Power Surge & Blown Fuses

[[email protected]]

We had a power surge, a rather large one. It trip most of the breakers
in our panel and al surge protectors trip. All but one TV did not power
up again. The electrician who came in to check our panel(wanted to make
sure everything was ok) stated that most of the TV's fuses did their
jobs and that I should just open and replace them.

Not too sure, but I did open one of them, Toshiba 14" 14AF46 (< 6
months old) and the fuse where the power comes into the board was
blown. It is a 125V/6.3A. My background is with computer boards from a
PC side and not with TV's. Before I go and waste my time and make the
repair more costly, could it be as simple as replacing the fuse? If so,
where would one normally purchase these fuses, not a common type.

The only TV that turns on still is a Sony KV-36XBR250. The image is
black and gray(can't really say white) and everything looks like a
hazy, reversed, indented images. The sound is fine. Is this TV toast?
Better to trash and replace?

I have replaced fuses before on two older tv's several years back, but
I am not sure about this newer TV.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

ER -

 

[L.]

We had a power surge, a rather large one. It trip most of the breakers
in our panel and al surge protectors trip. All but one TV did not power
up again. The electrician who came in to check our panel(wanted to make
sure everything was ok) stated that most of the TV's fuses did their
jobs and that I should just open and replace them.

Not too sure, but I did open one of them, Toshiba 14" 14AF46 (< 6
months old) and the fuse where the power comes into the board was
blown. It is a 125V/6.3A. My background is with computer boards from a
PC side and not with TV's. Before I go and waste my time and make the
repair more costly, could it be as simple as replacing the fuse? If so,
where would one normally purchase these fuses, not a common type.

The only TV that turns on still is a Sony KV-36XBR250. The image is
black and gray(can't really say white) and everything looks like a
hazy, reversed, indented images. The sound is fine. Is this TV toast?
Better to trash and replace?

I have replaced fuses before on two older tv's several years back, but
I am not sure about this newer TV.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

ER -

IF the power surge was a result of the Power Companie's equipment and you
can somewhat prove it, THEY may end up repairing or replacing your set.
I've seen it done locally. Give them a call.

L.

 

[James Sweet]

We had a power surge, a rather large one. It trip most of the breakers
in our panel and al surge protectors trip. All but one TV did not power
up again. The electrician who came in to check our panel(wanted to make
sure everything was ok) stated that most of the TV's fuses did their
jobs and that I should just open and replace them.

Not too sure, but I did open one of them, Toshiba 14" 14AF46 (< 6
months old) and the fuse where the power comes into the board was
blown. It is a 125V/6.3A. My background is with computer boards from a
PC side and not with TV's. Before I go and waste my time and make the
repair more costly, could it be as simple as replacing the fuse? If so,
where would one normally purchase these fuses, not a common type.

The only TV that turns on still is a Sony KV-36XBR250. The image is
black and gray(can't really say white) and everything looks like a
hazy, reversed, indented images. The sound is fine. Is this TV toast?
Better to trash and replace?

I have replaced fuses before on two older tv's several years back, but
I am not sure about this newer TV.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

ER -

Replace the fuse *once* with one of the *correct* rating and try it. If
it blows again then you have further damage.

 

[Jim Land]

[email protected] wrote in @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

We had a power surge, a rather large one. It trip most of the breakers
in our panel and all surge protectors trip. ... one TV did not power
up again.

I thought that this is exactly the situation surge protectors are supposed
to guard against. Aren't they supposed to sense the surge and trip their
own breakers *before* the surge gets to whatever is plugged into them?

How did the surge make it through the surge protector and into the tv to
blow the fuse?

 

[w_tom]

Fuses require tens of milliseconds to trip (blow). Surges do damage
in microseconds. Fuses and circuit breakers don't stop or block surges
- too slow. Circuit protection devices trip to protect humans after a
higher energy source (AC electric) powers through damaged appliances.

Try replacing fuses. Fuses are cheap. You may get lucky. But
protecting hardware from damage is not from a fuse / circuit breaker
purpose - too slow.

Meanwhile, if utility failure (as another suggested) created high
voltage, then utility should pay. Any linemen working in the area?
Unfortunately, you must provide some reason for the utility to accept
blame.

 

[Bud--]

[email protected] wrote in @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:




I thought that this is exactly the situation surge protectors are supposed
to guard against. Aren't they supposed to sense the surge and trip their
own breakers *before* the surge gets to whatever is plugged into them?

How did the surge make it through the surge protector and into the tv to
blow the fuse?

Power system surge suppressors are usually based on MOVs. A MOV clamps
the voltage between 2 wires (like a bidirectional Zenier diode). The
clamp voltage is low enough to not damage equipment connected
downstream. If you have a surge on an incoming hot wire and you clamp
the voltage from hot to neutral in a service panel, the voltage on the
neutral tries to rise. Since the neutral is connected to ground/earth in
a US service panel the surge is shunted to ground. Currents of thousands
of amps can result, but max few millisecond duration since a surge is by
definition a short duration event. Effectiveness of protection depends
on the current and duration of the surge versus the ratings of the surge
protector. Plug-in surge protectors may have low protection ratings.
MOVs hit with surges near their ratings will deteriorate and eventually
fail.

High earth current will locally raise the earth potential. If other
connections, like CATV, do not have their entry protectors tied with
short connections to the neutral-ground connection point at the
electrical service, thousands of volts can appear between power wires
and CATV. If a plug-in surge suppressor is used, the CATV, phone and
other wiring to a device has to go through the suppressor so all wires
are clamped to the common ground at the suppressor.

A good guide on surges and protection from the IEEE is at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf

and from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

bud--

 

[James Sweet]

[email protected] wrote in @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:




I thought that this is exactly the situation surge protectors are supposed
to guard against. Aren't they supposed to sense the surge and trip their
own breakers *before* the surge gets to whatever is plugged into them?

How did the surge make it through the surge protector and into the tv to
blow the fuse?

Surge protectors are largely snake oil, they can help some in some
situations, but a severe surge will blast right through one. The circuit
breaker in the surge protector is far too slow to trip in time to fully
protect the device.

 

[w_tom]

How did the surge make it through the surge protector and into the tv to
blow the fuse?

James Sweet introduced reasons why a plug-in protector does not
provide protection. Protectors don't stop, block, or absorb surges.
To do that, a protector must be a series mode device. But it is a
shunt mode device. Protector is effective if it shunted (connected,
diverted, clamped) a surge to earth. But protectors without earthing
(a problem when adjacent to the tv) cannot be effective. No numerical
specifications for each type transient are published by that protector
manufacturer. Even manufacturer does not claim protection you assumed
existed. So myths are promoted based upon word association: surge
protector sounds like surge protecction - therefore it must provide
protection.

A surge not earthed before entering a building may overwhelm
protection already inside the tv. One effective protector (because it
is earthed) for all household appliances that costs only $1 per
protected appliance and that is provided with responsible manufacturer
brand names such as Square D, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic,
Leviton, or GE. How much did you pay for a protector that was too
small and does not even claim to protect? A daming statement. Where
are numbers that define proetction?

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

Surge protectors are largely snake oil, they can help some in some
situations, but a severe surge will blast right through one. The circuit
breaker in the surge protector is far too slow to trip in time to fully
protect the device.

True only if you have surge suppressors that rely on breakers for
protection, in which case it would not be considered a surge suppressor,
otherwise bullshit. Virtually all surge suppressors now use MOVs. They are
effective if adequately designed and installed. Do some reading in Bud's
links and look at how the better surge suppresors are designed.

Leonard

 

[bud--]

James Sweet introduced reasons why a plug-in protector does not
provide protection.

James Sweet's comments appear to be applied to all surge suppressors
and provided no reasons why they don't work, unless you have changed
your mind and think protectors work by using circuit breakers.

Protectors don't stop, block, or absorb surges.
To do that, a protector must be a series mode device. But it is a
shunt mode device. Protector is effective if it shunted (connected,
diverted, clamped) a surge to earth. But protectors without earthing
(a problem when adjacent to the tv) cannot be effective.

As is clear from the IEEE guide, plug-in protectors work primarily by
clamping, not series mode, shunt mode, stoping, blocking or absorbing.
Your religous view that "protectors without earthing ... cannot be
effective" appears to prevent you from understanding the IEEE and NIST
guides.

No numerical
specifications for each type transient are published by that protector
manufacturer.

I am astounded that SquareD is on your list of "responsible
manufacturers" since their literature does not provide "numerical
specifications for each type transient". Please review the other
manufacturers and provide a link to "numerical specifications for each
type transient" from one of them.

The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0

bud--

 

[w_tom]

The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.

Amazing that bud still posts his ... well bud represents interests of
plug-in protectors manufacturers. He cites a papers that demonstrate
an SRE concept, defines notes how the concept is compromised, and then
recommend the well proven and recommend protection method (ie 'whole
house' protection). What does effective protection have and plug-in
protectors don't? Dedicated earthing connection. From a conclusion in
bud's own citations:

High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
service entrance of the premises.

What does NIST and IEEE recommend?

Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

Bud simply distorts a paper that says SRE protection (a protector
without earthing connection) can work. Bud forgets what that paper
says; that even a kid with an Xbox can violate that protection.
Remember, bud promoted plug-in protector manufacturers. Effective
protection is defined by IEEE Red Book (IEEE STd 141) and IEEE Green
Book (IEEE Std 142):

In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges, and
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

Meanwhile, author that bud repeatedly cites also says that plug-in
protectors can even contribute to electronic damage:

1) ... objectionable difference in reference voltages ... occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Paper that bud cites do not say that plug-in protectors are
effective. Bud cannot even define effective - so that he need not
admit why plug-in protectors are both ineffective and so often grossly
overpriced. Bud's own citations even say the properly earthed
protector is a superior solution. Bud intentionally would confuse you
by citing the concept, then proclaiming a technical description as a
recommendation. This post but again a warning about those who promote
grossly overpriced and typically undersized protectors - that are so
profitable.

 

[Bud--]

Amazing that bud still posts his ... well bud represents interests of
plug-in protectors manufacturers.

To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger.." I have nothing to
do with surge protectors.

Bud simply distorts a paper that says SRE protection (a protector
without earthing connection) can work. Bud forgets what that paper
says; that even a kid with an Xbox can violate that protection.

The guides don't mention Xboxes. In case anyone doesn't understand w_,
he claims the guides say using a SRE requires difficult engineering,
considering the whole room. The guides show simple application of SREs.
Claiming difficult application is stupid.

Paper that bud cites do not say that plug-in protectors are
effective.

To take only one example: the IEEE guide, chapter 6, "Specific
Protection Examples," shows 2 examples of surge protection. Both use SREs.
Saying both guides waste a lot of space describing SREs that are not
effective is stupid. Repeatedly making this claim requires willful stupidity


The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: still 0

bud--

 

[Homer J Simpson]

The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: still
0

I saw a photo of a cheap suppressor that had clearly had a serious hit. It
was hidden behind furniture and the customer didn't know until he moved
because the equipment continued to run OK.

 

[Bud--]

I saw a photo of a cheap suppressor that had clearly had a serious hit. It
was hidden behind furniture and the customer didn't know until he moved
because the equipment continued to run OK.

The IEEE guide talks quite a bit about wiring the protected load across
the MOVs, which will disconnect the load when the MOVs are disconnected,
or wiring the protected load so it is not disconnected. There are
potential advantages both ways. I believe UL now requires suppressors
that don't disconnect the load with the MOVs to state that (could be in
the guide).

UL also now requires MOVs that overheat be disconnected. Before the
change plug-in suppressors could melt the plastic case.

The former NIST guru on surges, who wrote the NIST guide, has said most
MOV failures (I presume service panel and plug-in) are a result of
overvoltage, not surge.

bud--

 

[w_tom]

...

UL also now requires MOVs that overheat be disconnected. Before the
change plug-in suppressors could melt the plastic case.

IOW plug-in protectors are for profit - not for effective protection.
Many are grossly undersized. When it fails or vaporizes (operates
outside of what MOV manufacturer datasheets define for acceptable
operation), then that protector is recommended by the naive to the
naive - more sales. Best to make plug-in protectors undersized. Ask
yourself. Do you want these devices behind a desk or on the rug.
These are what Bud is promoting as effective protection:
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

Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are so effective.
Properly sized so that the surge is earthed - and homeowner never knows
a surge existed. That is how surge protectors performed even 50+ years
ago.

They don't have the necessary earthing connection. They must do
something to sell their ineffective products. One way is to undersize
the protectors. However, that can have dangerous consequences.

 

[Bud--]

IOW plug-in protectors are for profit - not for effective protection.
Many are grossly undersized. When it fails or vaporizes (operates
outside of what MOV manufacturer datasheets define for acceptable
operation), then that protector is recommended by the naive to the
naive - more sales. Best to make plug-in protectors undersized. Ask
yourself. Do you want these devices behind a desk or on the rug.
These are what Bud is promoting as effective protection:
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

As you very well know, and as I stated in the quote above, UL "now
requires MOVs that overheat be disconnected." Your scare tactics are
pathetic.

One can certainly get undersized protectors. That is why the IEEE and
NIST published guides, and why I posted links to them.

They don't have the necessary earthing connection.

And the required statement of religous belief again. As the IEEE guide
explains to those who can read, plug-in suppressors work primarily by
clamping, not earthing.

They must do
something to sell their ineffective products.

The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0
63,458,237 pages on the internet and noone agrees with you???

bud--

 

[[email protected]]

w_tom wrote:

As you very well know, and as I stated in the quote above, UL "now
requires MOVs that overheat be disconnected." Your scare tactics are
pathetic.

One can certainly get undersized protectors. That is why the IEEE and
NIST published guides, and why I posted links to them.


And the required statement of religous belief again. As the IEEE guide
explains to those who can read, plug-in suppressors work primarily by
clamping, not earthing.


The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0
63,458,237 pages on the internet and noone agrees with you???

bud--

You appear to confuse popularity with proof.

If you want to understand something, asking those with $ to make out of
it is not the way. The route to knowledge is to ask those with skills
qualifications and experience in the science and engineering of the
matter.

Obviously those with $ to make will seek to convince potential buyers
of the value of their overpriced undereffective products.


NT

 

[w_tom]

Facts that Bud routinely forgets to mention from his citations.
Figure 8 from his own citation shows two televisions connected a
plug-in protector. Both televisions then go to 8000+ volts during a
massive surge. Somehow Bud assumes this is protection. Somehow, Bud
assumes other conductive materials in that room (floors, walls, other
AC receptacles, pipes, etc) do not compromise that protection. Somehow
Bud claims that equipotential alone provided protection. And so Bud
routinely forgets a very first conclusion made by Martzloff, et al in
an IEEE paper:

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

Do we install expensive plug-in protectors even for dishwasher, smoke
detectors, bathroom GFCI, clock radio, dimmer switches, etc? Of course
not. We spend tens of times less money for a protector that does both
equipotential and does conductivity; what a plug-in protector cannot
accomplish (because it does not have that earthing wire).

One 'whole house' protector, properly earthed, provides both
conductivity and equipotential for everything inside a building - at
about $1 per protected appliance.

Protectors properly sized so that these scary pictures need not
occur:
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

Disconnecting undersized MOVs is a backup system. When protectors
use grossly undersized MOVs then human safety is dependent only on a
backup system.

Bud promotes for the plug-in protector industry. He fears you might
learn of those human safety threats and learn why that short connection
to earth is essential. We don't stop or absorb lighting surges. We
earth them so that appliance internal protection is not overwhelmed.
We earth transients using a protector properly sized so that those
scary pictures are irrelevant. Even Bud's own citation in figure 8
shows televisions at 10,000+ volts when only using a plug-in protector.
Somehow he calls that effective protection.

 

[Bud--]

Facts that Bud routinely forgets to mention from his citations.
Figure 8 from his own citation shows two televisions connected a
plug-in protector. Both televisions then go to 8000+ volts during a
massive surge. Somehow Bud assumes this is protection.

For those who can read, the IEEE guide cited uses Fig 8 to explain how
SREs work. For those who can read the IEEE guide clearly recognizes
plug-in surge suppressors as effective.

Somehow, Bud
assumes other conductive materials in that room (floors, walls, other
AC receptacles, pipes, etc) do not compromise that protection. Somehow
Bud claims that equipotential alone provided protection.

The application of SREs in the IEEE guide is simple and straightforward.
Your claims that engineering expertise is required, considering the
whole room is nowhere in the guides or any other paper and is willfull
stupidity.

And so Bud
routinely forgets a very first conclusion made by Martzloff, et al in
an IEEE paper:

One of the authors of the Upside-Down house papers was Martzloff, who
wrote the NIST guide which recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as
effective. Another author was Dr. Mansoor. Yor previous comments
provoked the following from an EE:
"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"

Do we install expensive plug-in protectors even for dishwasher, smoke
detectors, bathroom GFCI, clock radio, dimmer switches, etc?

Progection decisions are a tradeoff of progection cost, risk and value
of protected equipment. Protecing a clock radio wouldn't make sense.
Protecting a home theater system does. As does protecting a computer,
primarily because of the value of the data and software contents and the
time required to set up a new one.

what a plug-in protector cannot
accomplish (because it does not have that earthing wire).

And the required statement of religious belief.

Protectors properly sized so that these scary pictures need not
occur:
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

A repet of your pathetic scare tactics. As stated previously, UL
standards now require disconnect of failing MOVs.

Bud promotes for the plug-in protector industry.

And the political trick back again.


The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: still 0

bud--

 

[Bud--]

You appear to confuse popularity with proof.

If you want to understand something, asking those with $ to make out of
it is not the way. The route to knowledge is to ask those with skills
qualifications and experience in the science and engineering of the
matter.

Obviously those with $ to make will seek to convince potential buyers
of the value of their overpriced undereffective products.


NT

I really don't understand your comments. What I have said is
consistently based on the IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
and an equivalent guide from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
They guides were writen by 6 EEs as guides to the general public on
surges and surge protection. I don't where you could better find people
with "skills qualifications and experience in the science and
engineering of the matter" than the IEEE and NIST. The author of the
NIST guide has written many published papers on surges and protection.

I have not quoted "those with $" in this thread and have never used them
as authorities.

bud--