MOVs and surge suppressors

[w_tom]

You most certainly did:
Quoting what you wrote on 15 Apr 2006 00:04:07 -0700
under the subject "Re: surge protector question" in the
alt.engineering.electrical newsgroup:

"Shunt mode protectors do not to suppress, absorb,
dissipate, or arrest energy as ehsjr repeatedly
claims over so many years. "

ehsjr reads selectively. ehsjr ignores this phrase:

... as ehsjr repeatedly claims over so many years.

ehsjr repeatedly claimed an MOV absorbs all surge energy. No. MOVs
only absorb a minor part just like wire is also not perfectly
conductive. To make it easier for ehsjr to grasp the concept, these
phrases were also used:

MOV absorbs energy just like a wire and
even wires are not perfect conductors.

ehsjr repeatedly claimed MOVs absorb ALL surge energy. His
reasoning was that MOVs are rated in joules, joules measure energy,
therefore MOVs must stop surges by absorbing all surge joules.

Joules do not measure the energy of a surge. Joules are the ball
park measurement for a protector's life expectancy. More joules means
a more conductive MOV, long life expectancy, and less energy
absorbed. ehsjr never understood that and repeatedly denied it.

Lurker may note how ehsjr cannot get over being wrong seven years
ago.

Even in 29 May 2005, ehsjr did not udnerstand how a protector works.
In "Help With a MOV (Varistor?)" in sci.electronics.basics, ehsjr
posted:

MOVs absorb the surge energy they are exposed to at their
terminals. E=I*R applies. The MOV absorbs electrical energy
and converts it to heat energy, as long as it is working. They
absorb whatever amount of the total surge energy they are
exposed to across their terminals, again, only as long as they
are working.

MOVs do not absorb whatever amount of surge energy they are expose
to. MOVs dissipate a small amount of energy while shunting
(diverting, conducting, clamping) massive energy elsehwere - where
that energy will not be destructive.. The majority of energy shunted
by an MOV is dissipated in earth - not absorbed by the MOV. But even
in May 2005, ehsjr was still claiming MOVs absorb all that energy.

And so we have the phrase "... as ehsjr repeatedly claims over so
many years." Lurkers should appreciate the integrity of those who
promote plug-in protectors as 'magic box' solutions. ehsjr has so
little electrical grasp as to assume a shunt mode protector absorbed
whateever energy they are exposed to. MOVs work by *shunting* that
energy elsewhere; not by absorbing "the total surge energy".

 

[ehsjr]

w_tom wrote:

Your response contains lies about what I have posted.
You've gone over the line. I can no longer give you
the benefit of the doubt that maybe you misunderstood
what was said. There is no longer any doubt, and it
demands the reponse below identifing lies in your post.

ehsjr reads selectively. ehsjr ignores this phrase:



ehsjr repeatedly claimed an MOV absorbs all surge energy.

LIAR. You know damn well that I have never claimed that an
MOV absorbs *all* energy.

ehsjr repeatedly claimed MOVs absorb ALL surge energy.
LIAR.


Even in 29 May 2005, ehsjr did not udnerstand how a protector works.
In "Help With a MOV (Varistor?)" in sci.electronics.basics, ehsjr
posted:

So in May 2005 you said: "MOVs don't stop, block or absorb surges
to keep them out of equipment."

And in August 2007 you say:
" w_tom never said "MOVs do not absorb energy" "

So were you lying then, or are you lying now?

But even
in May 2005, ehsjr was still claiming MOVs absorb all that energy.

LIAR.


You want to lie about someone else, that's your affair.
Stop lying about what I have posted.

Ed

 

[ehsjr]

That right. It's important to have hard-wired protector at the
service entrance that has that short connection to earth ground.

According to the IEEE guide you cited, it is important to
have *both* a hard-wired protector at the service entrance
and a plug-in protector at the critical loads.

We engineers also knew that protectors do not work by absorbing all
the surge energy - as ehsjr repeatedly claimed seven years ago.

LIAR. You know damn well I have never said that.
Cease and desist from lying about what I have
said.

If you think the energy absorbed in the MOV is *all*
the surge energy, you're no engineer.

Ed

 

[w_tom]

LIAR. You know damn well I have never said that. Cease and desist
from lying about what I have said.

If you think the energy absorbed in the MOV is *all* the surge energy
, you're no engineer.

I did not say *all* the surge energy is absorbed in the MOV. But Ed
did.

In the newsgroup alt.engineering.electrical in a thread entitled
"cut off power to computer" on 16 Dec 1999, Ed posted:

Wrong. Surge protectors of the type you mention - MOV's
absorb both differential and common mode surges.

Then on 17 Dec 1999, Ed claims the MOV absorbs all of a surge:

In the MOV surge protector, the MOV **is** the load. More
energy is dissipated in it than in the #14 or #12 house wiring
to which it is connected. Where do *you* think the energy
that you say is passed through the MOV is dissipated? Ed

Where is energy absorbed after being *shunted* by an MOV? Earth
ground. Demonstrated in that thread was a 39 joule protector
dissipating a little energy while shunting significantly more energy
via that MOV. Massive more energy is shunted through MOV terminals to
be absorbed (dissipated) elsewhere. Where is that elsewhere? What
provides protection? Earth ground.

But Ed claimed on both 16 Dec and 17 Dec 1999 that the MOV protects
by absorbing *all* surge energy. Ed said I lied? How does ehsjr
explain his posts at:
http://tinyurl.com/32p3b2

Ed, you were making this claim that MOVs protect by absorbing the
entire surge for many years. Accurately posted was:

Shunt mode protectors do not to suppress, absorb, dissipate,
or arrest energy as ehsjr repeatedly claims over so many years.

You deny your own 1999 claims? Ed, you claimed the MOV was the
entire load; that it absorbs the entire surge.

Where is most of a surge absorbed when using an effective
protector? Earth ground. Shunt mode protector with short (less than
10 foot) dedicated connection to earth ground is effective. What kind
of protector has that dedicated earthing wire? A 'whole house'
protector as sold by responsible manufacturers such as Square D,
Siemens, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, and GE. Where does a
protector dissipate a surge if not properly earthed? Page 42 Figure 8
shows one example: 8000 volts destructively via an adjacent TV.

Ed used to claim a 100 joule protector absorbed 100 joules and would
fail is the surge is larger. But a 100 joule protector shunts maybe
tens of times more energy into earth. Why are effective protectors
for lightning protection so small? Their function is not to absorb
surges. Their function is to shunt (divert, connect, clamp) that
surge to earth. No earth ground connection means no effective
protection.

Meanwhile, who is lying? Ed claimed for years that the MOV protects
by absorbing the entire surge. Ed also denied then and denies today
the importance of earth ground.

What happens if a plug-in protector has no earth ground to earth
to? One possibility is demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8 where 8000
volts gets earthed destructively via an adjacent TV. Another
possibility are these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol

After all, if a protector does not shunt (divert) that energy into
earth, then that energy must be dissipated somewhere. Essential to
protection is a short ('less than 10 foot', no sharp bends, no
splices, etc) earthing connection so that a most of a surge entering
an MOV will be dissipated in earth.

And so again, the protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. Why did Ed repeatedly deny the need for earthing? Ed once
insisted the entire surge is absorbed (dissipated) by the MOV. But
effective protectors have the dedicated earthing wire to shunt
massively more energy into earth.

grizdog and others: the most critical component of any surge
protection system - where the surge is dissipated - is earth ground.
No earth ground means no effective protection. A surge must be
shunted to earth either by a wire or by a shunt mode protector (such
as MOVs). That is what MOVs do - shunt - become as conductive as
possible to divert a surge to earth. How does a protector become more
conductive? More joules.

 

[John Doe]

Where is energy absorbed after being *shunted* by an MOV?

It's not shunted by the MOV, it's absorbed elsewhere.

It's been explained to w_tom a dozen times. The function is simple
enough for anyone with a basic understanding of electricity (like me).

The Metal Oxide Varistor (MOV) clamps the terminals of the circuit so
that they are the same voltage. When two points are at the same
voltage, there is no current flow and nothing gets destroyed, no
matter what the voltage. All that's left is for the surge to subside.

 

[w_tom]

The Metal Oxide Varistor (MOV) clamps the terminals of the circuit so
that they are the same voltage. When two points are at the same
voltage, there is no current flow and nothing gets destroyed, no
matter what the voltage. All that's left is for the surge to subside.

A surge is a current source. That means current must have a path to
dissipate energy. Clamp everything to nothing. Page 42 Figure 8 is
what happens. A surge then created a path destructively through
adjacent appliances. A current source will increase voltages as
necessary to create a conductive path. That energy must be dissipated
somewhere. Clamping without an earthing connection accomplishes
nothing useful AND may give that current more paths to find earth
ground ... destructively through the adjacent TV. Or that energy may
simply create 'scary pictures' - a potential house fire created by a
plug-in protector.

If that surge current is not shunted (clamped) to earth before
entering a building; if there is no place to dissipate energy; then a
surge will create potentially destructive paths to earth. Page 42
Figure 8 with all wires shunted (clamped) - that surge then created an
8000 volts path destructively through adjacent TV. Energy must be
dissipate somewhere. If not dissipated in earth, then clamping to
nothing means surge damage inside a building is either in adjacent
applai9nces or those 'scary pictures'.

Funny John Doe. You still believe a protector will somehow stop or
absorb what three miles of sky could not - by clamping to nothing? If
current is not shunted to earth ground, then voltages will increase as
necessary so that less conductive materials conduct that surge inside
the building. That surge will be as destructive as necessary to find
earth ground. No protector will stop that by 'clamping to nothing'.

What is standard for protection in Air Force bases, radio and TV
stations, and even Orange County's emergency response center?
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
John Doe says they all waste time and money. He knows plug-in
protectors are sufficient. But then he learned using retail store
science - admits he has no electrical training. Meanwhile plug-in
protectors are often banned from reliable locations. Plug-in
protectors have even contributed to damage of adjacent and powered off
computers in a network. John Doe who admits to no engineering
training *knows* that cannot be true.

John did not know the telco installs a protector on all subscriber
lines - for free. According to John Doe, the telco need not earth
that protector. But the telco knows earthing is so critiical as to
earth your phone line protector AND make that wire short. Shorter
connection to earth means that protector is better. Why does the
telco waste time and money earthing that protector when it can clamp
to nothing - and provide protection? Clearly the telcos are also
stupid - John Doe knows better.

Page 42 Figure 8 - adjacent TV damaged because the surge was earthed
8000 volts destructively via the TV. Surge was clamped to nothing; so
surge was shunted to earth 8000 volts destructively through that TV.
But that protector was expensive. It must do something.. It clamps
to nothing - expensively and destructively. It does not even claim to
provide protection. Oh. Did John Doe also forget that the
manufacture also does not list surges and protection from those surges
in spec sheets. How curious. Manufacturer spec sheets also don't
support John Doe's assumption. Clamping to nothing provides
ineffective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground - when it has something to clamp (shunt) to.

 

[craigm]

It's not shunted by the MOV, it's absorbed elsewhere.

It's been explained to w_tom a dozen times. The function is simple
enough for anyone with a basic understanding of electricity (like me).

The Metal Oxide Varistor (MOV) clamps the terminals of the circuit so
that they are the same voltage. When two points are at the same
voltage, there is no current flow and nothing gets destroyed, no
matter what the voltage. All that's left is for the surge to subside.

The MOV does not clamp to 0 volts. Perhaps you should review some MOV specs.

Here are some.
http://www.nteinc.com/Web_pgs/MOV.html

Note the column called Maximum Clamping Voltage. How does this fit with
your "clamps the terminals of the circuit so that they are the same
voltage" statement?

Also note the Continuous voltage columns. At or below these voltages the MOV
also does basically nothing.

When there are zero volts across the MOV it does nothing.

And, what do you think the transient energy column means?

When clamping the voltage in a circuit to some value, how much energy is
going into the MOV?

 

[ehsjr]

I did not say *all* the surge energy is absorbed in the MOV. But Ed
did.
LIAR.


In the newsgroup alt.engineering.electrical in a thread entitled
"cut off power to computer" on 16 Dec 1999, Ed posted:

Note that it says nothing about *all* the surge energy.

Then on 17 Dec 1999, Ed claims the MOV absorbs all of a surge:

Note that it says nothing about *all* the surge energy, but
clearly refers to energy dissipated in the MOV *and* the
house wiring.

Where is energy absorbed after being *shunted* by an MOV? Earth
ground. Demonstrated in that thread was a 39 joule protector
dissipating a little energy while shunting significantly more energy
via that MOV. Massive more energy is shunted through MOV terminals to
be absorbed (dissipated) elsewhere. Where is that elsewhere? What
provides protection? Earth ground.

But Ed claimed on both 16 Dec and 17 Dec 1999 that the MOV protects
by absorbing *all* surge energy.

LIAR - as shown above.

Enough on that matter and the remainder of your post,
which contains more of the same. Let's get back on
topic:

You've typed a lot of words, but have yet to respond
to the fact that the IEEE guide you cited recommends
plug-in protectors, in addition to good earth ground.
Did you have a response to that specific point? Do
you agree with the IEEE guide you cited, or disagree?

Ed

 

[bud--]

As the guide says repeatedly, a protector works by earthing. If the
earthing is not sufficient, then how does a plug-in protector put more
current into an earth ground what would not accept that current
initially?

Repeating:
“The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf
page 40).”

How do we make better protection? We enhance what provides the
protection. We upgrade the earthing.

Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and author of the
NIST guide, has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true
earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
various parts of the grounding system." That is, a ‘single point ground’
with short interconnect wires.

Again the scary pictures demonstrate the problem of
grossly undersized plug-in protectors you are recommending:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

Lie #1 repeated. According to hanford overheating was fixed in 1998.
And the “grossly undersized” red herring.

And that is what the guide is also noting. Plug-in protectors alone
are not effective.

A lie. Where does either guide say that.

The guide says plug-in protectors can work IF
massive cautions are taken.

A lie. Where does either guide say that.

To have effective protection
without spending massively, the telco uses a 'whole house' protector
AND better earthing.

What a surprise! Telcos don’t use plug-in suppressors to protect high
amp hard wired switches with thousands of signal wires that would have
to go through the suppressor.

How did the Orange County FL emergency response center stop damage?
They spend
money where money would be useful which meant upgrading earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

w_ has a fetish about tower antennas. If you plan on erecting a 280 foot
lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in your yard and connecting it to
equipment in your building this may be relevant.

Why do you recommend protectors that the guide even warns as poor?

A lie. Where does either guide say that.

Meanwhile the IEEE defines the only thing that provides protection in
their Red Book (Standard 141) and in many other standards. No they
don't recommend plug-in protectors. IEEE recommends the only thing
that provides protection - earth ground:....

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Meanwhile Page 42 Figure 8 of the other citation also shows what
telcos know. A protector too close to appliances and too far from
earth ground many even earth the surge 8000 volts destructively
through an adjacent TV.

Lie #2 repeated. A plug-in suppressor at TV1 improves the conditions at
TV2, although that is not its job. A service panel suppressor would
provide *no* protection to either TV.


Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

But still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.
Why no links w_? Don’t the other lunatics agree with you?

And never any answers:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to others.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a prevaricator and a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

Note that it says nothing about *all* the surge energy, but
clearly refers to energy dissipated in the MOV *and* the
house wiring.
...

Ed's entire defense is repeated use of "LIAR" rather than deal with
technology. Demonstrated repeatedly is why MOVs are effective with a
short connection to earth. Demonstrated is why effective MOV
protectors have that earthing path. Demonstrated is where surge
energy must be dissipated. Demonstrated is why protectors without
earthing may simply disspated that energy destructively elsewhere -
such as 8000 volts through an adjacent TV.

Ed's denials only demonstrate that he has repeatedly denied
technical facts - how MOVs work. He previously claimed MOVs protect
by absorbing all surges. They do not. MOVs work by shunting most all
surge energy into earth. A protector without that earthing connection
has no earth ground to dissipate surge energy. That's it - the bottom
line.

 

[w_tom]

...
Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and author of the
NIST guide, has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true
earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
various parts of the grounding system." That is, a 'single point ground'
with short interconnect wires.
...

Bud routinely misrepresents facts by selective posting. Even
Martzloff said what Bud fears you might learn. A point so important
that Martzloff makes this the very first point in his 1996 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.

Point or use (plug-in) protectors can even contribute to damage of
adjacent appliances. But then that reality was demonstrated here.
Where does surge energy get dissipated when a point of use (plug-in)
protector has no earthing connection? Inside adjacent appliances?
Even Martzloff warns about what protectors without earthing may be.

No earth ground means no effective protection. But those protectors
without earthing sell even for $100+ in Circuit City or Best Buy.
Clearly they must do something because they cost so much more? Those
who instead use science notice no dedicated earthing wire.

 

[craigm]

Bud routinely misrepresents facts by selective posting. Even
Martzloff said what Bud fears you might learn. A point so important
that Martzloff makes this the very first point in his 1996 IEEE paper:

Point or use (plug-in) protectors can even contribute to damage of
adjacent appliances. But then that reality was demonstrated here.
Where does surge energy get dissipated when a point of use (plug-in)
protector has no earthing connection? Inside adjacent appliances?
Even Martzloff warns about what protectors without earthing may be.

No earth ground means no effective protection. But those protectors
without earthing sell even for $100+ in Circuit City or Best Buy.
Clearly they must do something because they cost so much more? Those
who instead use science notice no dedicated earthing wire.

If the device has a 2 wire cord, no ground, and no other connections, is a
earth ground really necessary for protection of that device? A point of use
surge protector will limit the voltage going to the device. (The key is
that there are no other electrical connections to the device.) Relative to
ground, the device may see a large change, but since nothing on the device
is referenced to ground, the device see no destructive voltages. (Any
capacitative coupling is taken as insignificant in this case.)

 

[w_tom]

If the device has a 2 wire cord, no ground, and no other connections, is a
earth ground really necessary for protection of that device? A point of use
surge protector will limit the voltage going to the device. (The key is
that there are no other electrical connections to the device.) Relative to
ground, the device may see a large change, but since nothing on the device
is referenced to ground, the device see no destructive voltages. (Any
capacitative coupling is taken as insignificant in this case.)

Ben Franklin's lightning was also finding earth ground via
something non-conductive - wooden church steeple. That same problem
exists inside a home. Things such as some wall paints, and linoleum
and concrete floors are even better conductors.

Why can a static electric discharge occur? Electric path is down an
arm, through something on the table top, and somehow into the rug to
charges beneath feet. How many of those items are wires? The house
is chock full of conductive items when we discuss surges.

Once permitted inside a building, then the surge will find numerous
paths to earth. Those many paths also explain why one appliance is
damaged while an adjacent appliance is unharmed.

Do we locate every conductive path in a room and conductive
materials inside walls? No. To create equipotential in one room, then
carefully integrate walls, floors, air ducts, and pipes all into the
protection system. No one will or is expected to do all that -
especially when one 'whole house' protector makes all that work for
every room unnecessary.

Make everything in the building equipotential. Create equipotential
by using earth beneath the building. Now all conductive materials in
the building are at near same voltages - no surge currents flow. Now
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed.

Yes, devices with multiple utility connections (portable phone base
station, cable modem, answering machine, dishwasher) are at greater
risk. Makes no difference if power cord is two wire or three wire (or
only one wire because switch is open). Anything that would protect on
that power cord is already inside those appliances. So that
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed, spend less money
for significantly superior protection. Earth one 'whole house'
protector, or earth cable TV and satellite dish wires using no
protector. Significantly better protection for tens of times less
money per appliance.

A surge approaching on a black wire is distributed to white and
green wires by an adjacent plug-in protector. Surge on all (two or
three) wires is still seeking earth ground. Incoming on AC electric
black wire, given more paths into stereo on black and white wires by
an adjacent protector, then out to earth ground via speaker wire
touching baseboard heater. Another example of damage because the
surge was permitted inside a building. The adjacent protector simply
gave that surge more wires to find earth ground via the stereo.

 

[craigm]

Ben Franklin's lightning was also finding earth ground via
something non-conductive - wooden church steeple. That same problem
exists inside a home. Things such as some wall paints, and linoleum
and concrete floors are even better conductors.

Why can a static electric discharge occur? Electric path is down an
arm, through something on the table top, and somehow into the rug to
charges beneath feet. How many of those items are wires? The house
is chock full of conductive items when we discuss surges.

Once permitted inside a building, then the surge will find numerous
paths to earth. Those many paths also explain why one appliance is
damaged while an adjacent appliance is unharmed.

Do we locate every conductive path in a room and conductive
materials inside walls? No. To create equipotential in one room, then
carefully integrate walls, floors, air ducts, and pipes all into the
protection system. No one will or is expected to do all that -
especially when one 'whole house' protector makes all that work for
every room unnecessary.

Make everything in the building equipotential. Create equipotential
by using earth beneath the building. Now all conductive materials in
the building are at near same voltages - no surge currents flow. Now
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed.

Yes, devices with multiple utility connections (portable phone base
station, cable modem, answering machine, dishwasher) are at greater
risk. Makes no difference if power cord is two wire or three wire (or
only one wire because switch is open). Anything that would protect on
that power cord is already inside those appliances. So that
protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed, spend less money
for significantly superior protection. Earth one 'whole house'
protector, or earth cable TV and satellite dish wires using no
protector. Significantly better protection for tens of times less
money per appliance.

A surge approaching on a black wire is distributed to white and
green wires by an adjacent plug-in protector. Surge on all (two or
three) wires is still seeking earth ground. Incoming on AC electric
black wire, given more paths into stereo on black and white wires by
an adjacent protector, then out to earth ground via speaker wire
touching baseboard heater. Another example of damage because the
surge was permitted inside a building. The adjacent protector simply
gave that surge more wires to find earth ground via the stereo.

A lot of words, but none respond to my comments. Sure, a whole house
protector is a good idea, but that is not viable for everyone. (Think about
apartment dwellers or those who rent their home.)

For some folks, point of use protectors may be sufficient.

Point of use protectors also have value where a whole house protector is
being used.

 

[w_tom]

A lot of words, but none respond to my comments. Sure, a whole house
protector is a good idea, but that is not viable for everyone. (Think about
apartment dwellers or those who rent their home.)

For some folks, point of use protectors may be sufficient.

Where does a 'point of use' protector make that short connection to
earth? If a plug-in protector is protection, then your post makes
sense. However the protector is not protection. It is only a
connecting device to protection. Lots of word repeatedly demonstrate
why plug-in protectors would appear to be a complete solution but
don't even claim to be protection. It only claims to be a protector..

In an apartment, modify a plug-in protector to act more like an
effective 'whole house' protector. First, cut its power cord as short
as possible. Every foot on that power cord means diminished
protection. Find a wall receptacle that is electrically closest to
the breaker box - minimum number of splices, shortest distance, etc..
Plug that 'short power cord' protector into that receptacle.
Hopefully a breaker box earth ground exists. What makes a protector
better? Increased distance between the protector and electronics.
Decrease a connection length to earth ground.

A protector without earth ground does nothing sufficient. It is
only a protector - a connecting device to protection. A protector
without connection to protection does nothing useful.

If a 'magic box' was sufficient, then it would claim such protection
in spec sheets. Why no such claim? Why is a 'magic box' that does
not even claim to provide protection also called sufficient? The plug-
in protector without earthing is not sufficient for anyone. The
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Or do we know it
is protection only because it is called a protector?

 

[craigm]

Where does a 'point of use' protector make that short connection to
earth? If a plug-in protector is protection, then your post makes
sense. However the protector is not protection. It is only a
connecting device to protection. Lots of word repeatedly demonstrate
why plug-in protectors would appear to be a complete solution but
don't even claim to be protection. It only claims to be a protector..

You sure can have fun with words and say nothing.

A MOV works by limiting the voltage between two nodes of a circuit. It does
nothing else. It does not know about 'ground' or 'earth'. Devices
connected to the nodes are protected from surges greater than the
specifications of the MOV. If the device connects to 2,3, 4, or 5 nodes in
the circuit, and all nodes are protected, then the device is protected.
(Within the limitations of the protection device, of course.)

In an apartment, modify a plug-in protector to act more like an
effective 'whole house' protector. First, cut its power cord as short
as possible. Every foot on that power cord means diminished
protection. Find a wall receptacle that is electrically closest to
the breaker box - minimum number of splices, shortest distance, etc..
Plug that 'short power cord' protector into that receptacle.

This does not provide useful protection as the protected nodes are where the
protector is. Any wiring between the node to be protected and the protector
defeats the protection. (As you appear to know.)

Hopefully a breaker box earth ground exists. What makes a protector
better? Increased distance between the protector and electronics.

Absolutely false. Disctance between the protector and the protected device
allows charge to be coupled into the connecting wire. What you suggest only
applies to surgest that come from the supply side of the {house, breaker
box, whatever].

This kind of a statement needs to be qualified w.r.t. the source of the
surge for it to have meaning.

Decrease a connection length to earth ground.

A protector without earth ground does nothing sufficient. It is
only a protector - a connecting device to protection. A protector
without connection to protection does nothing useful.

"Earth" is not protection. Numerous lightening victims connected to earth
were not protected.

Protection is keeping the voltages seen by the protected device to a
minimum.

"Earth" or "ground" becomes something else in the presense of a
surge. "Ground" does not revpresen an infinite volume of zero-voltage
space. Any grounding system is limited by the impedance to some arbitrary
reference point. If lightening hits the power lines entering a structure
ground potential can rise significantly inside the structure. However is
all the devices inside the structure only see the potentials the
protections devices allow to pass, damage is minimized.

A simple analogy is ESD packaging. Devices inside a sealed ESD bag are
protected from ESD as they can not see what goes on outside the bag. A
connection to "ground" is not required for this protection.

If a 'magic box' was sufficient, then it would claim such protection
in spec sheets. Why no such claim? Why is a 'magic box' that does
not even claim to provide protection also called sufficient?

For fun with words. Cute but meaningless.

 

[w_tom]

A MOV works by limiting the voltage between two nodes of a circuit. It does
nothing else. It does not know about 'ground' or 'earth'. Devices
connected to the nodes are protected from surges greater than the
specifications of the MOV.

A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is the energy
dissipated? Do you really believe that 100 joule MOV is dissipating
energy of a direct lightning strike? That energy must be dissipated
somewhere. Where? Go back to Page 42 Figure 8. An MOV limited
voltage. Therefore protector was at 8000 volts on all wires.
Therefore protector earthed that 8000 volts destructively via adjacent
appliances (what craigm ignored) as voltage between those wires was
limited to something between 250 and 900 volts (what craigm defines as
protection). Why does craigm only post a half fact? Why does craigm
ignore where that energy was dissipated - 8000 volts destructively to
adjacent appliances because energy must be dissipated in earth.

craigm, how many protector systems have you designed and actually
seen the results? When you get to your third decade of experience,
then let me know. You are simply speculating same myths we debunked
decades ago by actually doing the work. You have even ignored the
typically destructive type of surge by assuming all surges are the
other typically non-destructive type. Your type of surge make
irrelevant by 'voltage limiting' is also made irrelevant by circuits
inside electronics.

MOV limits voltage between black, white and green wires (maybe to
500 volts). But the typically destructive surge entering on black
wire and is shunted to white and green wire is still seeking earth
ground. Its still seeking earth ground - simply has more wires to
destructively find earth. Having shunted (clamped, connected,
limited, diverted) that surge current to other wires means that surge
current stop seeking earth ground? Of course not. But that is what
you have claimed. Having shunted that surge current to other wires
means the energy need not be dissipated? Of course not. But that is
also what you have claimed.

A surge shunted from black wire to white and green wire (what you
call voltage limiting) now has many times more paths to destructively
seek earth ground via appliance. No way around that realty. If not
via one adjacent TV, then destructively via another appliance: Page
42 Figure 8. Why do you even ignore the facts demonstrated on Page 42
Figure 8? You must to keep promoting the myths.

Two facts (and there are many more): both demonstrate why your
reasoning is bogus. Why do you ignore both reasons; therefore promote
myths? A surge protector does not do as you have claimed. Shunt mode
protectors shunt surge energy to earth ground. Ineffective protector
sold as massive profits with insufficient MOVs don't even have an
earth ground. But you promoting ridiculous myths that even the
manufacturer will not claim. Why does the protector manufacturer not
make your protection claims in their numeric specs? They don't need
to. They have you even pretending that surge energy completely
disappears - need not be dissipated.

A protector without earth ground to shunt that energy into may
instead dissipate that energy into adjacent appliances - Page 42
Figure 8. No earth ground means no effective protection. No wonder
the responsible manufacturers make 'whole house' protector with that
dedicated earthing wire. They don't need you to promote myths for
them. Instead, protectors from responsible manufactures earth that
surge before it can even enter the building.

Provided is how to kludge a completely ineffective plug-in protector
into something that might earth a surge. You have no idea how a
protector works. Telco switching computers everywhere in the world
suffer surges from overhead wires all over town - and must never
suffer damage. Critical is locating the protector distant from
electronics - typically less than 50 meters. Important is for the
surge to be earthed long before getting near to electronics. Telcos
don't was money on what craigm recommends because it is ineffective -
makes damage to electronics easier.

So which one of us designed, built, and tested these solutions as an
engineer for many decades? Not you. Your have even assumed the non-
destructive type of surge is the only type of surge. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. Craigm denies what is well
proven where people learned science - not promote half truths. Craigm
even assumes the surge that typically does not do damage is the only
surge. Craigm completely ignores where that surge energy must be
dissipated.

 

[w_tom]

"Earth" is not protection. Numerous lightening victims connected to earth
were not protected.

Protection is keeping the voltages seen by the protected device to a
minimum.

Wow. You have no idea how electricity works. Earthing the victim or
electronics provides zero protection as my posts have demonstrated
repeatedly. A surge not earthed means Page 42 Figure 8. All wires
shunted together and the surge is now at 8000 volts - still seeking
earth ground.

What protects that victim? Nobody said - nobody would be foolish
enough to even suggest - earthng a victim provides protection.
Protection is earthing a surge before it harms a human or
electronics. Craigm - you did not even learn how Ben Franklin
lightning rods protect people and property? You did not even learn
primary school science - and yet know everything about surge
protection? Why do you mock people's intelligence? Why do you claim
a victim is protected if earthed? But then it also explains why you
think voltage limiting means there is no energy to be dissiipated. It
also explains why you assume the surge seeking earth ground will stop
seeking earth ground if some wires are shunted together by a
protector.

Craigm even thought an earthed human is recommended as protection
from lightning? Wow. We have a serious problem in the education
system. After all those posts, he still has no grasp of the
concept. No wonder he promotes half truth myths about plug-in
protectors. Plug-in protector manufacturers need craigm to claim he
has technical knowledge. He does not even understand what a Franklin
lightning rod does.

 

[Jamie]

A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is the energy
dissipated? Do you really believe that 100 joule MOV is dissipating
energy of a direct lightning strike? That energy must be dissipated
somewhere. Where? Go back to Page 42 Figure 8. An MOV limited
voltage. Therefore protector was at 8000 volts on all wires.
Therefore protector earthed that 8000 volts destructively via adjacent
appliances (what craigm ignored) as voltage between those wires was
limited to something between 250 and 900 volts (what craigm defines as
protection). Why does craigm only post a half fact? Why does craigm
ignore where that energy was dissipated - 8000 volts destructively to
adjacent appliances because energy must be dissipated in earth.

craigm, how many protector systems have you designed and actually
seen the results? When you get to your third decade of experience,
then let me know. You are simply speculating same myths we debunked
decades ago by actually doing the work. You have even ignored the
typically destructive type of surge by assuming all surges are the
other typically non-destructive type. Your type of surge make
irrelevant by 'voltage limiting' is also made irrelevant by circuits
inside electronics.

MOV limits voltage between black, white and green wires (maybe to
500 volts). But the typically destructive surge entering on black
wire and is shunted to white and green wire is still seeking earth
ground. Its still seeking earth ground - simply has more wires to
destructively find earth. Having shunted (clamped, connected,
limited, diverted) that surge current to other wires means that surge
current stop seeking earth ground? Of course not. But that is what
you have claimed. Having shunted that surge current to other wires
means the energy need not be dissipated? Of course not. But that is
also what you have claimed.

A surge shunted from black wire to white and green wire (what you
call voltage limiting) now has many times more paths to destructively
seek earth ground via appliance. No way around that realty. If not
via one adjacent TV, then destructively via another appliance: Page
42 Figure 8. Why do you even ignore the facts demonstrated on Page 42
Figure 8? You must to keep promoting the myths.

Two facts (and there are many more): both demonstrate why your
reasoning is bogus. Why do you ignore both reasons; therefore promote
myths? A surge protector does not do as you have claimed. Shunt mode
protectors shunt surge energy to earth ground. Ineffective protector
sold as massive profits with insufficient MOVs don't even have an
earth ground. But you promoting ridiculous myths that even the
manufacturer will not claim. Why does the protector manufacturer not
make your protection claims in their numeric specs? They don't need
to. They have you even pretending that surge energy completely
disappears - need not be dissipated.

A protector without earth ground to shunt that energy into may
instead dissipate that energy into adjacent appliances - Page 42
Figure 8. No earth ground means no effective protection. No wonder
the responsible manufacturers make 'whole house' protector with that
dedicated earthing wire. They don't need you to promote myths for
them. Instead, protectors from responsible manufactures earth that
surge before it can even enter the building.

Provided is how to kludge a completely ineffective plug-in protector
into something that might earth a surge. You have no idea how a
protector works. Telco switching computers everywhere in the world
suffer surges from overhead wires all over town - and must never
suffer damage. Critical is locating the protector distant from
electronics - typically less than 50 meters. Important is for the
surge to be earthed long before getting near to electronics. Telcos
don't was money on what craigm recommends because it is ineffective -
makes damage to electronics easier.

So which one of us designed, built, and tested these solutions as an
engineer for many decades? Not you. Your have even assumed the non-
destructive type of surge is the only type of surge. A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. Craigm denies what is well
proven where people learned science - not promote half truths. Craigm
even assumes the surge that typically does not do damage is the only
surge. Craigm completely ignores where that surge energy must be
dissipated.

you would make a good radio preacher., after the first couple of lines.
the rest just sounds like noise!
sorry, I don't want to get involved in your discussion but you could of
shorten that a bit!

 

[w_tom]

sorry, I don't want to get involved in your discussion but you could of
shorten that a bit!

Yes, but that means removing the many reasons why. Answers without
whys are akin to lies. We have a glorious president who demonstrated
same with WMDs.

Show me how we discuss protection without discussing energy? The
example is even Page 42 Figure 8 where 8000 volts was destructively
shunted (energy dissipated in) an adjacent TV. Why? Because the
protector limted voltage between some wires. Also notice important
numbers that are necessary - posted because craigm posts no numbers -
such as 250 to 900 volts - or what craigm calls voltage limiting.

Yes it is longer because it has numbers, defines details that craigm
ignored to obtain a bogus conclusion, and demonstrates the many other
facts that craigm forgot to provide.

How do we know he is posting half facts? He ignores Page 42 Figure
8 - those 8000 volts through an adjacent TV. He pretends there is no
energy to dissipate. He ignores the fact that a surge (voltage
limited or not) still seeks earth ground. And all that is paragraph
one - one some of the reasons why craigm has posted half facts and
erroneous conclusions.

So please, tell me. How do you provide the so many necessary facts
that craigm does not grasp and completely ignores to prove WMDs by
using sound byte reasoning. Why could so many be lied to about WMDs?
Lies are easy in sound bytes. But those of us who saw through the
myths instead read papers and reports far longer. That is a problem
when technical reality confronts soundbyte reasoning. Logic takes
many more paragraphs to explain - and requires numerous reasons why.
Sound byte rationalization simply glosses over facts - and does not
even provide numbers. Yes, if you do not concentrate on the many
points, then you would also believe Saddam had WMDs.

I would appreciate you editing that post - reduce its length without
removing reason after reason why craigm just does not grasp basic
electrical concepts. I would love to see concepts written simpler.
But soundbyte logic cannot explain the 'whys' in reality.