So a protector adjacent to an appliance makes energy magically disappear? Of course not.
Of course not. It is only magic for westom.
And it is willful stupidity. Westom ignores anything that does not conform to his very limited view of surge protection.
Some of what westom says is very good. Some is complete nonsense. Everything he says about plug-in protectors is nonsense.
Westom googles for "surge" to spread his beliefs. A prime goal is to save the universe from the scourge of plug-in protectors. This is at least the 7th time he has posted his nonsense about plug-in protectors here in the last 18 months.
Those protectors are typically tiny. One shot devices that fail on surges too small to even harm appliances. That failure promotes sales.
Nonsense.
The author of the NIST surge guide investigated how much energy might be absorbed in a MOV in a plug-in protector. Branch circuits were 10M and longer, and the surge on incoming power wires was up to 10,000A. (That is the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring, as in my previous post.) The maximum energy at the MOV was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less. Compare that to 3840 joules for the Triplite. It is likely the Triplite will never fail.
Unfortunately if its thermal fuse does not trip fast enough, then it can even create a house fire. Numerous examples can be provided.
Millions of surge protectors. Where is the massive record of fires in UL listed protectors made since thermal protection was required in 1998. Lacking valid technical arguments westom uses scare tactics.
A surge current into a protector means the same current is simultaneously outgoing elsewhere. Page 42 (of 61) figure 8 in the IEEE brochure:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
That incoming current must also have an outgoing path to earth. In this case TV2 is the outgoing and destructive path to earth. IEEE even gives numbers. TV2 is destroyed by 8000 volts. Why? Because that current was not earthed BEFORE entering the building. Because that protector was too far from earth ground and too close to appliances.
What the IEEE guide says in this example:
- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- The illustration "shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors"
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the earthing system at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored service panel protector would provide absolutely NO protection.
The IEEE surge guide says plug-in protectors are effective. This is part of the explanation of how they work.
bud is paid to promote plug in protectors.
If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie.
Isn't that a violation of the TOS?
He misrepresents what every engineering organization requires for surge protection. His other citation says what effective protectors do on page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):
What does the NIST surge guide actually say about plug-in protectors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector.
A protector without that dedicated connect to earth will even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance.
It is simply a lie that the protector at TV1 in the IEEE example causes damage to TV2. It reduces the surge voltage at TV2. But its purpose is only to protect TV1.
A protector adjacent to an appliance can only block that surge. Or absorb it. That protector cannot make energy just magically disappear as bud suggests.
Only magic for westom.
I have often explained where energy goes. At about 6kV there is arc-over from service panel busbars to the enclosure. Since the enclosure is connected to the earthing system that dumps most of a strong surge to earth. That is one reason why the maximum energy at a plug-in protector was 35 joules in the investigation above. Ignored by westom.
bud's NIST citation is quite blunt about this on page 19 (of 24):
Immediately following westom's quote is a list of surge protectors that can be used. #6 is
"Plug-in...The easiest of all for anyone to do. The only question is 'Which to choose?' ";
But the NIST is blunter. A protector without a low impedance connection to earth ground is "useless"
The NIST guide, of course, says nothing of the kind.
From "Guidelines For Providing Surge Protection at Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Facilities" even found in lightningsafety.com:
Industrial facilities? Everyone, of course, is in favor of earthing of power systems. The question is whether plug-in protectors are effective.
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 work by limiting the voltage from each wire to the ground at the protector. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
Or IEEE Standard 80 Chapter 9.2 (c)(4):
And a standard for utility substations. How useful.
Informed homeowners earth a 'whole house' protector.
A service panel protector provides NO protection in the IEEE surge guide example above.
Because even that Tripplite needs protection only provided by earthing and a 'whole house' protector.
Nonsense.
An honest bud can post manufacturer spec numbers that claim protection from typically destructive surges (hundreds of thousands of joules). He will not. No such specification numbers exist.
A 10 year old could find specs.
An honest westom would admit I have provided specs often (and so have others, like 3450 joules), which westom always ignores.
For most of the past ten years, bud turns every discussion into personal nasty attacks.
I first saw westom far less than 10 years ago. But he has been posting his misinformation for 10 years?
Westom thinks the IEEE and NIST are "nasty".
For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information that covers far more than what has come up here. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.
Then look at the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work. There are none.
protection. That Tripplite diagnostic light reports a protector grossly undersized. After all, where do hundred of thousands of joules dissipate? Honest answers always say where that energy dissipates. Effective means outside; harmlessly in earth.
Facebook
Twitter