely to make clear that 50k is not the surge current, but a cumulative rating.

Nobody said a 'point of connection' protector is useless.

Calling them a scam? It is another post full of misinformation from westom.


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

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do not work. Still never seen.

 

[Scipio Africanus]

This thread is so far off topic we might as well debate toasters. Mmmmm sesame bagel toasted...

 

[westom]

This thread is so far off topic we might as well debate toasters.

Nonsense. Value of different devices - all called protectors - are defined. Some do little. Others are so effective as to be all but required for all homes. The underlying concept, well proven by over 100 years of experience, is simple. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Others who promote ineffective solutions, proven by cheap shots, will even avoid discussion about what was always most important. And what every IEEE Standard demands for protection. A concept defined by four words: single point earth ground. Protection from typically destructive transients is defined by what does protection - earth ground. Effective protectors discuss and connect low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.

 

[Meghan54]

*SNIP GOOD CONCRETE, FACT BASED INFO, not the westom fear mongering drivel not based on fact at all....

bud, while I applaud your attempt at separating fear mongering with fact, face it, trying to counter westom is like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a towel. But anyone who has more than two functioning brain cells can and does read your and Scipio's links.

But, instead of responding to your facts, westom takes to belittling others without addressing anything you said:

Others who promote ineffective solutions, proven by cheap shots,

So, I guess bud and Scipio, by presenting links and facts that disprove everything you've spouted so far, are just taking cheap shots and not worth disproving.....but then again, you can't disprove anything bud said, can you?

Thought not.

 

[bud--]

bud, while I applaud your attempt at separating fear mongering with fact, face it, trying to counter westom is like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a towel. But anyone who has more than two functioning brain cells can and does read your and Scipio's links.

But, instead of responding to your facts, westom takes to belittling others without addressing anything you said:

I agree that westom is hopeless. It is like talking to a Scientologist.

But other people read westom's technobabble and believe it. Who would guess anyone would compulsively post blatantly false information all over the internet. Scipio called him "a surge legend!", although initially Scipio understood at least some of the faults in what westom said.

And many of the things I post are not commonly understood. Apologies if you have seen it many times.

 

[spat55]

Yes, I wish I had a UPS system though.

 

[bononos]

Does this mean that relatively cheap UL approved surge protectors are good to go?

 

[Remobz]

Does this mean that relatively cheap UL approved surge protectors are good to go?

I say beware.