In the ideal world ALL surge protectors would have really big, high rated MOVs, such that they could withstand 10,000's of big surges, suffering from little or no damage.
But in practice, this would make surge protectors more expensive, quite possibly so expensive that most people would not be interested in buying them anymore.
Remember from the investigation by the author of the NIST surge guide that the worst case energy at a plug-in protector was 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less. Any protector will have ratings above that. And protectors with far higher ratings are readily available inexpensively. Both the protectors I am using have ratings over 1,000 joules, have a protected equipment warranty, and cost about $30. I do not expect them to fail. Neither does the manufacturer.
That is what a 'whole house' protector does.
Repeating:
Service panel protectors are a real 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."
The other and different device, also called a protector, is often a profit center. MOVs in them are only more robust when UL 1449 is requires it.
Nonsense.
Protectors with ratings of over a thousand joules are readily available. That is far more than is required to pass UL tests.
Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent protector parts.
One of the protectors I am using has 3 MOVS of 590 joules each. Provide a source for that MOV for ten cents.
A profit center that does not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges such as lightning.
Nonsense.
A fire marshal describes how this happens. And why investigators overlook the reason:
Repeating:
From westoms previous horror story from a fire department - the text included "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."
Wouldn't the author then say if any of the failed protectors were made with thermal disconnects (after 1998).
Others have seen trivial anomalies create fire when protectors are undersized; are not even designed for typically destructive transients. Norma in 2008 describes the danger:
Repeating:
Anyone with minimal knowledge of electronics will recognize that whatever happened (if anything) was not a surge.
And perhaps westom can explain how a service panel protector will provide any protection for whatever happened.
UL1449 was created in 1986 because undersized protectors caused so many fires.
UL 1449 was created because surge protectors were a new device and need a standard to evaluate their safety. It is why UL creates all the electrical standards.
But fires occur even after the latest upgrades.
Still missing - reports of numerous fires in UL listed protectors made after 1998.
In fact, one friend had 33,000 volts drop onto local distribution so that even electric meters exploded from their pans. Others had numerous appliance and protector damage. At least one had fused circuit breakers. He only had a damaged meter; nothing else.
Service panel protectors can handle thousands of amps for the very short duration of a surge. It is lunacy to think they can handle the much longer "temporary overvoltage" from crossed power wires. See the IEEE surge guide pages 11, 15, 25.
And repeating:
The NIST surge expert has written:
"In fact, the major cause of [surge protector] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge."
Westom refuses to understand how plug-in protectors work, even though sources including the IEEE and NIST surge guides have been cited. He tries to make sources say the opposite of what they really say. He uses scare tactics of a fire which he can't substantiate. Close to everything westom writes about plug-in protectors is wrong. Yet he posts his misinformation all over the internet.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in protectors are effective.
Facebook
Twitter