Connect with us

Building Ground (long-...sorry)

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by jakdedert, May 9, 2006.

  1. Bud--

    Bud-- Guest

    Regarding plug-in surge suppressors - a bunch of crap. Specific comments
    on what you said are like arguing with a Scientologist.

    The "1993" paper I furnished a link to is part of a NIST "anthology on
    surge protection last updated in 2005. Both NIST references are current
    on the NIST web site.

    The IEEE document is new. It is also your link.

    All 3 papers from the NIST and IEEE recommend plug-in surge suppressors.
    Two of these papers are overall recommendations on surge protection for
    the general public or people involved in surge protection. Apparently
    you are smarter than the NIST and IEEE.

    One of the authors of the Upside Down House papers you quoted was Arshad
    Mansoor. An electrical engineer commented:
    "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
    I can assure you that he supports the use of suge equilization type
    plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

    I have supplied 3 supporting references. You have supplied none. I
    eagerly await your link to a reputable source supporting your views.

    bud--
     
  2. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    Bud - even your own supporting reference recommends the 'whole house'
    solution. With every paper you cite, I repsonded with waves of other
    papers, testimony from engineers who actually do this work, and
    underlying concepts you don't want to touch: equipotential and
    conductivity. Your response is to pretend I provided no sources. You
    pretend that an industry benchmark in this technology- Polyphaser -
    does not even exist.

    Pictures from companies that do protection always start with and
    center that protection system around earthing. Only plug-in
    manufacturers hope others will not learn why earthing is the most
    essential part in a protection system:
    http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
    http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
    http://www.leminstruments.com/pdf/LEGP.pdf (page 14)
    http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_TD1023.aspx
    Multiple I/O port protection, Single Point Ground considerations
    Planning guide for Sun Server room (page 89)
    http://www.sun.com/servers/white-papers/dc-planning-guide.pdf
    Not even the military (ie 10th Communication Squadron for the Air
    Force) recommends plug-in protectors to provide equipotential - the
    multiport protector solution. And you own citation says:
    Bud - do you read your own citations before posting them? Your own
    citation - a paper from Martzloff, et al - even recommends properly
    earthed 'whole house' protection. Why are you arguing in defense of
    ineffective plug-in protectors? Do you work for a plug-in protector
    company? Even factilities that require well proven protection for
    generation don't use plug-in protectors. They use a well proven
    (nearly 100 years) method described here as 'whole house'. Why do
    those who have effective protection not use what you are recommending -
    plug-in protectors? Even your own citation notes that 'whole house'
    protection is a 'best' solution.
     
  3. Bud--

    Bud-- Guest

    I am for a surge suppressor at the power service and a single point
    ground. The issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are
    effective. I don't remember waves of your papers in this thread. I don't
    remember any links from you in this thread [one in a different branch
    which is irrelevant]. One of my links is from the IEEE. Maybe you didn't
    know that is an association of electical and electronic engineers.
    PolyPhaser is probably a good reference if you have a transmitter with a
    big tower that attracts lightning. If I was a ham I would be very
    interested.
    Earthing is a good idea. The question is whether plug-in surge
    suppressors are effective.

    Hot damn - actual links!!! I have previously said that Ufer grounds are a lot better than ground
    rods. I am on record as for them. Not relevant to surge suppressors.
    What do you know - a transmitter tower site. Most of us do not have a
    very tall lightning rod next to our houses. For those of us who don't
    expect to protect from a direct lighting strike a Surge Reference
    Equalizer will work.
    Thanks for the page reference. I assume you mean pdf page 14, not
    document page 14. This page is about is measuring the ground resistance
    of a Master Ground Bar at a Telco central office. It may surprise you
    but few of us have a telephone switch in our basements. Not mentioned is
    what the MGB is used for - which is to provide a single point ground
    reference for wires entering the room/floor/whatever. I am in favor of
    single point grounds. I saw no mention of plug-in surge suppressors not
    being effective, although I personally wouldn't use one on a telephone
    switch.
    Surprise, surprise - another transmitter tower site. I previously have
    said that single point grounds at the service are very important. From
    PolyPhaser:
    "Another is to provide some form of impulse protector for each of the
    equipment's Input or Output (I/O) ports. These ports are usually the ac
    power connection, a telephone or control line, and an antenna
    transmission line." That is exactly what a Surge Reference Equalizer
    does (but not likely inclding a transmitter antenna).
    "Page not found" - not uncommon with your links.
    No source link. Sorry, I want to read the original in context.
    As I said earlier, I agree that a surge suppressor on the power service
    and a single point ground reference is a good idea. But if this is one
    of my sources it says plug-in surge suppressors work.
    My references all say that plug-in surge suppressors are effecive;
    didn't you read them? One of my sources [IEEE, the best one] was
    originally posted by you; do you read your own citations before posting
    them? Another of you previous posts had a different link recommeding
    plug-in surge suppressors; you must have not read that one either.

    The issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are effective. My
    links show the IEEE and NIST recommend them. Did you see that? You
    constantly try to change the subject, but your links are totally
    irrelevant or are silent on this issue, as usual.

    bud--
     
  4. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    When it comes to 'as usuals', still not provided are references
    that say "plug-in surge suppressors are effecive". No reason is
    provided for plug-in protectors to be effective. Equipotential is
    only one requirements for effective protection. Equipotential alone
    somehow makes plug-in protectors effective? No possible.

    Where concepts behind a unique type of plug-in protector is cited
    (multiport SRE), still the author instead recommends 'whole house'
    protection. Where other citations only show where a plug-in protector
    exist, no proof or claim that the plug-in protectors are effective. In
    fact, anything that a plug-in protector might do effectively is already
    inside the appliance.

    Meanwhile other responsibile sources repeatedly cite what is
    necessary for protection - earthing. What does that plug-in protector
    not provide? Earthing. Why are other highly regarded sources such as
    Polyphaser not discussing plug-in protectors? Polyphaser's application
    notes discuss effective solutions that provide both 'equipotential' AND
    'conductivity to earth'. Both are required. Plug-in protectors do
    not provide both which is why plug-in protector manufacturers do not
    discuss earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection.
    Provided are days worth of reading that promote effective 'whole house'
    techniques - both in theory and in practical experience.


    To lightning, a commercial radio tower, a utility AC street wire,
    television antenna, telco central office, or household appliances are
    same. All are paths to earth that may be destructive or made trivial.
    Protection is about earthing. Protector - be it a Franklin lightning
    rod or a 'whole house' protector - is about connecting a transient
    short to earth ground. So much research on how to protect is performed
    on transmitter buildings, telephone central offices, etc - same
    research subjects mocked by Bud hoping the lurker will believe insults
    rather than technical citations.

    What does a Surge Reference Equalizers paper claim?
    Even after studying SREs, earthed 'whole house' protector is cited as
    a 'best' solution. So where does anyone make responsible claims for
    this SRE plug-in protector? Instead, responsible sources repeatedly
    cite earthing as critical to protection - even after discussing merits
    of SRE. What does an SRE multiport protector not provide? Earthing.
    Each example of effective protection lists no plug-in (point of use)
    protectors. Of course. Even the multiport SRE protector had no
    effective earthing - which explains why that paper then recommends
    earthed 'whole house' protection.

    In a previous discussion, Bud apparently did not read an IEEE Green
    Book (IEEE 142) quote entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
    Grounding' :
    We protect by intercepting or diverting to what lightning seeks -
    earth ground. Where is that multiport (plug-in protector) solution
    even mentioned? With no effective earthing, then how then can a
    plug-in protector be effective? Question that Bud avoids answering.

    So tell me again how this multiport plug-in protector intercepts or
    diverts? Where are the two functions of protection - equipotential and
    conductivity - provided by that plug-in protector? How does a plug-in
    protector that costs tens of times more money per protected appliance
    somehow out perform well proven 'whole house' techniques? How does it
    provide equipotential when the room violates what is necessary for
    equipotential? Three more questions that demonstrate why an earthed
    'whole house' solution, instead, was advocated.

    Martzloff, et al noted that plug-in protectors may even contribute to
    damage:
    To deny all this, and in response to a first citation, Bud says:
    Not relevant? Earthing defines effective protection as even
    described by IEEE Green Book. Why claim grounding is "not relevant to
    surge suppressors"? Hundreds of citations note earthing as essential.
    An abridged summary list was posted on 30 Mar 2005 in
    alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus at:
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

    Then we have this backtracking:
    Why waste money on a SRE type plug-in protector? Protection inside
    appliances already makes trivial transients irrelevant. Why install
    protection for something that does no damage? Damage is typically
    created by direct strikes that overwhelm protection already inside
    appliances. Direct strikes to a tall tower, or to utility wires down
    the street, or even from GPR due to a nearby struck tree. All can be
    direct lightning strikes to household electronics. Do we spend $20 or
    $80 for each household appliance - spending thousands of dollars? Of
    course not. Instead, spend about $1 per appliance for an effective,
    well proven, residential 'whole house' protector. A solution
    demonstrated in transmitter tower sites, server rooms, telephone
    switches, airports, and military bases.

    Where are these responsible industry professionals who put a multiport
    protector in a room - and claim effective protection? None have been
    cited. Meanwhile a paper on the Upside Down house says:
    Same author who recommends 'whole house' protectors in your cited
    paper on SRE (point of use or plug-in) protectors also says plug-in
    protectors may even contribute to damage. Yes, we demonstrated same by
    tracing how a transient entered and left a computer network. A plug-in
    protector provided more destructive paths through a computer -
    contributed to damage. Since that shunt mode protector provides no
    earthing, then a surge must go somewhere - such as destructively
    through an adjacent computer.

    We learned about protection from transmitter sites and other high
    tech facilities. Where was early protection research conducted? On
    the Empire State Building during lighting strikes to transmitters.
    Lessons there proved how to best protect even homes. So why mock
    technical papers from those locations? Best knowledge for household
    protection comes from those commercial venues - as so repeatedly
    demonstrated by reams of citations.

    Shame on Bud for totally misrepresenting what Polyphaser said.
    Polyphaser - a highly respected industry standard - is not recommending
    an equipotential solution from a SRE type, plug-in protector. Claiming
    that Polyphaser supports SRE claims means Polyphaser's paper was not
    read:
    What was misrepresented as Surge Reference Equalizers (SRE) is
    actually 'whole house' protection. Polyphaser does not recommend
    ineffective solutions. SRE is protection only using 'equipotential' -
    ineffective. Polyphaser discusses protection using 'equipotential' AND
    'conductivity'. Effective solution is also called 'whole house'
    protection.
    How does one completely misrepresent that Polyphaser statement?
    Polyphaser states 'shunt' and 'earth ground'. 'Whole house' solution
    could not be more obvious. Meanwhile Polyphaser defines additional
    criteria for protection:
    And again, connection to earth must be short - ie 'less than 10
    feet'. What connection to earth is provided by a multiport, SRE,
    plug-in protector? Oh. Earthing is not even mentioned until his paper
    then recommends a different 'best' 'whole house' solution. A
    solution that provides both equipotential and conductivity to earth is
    not SRE advocated by Bud. Plug-in protectors remain unproven, are
    demonstrated ineffective, and can even contribute to adjacent
    transistor damage.

    Another source: IEEE Red Book (Std 141) also recommends protection:
    So where is this 'point of use' or plug-in solution recommended? As
    with all responsible citations for effective protection, earthing - not
    some multiport plug-in protector - is constantly recommended and
    discussed. How do we protect homes? We learn from radio transmitter
    stations, telephone switching office, emergency response centers,
    maritime communication stations, server rooms, and all those other
    facilities that were mocked instead of learned; that cannot suffer
    surge damage.

    Finally Montandon and Rubinstein wrote a 4 Nov 1998 IEEE paper
    entitled "Some Observation on the Protection of Buildings Against the
    Induced Effects of Lightning". A direct strike to a building can
    create induced effects inside that building:
    As usual when demonstrating protection even for homes, Montandon and
    Rubinstein use a telecommunication building with adjacent antenna
    towers. Yes, another transmitter tower site. With grasp and
    experience rather than mocking citations ("Surprise, surprise - another
    transmitter tower site."), then one learns concepts. Montandon, et al
    conclusions for equipotential as a solution eliminates SRE as a
    solution:
    Figure 9 demonstrates problems created when utilities don't enter at
    a common point - a building wide common point and not some protector
    inside a room.
    So where is equipotential established by point of use (plug-in)
    protectors? Demonstrated are problems created by improper cable entry
    to buildings, multiple bonding, and improper routing and bonding to
    ground. Solutions require lower impedance and better conductivity.
    SRE plug-in solution in a room does none of this. Due to current flows
    through everything within a building (that makes the SRE solution
    impossible), Montandon, et al demonstrate equipotential; better
    achieved by routing, bonding, and lower impedance. Same solutions that
    other citations discuss. Solutions that demonstrate why 'whole house'
    protection (that also costs less) is so effective. Solutions that
    demonstrate why plug-in protectors must avoid earthing discussions.
    Once we apply missing facts, then every claim of effective plug-in
    protector collapses. Plug-in protectors are not reliable protection.
    But they do cost more money.

    Repeatedly cited is that need for earth ground - a system that
    provides both equipotential and conductivity. SRE plug-in protector
    would do equipotentialization poorly even according to Montandon and
    Rubinstein's paper.

     
  5. Bud--

    Bud-- Guest

    You have obviously not read, or not understood, the links I provided -
    ALL 3 recommend plug-in surge protectors. The IEEE paper CLEARLY
    describes how SREs work.

    The issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are effective.

    Your sources may or not be interesting but do NOT say plug-in surge
    suppressors are ineffective; they say nothing about them. As usual, you
    change the subject.

    The IEEE paper, referenced several times previously is
    http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
    - this is YOUR paper
    - the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
    lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
    power and cummunication circuits"
    - much of its concern is 'transistor safety' - your favorite
    - it was published by the IEEE in 2005
    - the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
    engineers in the US and the publisher of some of your references
    - the 5 authors have broad experience with surge suppression

    Question:
    If plug in surge suppressors are not effective, why does the paper,
    divided into 7 sections, contain
    section 5: Multi-port point-of-use (plug-in) protectors
    section 6 Specific protection examples (all using SREs)
    Place your answer in a separate post from other responses.

    bud--
     
  6. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    If plug-in protectors were so effective, then why do responsible
    sources and responsible manufacturers instead discuss earthing and
    'whole house' protection? Why then from that paper and from an author
    that discusses SRE; his own papers discuss superior and properly
    earthed 'whole house' solutions AND note that adjacent plug-in (point
    of use) protectors may even contribute to damage?

    The issue is effective protection. Two types of protectors exist.
    Series mode and shunt mode. Series mode protect by stopping, blocking,
    or absorbing surges. Series mode protectors are not discussed here.
    Shunt mode protectors work by intercepting or diverting - words right
    out of the IEEE green book. SRE is a shunt mode protector.

    So where is its earth ground connection? What does multiport SRE
    divert (shunt) to? Into adjacent electronics? What kind of protection
    is that? From generations of experience and without being part of a
    complete room solution: ineffective.

    Somehow a multiport, SRE, plug-in (shunt mode) protector will work by
    only doing equipotential; by not doing conductivity? Equipotential
    does not work in a room that does not bring every one of six ports to a
    single point? Defined in that paper is one port that violates SRE
    effectiveness: enclosure port.

    And finally, one will spend tens of times more money per protected
    appliance for this shunt mode protector that does not shunt to earth?
    More money for inferior protection that is even too close to
    transistors? These are damning questions demonstrated by reams of
    citations (IEEE papers, experience from industry professionals, lessons
    learned even on the Empire State Building, those so highly regarded
    application notes from Polyphaser, etc) on effective protection.

    The bottom line fact remains: a protector is only as effective as
    its earth ground. A shunt mode protector must make the short (low
    impedance) connection to a single point earth ground. This solution
    provides both conductivity and equipotential; both necessary because
    neither is sufficient. An SRE solution (using a shunt mode protector)
    inside a room not specifically constructed to provide equipotential
    just does not work. And so even those authors of the SRE paper move on
    to discuss a 'best' 'whole house' solution.

    Reasons why the SRE is not effective:1) shunt mode protector that
    does not provide conductivity to earth, 2) attempts equipotential in a
    room that violates that principle, 3) defined in a paper that then
    defines a 'whole house' solution as better, 4) costs tens of time more
    money, 5) would already be inside an appliance if so effective, 6)
    attempts to intercept or divert a surge too close to transistors - a
    problem identified and solved in transmitter tower sites and telephone
    switching centers so many generations ago, 7) and completely ignores
    what has long been demonstrated the most essential component in an
    effective protection 'system': single point earth ground.

    Somehow this SRE would have eliminated what killed the cow? Yes,
    only if the room was part of the SRE solution - a faraday cage. Rooms
    just are not constructed to make that possible. Shunt mode protector
    that is effective must provide both equipotential and conductivity -
    because neither alone is sufficient.

    How does electronics get best protected - and at least cost?
    Building is constructed with an Ufer ground. Best protection starts
    with architect's prints. We still don't build as if transistors exist.
    So we earth as best we can after not having done a superior solution
    up front. Protection 'system' is only as effective as its earth
    ground. Plug-in protector manufacturers hope we never learn that fact.
     
  7. Why does my home insurance company want me to not only have whole house
    surge protection but also use power strip surge protectors?

    Why has Consumer Reports recommended power strip surge protectors?
    They employ several electrical engineers.
     
  8. Bud--

    Bud-- Guest

    As I have said, surge protection at the power service entrance is a good
    idea. But the issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are
    effective. "That paper and from an author" - what paper and what author.
    What "responsible sources and responsible manufacturers". As always, you
    have no links that directly address plug-in surge suppressors. And then
    you change the subject.

    How about larry moe 'n curlys insurance company and Consumer reports.
    Are they "irresponsible"? Its you against the world, and now even
    against larry moe n' curly.



    The IEEE paper, referenced several times previously is
    http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
    - this is YOUR paper
    - the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
    lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
    power and cummunication circuits"
    - much of its concern is 'transistor safety' - your favorite
    - it was published by the IEEE in 2005
    - the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
    engineers in the US and the publisher of some of your references
    - the 5 authors have broad experience with surge suppression

    Question:
    If plug in surge suppressors are not effective, why does the paper,
    divided into 7 sections, contain
    section 5: Multi-port point-of-use (plug-in) protectors
    section 6 Specific protection examples (all using SREs)
    Place your answer in a separate post from other responses. I guess in
    your excitement you forgot to explain this.

    bud--
     
  9. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    What is performed by both plug-in protectors and 'whole house'
    protectors? Where does every buck spend provide (enhance) protection?
    Where does labor and parts result in significant transistor safety?
    Among many points - plug-in protectors cost massively more for
    inferior, if any, protection. Either we spend and enhance effective
    'whole house' protection, or we waste time and money on protectors
    from less responsible manufacturers. Less responsible? Show me where
    a plug-in manufacturer even claims protection from transients that
    cause damage? You cannot. Plug-in manufacturers do not make that
    claim. Where are the numbers listing each type of transient? Not
    provided.

    Every cited paper - and now we add Mike Holt to the list - does
    not blindly recommend plug-in protectors. These papers discuss merits
    (pluses and minuses) of such protection; noting inferiority problems
    using plug-in protectors. Spend tens of times more money and still
    get less - if any - protection? Why does Mike Holt say,
    "properly used"? He demonstrates numerous problems with plug-in
    protectors. Below is a sampling of why plug-in protectors are
    compromised AND can even contribute to adjacent appliance damage.

    Figure 8 shows a plug-in protector adjacent to TV1. How much voltage
    difference between that protector and earth? 8000 volts. Is that TV
    going to charge up to 8000 volts and not find other, destructive paths
    to earth? Of course not. 8000 volts can find paths - some
    destructive - to earth via appliance. 8000 volts again demonstrates
    why protection must be located at service entrance - why plug-in
    protectors are not effective. Mike Holt makes a specific reference to
    "properly used", and demonstrates why plug-in protectors can even
    contribute to damage of adjacent electronics.

    How curious? A point 1 in that Martzloff, et al paper says same
    thing:
    Mike Holt puts numbers to an objectionable voltage - 8000 volts.

    How many papers make a same point - that plug-in protectors (that
    cost tens of time more money per protected appliance) can even
    contribute to electronics damage? Even personal experience by
    tracing a surge through plug-in protector and then through powered off
    and networked computers was cited. How many times need we cite but
    another failure (damage) made easier by plug-in protectors? AND where
    does this mean Mike Holt recommends plug-in protectors? Bud - just
    because Mike Holt discussed plug-in protectors does not - not for one
    minute - mean that Section 5 *recommends* plug-in protectors.
    Section 5 demonstrates numerous reasons why plug-in protectors can even
    contribute to electronics damage. Mike Holt demonstrates difficulty in
    making a plug-in protector effective.

    Mike Holt demonstrates what that Martzloff, et al paper also says:
    Remember - they are shunt mode protectors. They shunt transients
    to earth - to provide both conductivity and equipotential. Mike Holt
    also notes what a plug-in protectors must do:
    How curious. The protector works by connection to earth ground. Why
    does the plug-in protector manufacturer 1) not provide the dedicated
    earthing connection, and 2) does not discuss earthing? Why does
    plug-in manufacturer avoid discussing that 8000 volts? That's 8000
    volts that will find other earthing paths within the room - except if
    the room is constructed as part of the protection.

    Why would a plug-in protector connect currents back to an earth ground
    that was ignored by that same current at the 'whole house'
    protector? Think what is claimed. If earth ground at the 'whole
    house' protector cannot earth a transient, then why would that same
    transient seek that same earth ground via a plug-in protector? If
    current cannot obtain earthing at the 'whole house' protector, then a
    transient through a plug-in protector will find other (potentially
    destructive) path to some other earthing inside the room.

    Where is labor, money, and time better spent? Enhancing service
    entrance earth ground; not buying grossly overpriced and ineffective
    plug-in protectors. If earthing is not sufficient, then what will
    plug-in protectors earth to? Less money better spent fixing the reason
    why a transient was not earthed before entering a building. Money
    better spent on fixing the real problem - insufficient earthing.

    Mike Holt recommends plug-in protectors in Section 5? Au
    contraire. Mike Holt cites numerous reasons in Section 5 why plug-in
    protectors fail. Martzloff, et al make a same point with 'six
    ports'. Any one port violated, then damage can result. How curious
    that a Martzloff paper (knowing full well that most every lurker here
    will not comprehend these 'six ports') then moves on to recommend a
    'whole house' solution.

    Will a layman appreciate 'six ports' defined in a Martzloff paper?
    Of course not. Yet all 'six ports' must be understood to make a
    plug-in protector effective. Mike Holt further defines multiple
    reasons why a layman cannot "properly used" plug-in protectors.

    Mike Holt demonstrates another plug-in protector problem:
    Five points are listed. Then Mike Holt describes the problem:
    What is the homeowner to do when information is not readily
    available? Instead obtain conductivity and equipotential by properly
    earthing effective 'whole house' protectors. Earth trasnsients long
    before they get into the room.

    BTW, Bud, everyone has a limited budget. $100 or $10,000 does many
    times more at the 'whole house' as compared in plug-in protectors.
    There is no separation between 'whole house' and plug-in solutions.
    It all comes from the same dollar bills. More of one means less of
    the other. Plug-in protectors typically cost tens of times more money
    for inferior and complicated protection.

    Consumer must understand all six ports? Consumer must answer Mike
    Holt's five questions? Solution in a room not even designed to be
    part of the protection system? No wonder plug-in protector
    manufacturers don't say how or why their products work. No wonder
    they will not tell you, me, and every lurker what is necessary for a
    'point of use' protector - earthing. What did Mike Holt define to
    make a plug-in protector effective?
    And because that path is too far, the voltage different is listed in
    his figure as .... 8000 volts.

    And so again - this time from Mike Holt - we have THE most
    critical component in every protection system: **earthing**.

    Mike Holt describes how a plug-in protector even causes damage to TV1
    and TV2 in figure 8.
    Show me every housewife who will address all those grounding
    questions? Most men lurking here don't even fully understand the
    concept. And yet that is what Mike Holt demonstrates - what
    Martzloff calls the 'six ports'. Any one path to ground not part
    of a multiport protector means electronics damage. Or what was
    described previously as no equipotential.

    Again, a plug-in protector may simply make electronics damage
    possible - even to powered off appliances. Just another reason why
    effective protection in transmitter tower sites, telephone switching
    centers, 911 emergency response centers, etc all put protection at a
    single point earth ground AND distant from electronics. Notice that
    last phrase: effective protection is located "farther from
    electronics".

    Where in Section 5 does Mike Holt recommend plug-in (point of use)
    protectors. Instead he describes, multiple times over, why plug-in
    protectors fail to protect.

    Mike Holt describes another problem with plug-in protectors:
    Why would one recommend spending more money on a plug-in protector
    that has so many compromising complications? Even all its MOVs don't
    get used in protection. Carefully address everything in Section 5;
    what Martzloff calls 'six ports' are necessary to make protection
    effective. Even room construction must be considered. Smart money
    installs a 'whole house' protector AND enhances the most critical
    'system' component: earthing.

    Less technical expertise, labor, and money provides a superior
    solution - a 'whole house' protector and single point earth
    ground. An effective solution even sold under more responsible
    manufacturer names such as Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Polyphaser, Siemens,
    Square D, and GE. A solution found in Home Depot, Lowes, and
    electrical supply houses. A simpler solution that is standard
    protection even in high reliability facilities such as maritime
    communication stations, cell phone towers, and every telephone
    switching station. Do they use plug-in protectors? Of course not.
    They want effective protection - not complications and hype.
    Protection is defined by and is as effective as its earth ground.

    Every dollar wasted in plug-in protectors is better spent in the
    'whole house' solution - especially in earthing.
     
  10. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    Don't ask me why a home insurance company did not first learn the
    science. Ask them? If they know a plug-in protector is effective,
    then they have provided reams of facts that I did not learn after
    numerous decades of doing this stuff. Always looking for new facts -
    which is why IEEE always demands reasons 'why'.

    I don't see Consumer Reports recommending protectors. What issue?
    What date? Why no specific citation or quote? Why is being an
    electrical engineer sufficient to be knowledgeable on transient
    protection? What kind of assumption is that? Instead post technical
    whys and whys nots - with quotes and numbers (technical reasons) from
    that article. Why do you think Bud - and rightly so - has trouble
    with any citation he cannot read in long and painful detail. Where
    are those details from Consumer Reports?
     
  11. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    Bud-- wrote:
    < ...
    Sun Microsystems no longer provide their Planning Guide for Sun
    Server Room. Therefore you had a problem with it - and rightly so -
    because you could not review what Sun recommends in a server room.
    Meanwhile larry moe 'n curly provide no date or issue, no numbers, no
    direct quotes, .... nothing. And you don't have a problem with that?
    Why the double standard? Why was your next post about what could very
    easily be nothing more than a rumor - some speculation about a CR
    recommendation? He provided no citation, no numbers, and not a single
    reason (from CR) why a plug-in protector is recommended. You have no
    problem with such posts?
     
  12. Bud--

    Bud-- Guest

    Major progress - IEEE (NIST, ...) now are recognized as recommending
    plug-in surge protectors. There are, of course, pluses and minuses for
    any protection scheme. Not obvious what other "cited paper" you refer to.
    This paper is not Mike Holt's. It is from the IEEE. Mike only provides a
    link to it. If Mike provided a link to the Bible, it would not become
    Mike's document.

    The IEEE provides this example to show how a SRE can protect the first
    TV, and says that protection is effective. The IEEE paper says a second
    SRE is needed at the second TV. If the CATV entrance is distant from the
    power entrance, as this example describes, there can be a large
    difference in the ground potential at the CATV ground block and the
    power service ground, 10 kV as this example describes. A single point
    ground reference at the power service for all incoming wires is
    desirable but not always present.

    In additon, the CATV ground block, as you have said, provides no surge
    protection for the signal conductor - the limit being the flashover
    voltage at connectors. IIRC the IEEE paper said this was about 4 kV,
    which could appear at the TV antenna connection. The SRE has surge
    protection on this wire, which is not provided in 'whole house'.

    No link, or even name provided for paper. Hey, wasn't that a major issue
    for larry moe 'n curly's reference to Consumer Reports??
    The whole point of SREs is that they protect against this exact hazard.
    You need to learn how to read. The IEEE (not Holt) provides section 5 to
    show how SREs can provide protection, and follows with section 6 to
    demonstrate specific examples of protecting with SREs. To say the IEEE
    doesn't recommend SREs is remarkably dense.
    A MOV clamps the voltage across its terminals. Surge supressors
    fundamentally clamp the voltages on the protected wires to a common
    reference point. We both agree the ground path fom an receptacle to the
    power service panel is relatively high resistance. The protection
    provided by plug-in surge supressors is primarily by clamping, the
    conduction to earth is secondary. In the fig 8/fig 9 TV example, most of
    the earthing of the surge on the CATV service is via the "Coax sheath
    ground bond" from the CATV entrance ground block to the power service
    entrance (IIRC the paper says that).
    The plug-in protector works primarily by clamping. Essentially the whole
    problem in this thread is that your religous views recognize only
    earthing, not clamping. The IEEE recognizes SREs are effective, thus
    action primarily by clamping can be effective.
    'Whole house' and single point ground are good ideas.

    For power/phone/CATV/... entrances not immediately adjacent you won't
    have single point ground. CATV ground blocks don't arrest surges
    arriving on signal wire. Surges can arrive in other ways. Plug in surge
    protectors can provide protection, as recognized by the IEEE (and others).
    Most men (and women) lurking here can read the IEEE paper and understand
    it better than you.
    [The IEEE says Joule ratings are substantially meaningless.] Every
    protection scheme is a series of tradeoffs. The circuit of 6B, with the
    protected equipment downstream from the fuse, will disconnet the
    protected equipment with the MOV. And the manufacturer may or may not
    set the fusing to an appropriate level. The IEEE doesn't seem to see
    this as a critical problem. Surge protectors installed at the electrical
    service also have overcurrent protection which is subject to the same
    problem.

    ================================================================
    Another relevant article is
    http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_overview_ieee_emerald/index.html
    This is an article from "Electrical Construction and Maintenance"
    magazine reviewing the book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
    Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment" (the Emerald book in the color
    book series)

    A quoted definition from the IEEE Emeral book is:
    "Surge reference equalizer. A surge-protective device used for
    connecting equipment to external systems whereby all conductors
    connected to the protected loads are routed, physically and
    electrically, through a single enclosure with a shared reference point
    between the input and output ports of each system."


    With comment from the article:
    "It has been found that, with multiport loads (such as computers with AC
    power input and data communication ports, televisions with AC power and
    CATV ports, or fax machines with AC power and telephone ports), a
    transient voltage surge event on one port, even if protected by
    transient voltage surge suppressor (TVSS), causes a transient voltage
    surge to be impressed across the other ports, often causing damage to
    the load equipment. One potential solution is the use of a surge
    reference equalizer to prevent differences in the ports' ground
    references under transient voltage surge conditions."

    Fig 8 from the IEEE paper above is repeated in the book, and SREs are
    recognized as a tool in protecting electronics - same as the IEEE paper
    above.

    bud--
     
  13. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    This is where disagreement exists.

    Bud describes differential mode protection. Destructive transients
    are common mode. Yes a MOV can clamp (short circuit) a voltage between
    two wires. And that transient is typically not destructive.
    Differential mode transients are not typically sourced by lightning.
    Typically destructive transient is common mode. Clamping between two
    wires only puts that common mode transient on both wires - and still
    seeking earth ground.

    Defined previously were two computers connected to plug-in protectors
    and powered off. A destructive transient was clamped by MOVs inside
    adjacent protectors. Now that destructive transient has more paths
    into the adjacent computer. That transient took paths provided by
    clamping in an adjacent protector. Incoming on AC wire. Outgoing on
    network. Down network wire to a third computer. Out that third
    computer via a modem and phone line to earth ground. Each damaged IC
    in that path was replaced; computers worked again.

    Adjacent protectors did clamp the transient. Transient was clamped
    right into a destructive path through computers. Telephone switching
    centers don't put protectors adjacent to electronics for same reasons.
    Telco prefers shunt mode protectors to be up to 50 meters away from
    electronics - and short distance to earth. Why? As demonstrated
    above, clamping adjacent to electronics can even contribute to
    electronic damage. Clamping at the earth ground shunts (diverts,
    connects, intercepts) a destructive transient to earth long before it
    can find earthing paths destructively through electronics.

    Fig 8/9 TV example demonstrates but another 'sneak' path that
    contributes to damage. Why. Clamping was too close to electronics and
    too far from earth ground. Rooms are constructed with 'sneak' paths
    everywhere. Just another reason why clamping must be at the earthing
    connection. That IEEE paper (previously attributed to Mike Holt)
    demonstrates too many ways for a plug-in (point of use) protector to
    fail; even contribute to electronics damage.

    Shunt mode protectors are effective when shunting (clamping) short to
    earth ground. Plug-in protectors (also called shunt mode devices) hope
    you never learn about the typically destructive transient AND why
    shunting must be both short to earth and distant from electronics.

    Bud is describing protection from a transient that typically does not
    do damage AND that is made irrelevant by protection already inside all
    electronics.

    Why is the 'whole house' protector so effective? 1) It shunts or
    clamps all types of transients. It does that clamping distant from
    electronics. 2) It does that clamping short to earth. It is properly
    sized. 3) It connects to what shunt mode protectors need to be
    effective: single point earth ground. Not just any ground. A short
    connection to single point earthing. Clamping is ineffective if no
    earthing to clamp to. Earthing that provides both equipotential and
    conductivity. And yes, both conductivity and equipotential are
    necessary for shunt mode devices to be effective. MOV not clamping to
    earth (above example) even contributed to damage of three networked
    computers. I have seen such damage too often to believe plug-in
    protectors are worth ten times more money per protected appliance.

    Why are 'whole house' protectors so effective? A short connection to
    (clamping to) earth ground determines effectiveness. Earthing being
    the protection. Protector being nothing more than a temporary
    connection (clamping) to protection. Protector being only as effective
    as the protection it connects to: earthing.

    To provide both conductivity and equipotential, the clamping of a
    typically destructive transient is best distant from protected
    electronics AND as short as possible to earth. Such protection
    effective for all type of transients - and costs many times less money.
     
  14. Bud--

    Bud-- Guest

    w_tom wrote:


    Consumer Reports reviewed surge protectors Nov 1994. I know you want to
    look it up to check the statements of larry moe n' curly, but could all
    3 of them be wrong?

    Bud does not describe differential mode protection. Bud describes
    protection for any surges on power (and signal) lines. You don't
    (can't?, won't?) get it.

    Differential mode(surge lifts hot, neutral and ground not affected):
    MOV from H-N clamps the voltage. MOV from H-G clamps the voltage. If the
    N-G voltage is separated the MOV from N-G clamps the voltage. If the
    signal line has a ground (as CATV) it is connected to the power ground.
    All signal wires (CATV signal, phone, LAN, ...) have protectors (MOV,
    gas discharge, whatever) that clamp the voltage on that wire to the
    common ground at the SRE. ALL wires are clamped to the common SRE
    ground, a local single point ground.

    Common mode(surge lifts hot and neutral, ground not affected):
    MOV from H-G clamps the voltage. MOV from N-G clamps the voltage. If the
    H-N voltage is separated the MOV from H-N clamps the voltage.
    If the signal line(s) have a ground (as CATV) it is connected to the
    power ground. All signal wires (CATV signal, phone, LAN, ...) have
    protectors (MOV, gad discharge, whatever) that clamp the voltage on that
    wire to the common ground at the SRE. ALL wires are clamped to the
    common SRE ground, a local single point ground.

    Surge on signal wires:
    If the signal line(s) have a ground (as CATV) it is connected to the
    power ground. All signal wires (CATV signal, phone, LAN, ...) have
    protectors (MOV, gas discharge, whatever) that clamp the voltage on that
    wire to the common ground. If power line voltages shift, a MOV from H-N
    clamps the voltage and a MOV from H-G clamps the voltage and a MOV from
    N-G clamps the voltage. ALL wires are clamped to the common SRE ground,
    a local single point ground.

    In all cases the ground potential at the SRE may be different from the
    power service or signal entrance protectors.

    (If the -{NID, CATV ground block, dish protector,
    phone-extension-to-the-garage protector, whatever}- are not immediately
    adjacent to the power service, and connected with short wires to the
    power service grounding electrode conductor at the service panel, the
    ground potential of the signal protector(s) will be different than the
    power service if a surge hits any of the protectors or the power service.)

    (Clamping is not a short circuit.)

    The IEEE (NIST, ...) say SREs are effective protection.
    Perhaps you missed that the IEEE paper said SREs are effective.
    Bud is describing protection from ALL surges AND

    1. Provide a link affirming that electronics is effectively protected
    from surges by internal devices.

    2 If the -{NID, CATV ground block, dish protector,
    phone-extension-to-the-garage protector, whatever}- are not immediately
    adjacent to the power service, and connected with short wires to the
    power service grounding electrode conductor at the service panel, the
    ground potential of the signal protector(s) will be different than the
    power service if a surge hits any of the protectors or the power
    service. This is not an uncommon sitution, and is illustrated in the
    IEEE paper, fig 8. Resulting surges, as you have often said, can be
    fatal to the equipment.

    3. If the power service does not have surge protection the energy
    dissipaton capacity of internal devices is likely not high enough to protect

    4. If the power service does have a surge protector, the service clamp
    voltage is generally high, to give long life and low 'aging'. The clamp
    voltage at the electronics is typically much lower. The result is the
    devices at the electronics still conduct and can be destroyed.

    5. Power line surges shunted at the equipment can lift the ground at the
    equipment from the power service ground. (This is your common complaint
    about plug-in surge suppressors.) This effectively puts a surge on the
    signal wires which the device may not handle (the same point you make
    about plug-in (not SRE) surge protectors).

    6. A CATV ground block does not protect the center conductor. The IEEE
    paper IIRC said this voltage can reach 4 kV at (at which point there is
    flashover at the connectors). This voltage can appear at a TV, or other
    equipment, which might not like the voltage.

    NEVER fly in an airplane. They seldom drag an earthing chain while
    flying, leaving their avionics totally exposed to lightning. (I'm sure
    there is a major coverup of the frequent plane crashes.)

    The IEEE (NIST, ...) say SREs, which I certainly agree have a poor
    earthing connection, are effective protection.

    -----------------------------------------------
    Other surge protection devices and schemes may be a good idea but the
    issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are effective.

    The IEEE (NIST, ...) say SREs are effective protection.

    Do you disagree with the IEEE (NIST, ...)?
    Are you smarter than the 5 electrical engineers that wrote the IEEE paper?

    bud--
     
  15. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    Consumer Reports did normal mode testing of protectors in 1994. APC
    once provided numbers for normal mode transients. But neither that
    Consumer Reports test nor APC made any claims about a type of transient
    that typically does damage.

    CR then made some very abridged claims in 2000. However something
    strange happened. Suddenly CR eight year indexes starting 2003 dropped
    all references to surge protector reviews. Those 2000 reviews should
    remain in the CR indexs until 2008. But by 2003, CR makes those 2000
    tests difficult to find. Tests that provide few details and apparently
    did not test per how damage typically occurs.

    Larry, Moe and Curly did discuss many things. However they also
    could not tell us What's on first, Who's on second, and Where is third.
    Important questions of that age. Today, we only google for live's
    little questions.
     
  16. w_tom

    w_tom Guest

    This discussion was completely about terrestrial protection. But
    same principles - conducting lightning to the earth ground (or outgoing
    connection) also apply to planes. Aircraft designers have it far more
    complex. Unlike a terrestrial building, a single point earth ground
    can be anywhere. They must design everything in terms of layers -
    layers of earthing - which is well beyond the scope of this discussion.
    For example, the earth ground this time in this picture is quite
    obvious: plane's tail:
    http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pub/ltg/plane_ltg.gif

    Next time the outgoing transient path could be anywhere else.
    Planes are struck routinely without damage. Same principles that also
    define the 'whole house' protector so effective - conducting lightning
    in paths that are not destructive. Concepts of equipotential and
    conductivity even apply to airplanes. Same concept that must be
    applied with greater care due to transients from and to more
    directions.

    Review that famous picture. Plane conducted direct lightning strike;
    no problem.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-