w_tom wrote:
> On Aug 29, 5:00 pm, ehsjr <eh...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> 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:
>
>>Wrong. Surge protectors of the type you mention - MOV's
>>absorb both differential and common mode surges.
>

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


>
> 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

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

On Aug 30, 1:02 am, ehsjr <eh...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> I did not say *all* the surge energy is absorbed in the MOV. But
>> Ed did.
>
> LIAR.
> ...
>
>> 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
>
> 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.

On Aug 30, 11:02 am, bud-- <remove.BudN...@isp.com> wrote:
> ...
> 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.

w_tom wrote:

> On Aug 30, 11:02 am, bud-- <remove.BudN...@isp.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.

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.)

On Aug 30, 9:16 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

w_tom wrote:

> On Aug 30, 9:16 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.


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.

On Aug 31, 1:57 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 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?

w_tom wrote:

> On Aug 31, 1:57 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> 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..

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.

> 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?

On Sep 2, 12:46 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

On Sep 2, 12:46 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> 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.

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.

On Sep 2, 8:27 pm, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> 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.

w_tom wrote:

> On Sep 2, 8:27 pm, Jamie
> <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>

As with others, you seem to attribute words to me that I didn't write.

The second TV is unprotected because of a poor installation. I am talking
about the successfully protected set.

You should not be trying to draw conclusions from what I don't say.

I'm done with this discussion.

On Sep 2, 9:06 pm, craigm <n...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> As with others, you seem to attribute words to me that I didn't write.
>
> The second TV is unprotected because of a poor installation. I am talking
> about the successfully protected set.

On Page 42 Figure 8, the second TV is damaged because it is
protecting the first TV. Remember, energy in a surge must be
dissipated somewhere. Since the protector only voltage limited (did
not earth the surge), then the surge energy still must be earthed
somewhere. Once inside the building, the surge many find many
destructive paths to earth as even demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8

In another example, the TV and VCR were adjacent. But only the TV
was connected to a plug-in protector. Therefore the homeowner assumed
that protector protected the TV. Reality. Surge protector simply
shunted the surge through the easiest path to earth. That was the
VCR. VCR was damaged because 1) surge was not earthed before entering
the building, and 2) plug-in protector too close to electronics and
too far from earth ground therefore earthed the surge via the VCR.

Just another example of why all other appliances are assumed poorly
installed when using a protector as if it protects the first
appliance.

A surge permitted inside the building must dissipate its energy
somewhere. Just another reason why responsible homeowners do as even
the telco, commercial radio stations, US Air Force, and 911 emergency
response centers do. They enhance building earthing (to meet and
exceed post 1990 code requirements) and they earth one 'whole house'
protector (less than 10 feet) to that earthing.

What defines each layer of protection? A protector? Of course
not. Each protection layer is defined by the earthig electrode. We
have been discussing one properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
That is secondary protection. The homeowner should also inspect his
primary protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Earth ground is the protection. Earthing defines each protection
layer. Earthing is necessary so that surge energy is dissipated with
damage; in earth. How curious. Ben Franklin demonstrated the same
principle in 1752. Ben Franklin also provided protection by shunting
the surge to earth in a path that remained outside the building.

On Sep 2, 9:00 pm, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Ok, let me take a shot at it.
> "craigm: He said you don't know what the hell you're talking about"
> How's that, short enough?

But now it says nothing useful. New quote does not provide two or
seven reasons why he does not know. Misding are numbers and other
essential facts. Therefore that post is akin to an insult.

Unfortunately, when discussing MOVs and surge suppressors, most
people actually assume a protector somehow stops or absorbs what three
miles of sky could not. Obviously not - but that is what many assume
because of how protector are promoted. Therefore their erroneous
belief must be exposed AND what the protector actually does must be
explained. Explaining reality has more than doubled in length.

The soundbyte summary: a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground. But then some mistake a wall receptacle safety ground for
earth ground. So even that myth must be corrected. A protector
without a dedicated earthing wire does not claim and cannot provide
effective protection. But since it sells for so much money, to some,
that price is proof that a protector is also protection.

Your shorter post only attacks a misguided poster who recommends
ineffective protectors as if earthing was never necessary.

100 joules is a small protector. But small protector is standard in
so many plug-in UPSes that claim to have protection. It contains near
zero joules. Near zero joules is just enought to claim it does surge
protection. How many notices the near zero joules in so many UPSes
recommended for surge protection? Myths such as this also promote
ineffective plug-in protectors. Bud's job is to keep you confused so
that you don't learn why his protects with their massive profit
margins are so ineffective.

More of Bud's intentional lies. For example, irrelevant is what
happens to surge on neutral wire. The same surge on black wire is
still seeking earth ground. Make no different whether that surge is
on any other wire. That surge is still on black wire and still
seeking earth ground inside a building. Bud knew that. He spins a
lie hoping you had no idea what transverse mode means and only become
confused. He intentionally lies knowing that confusion causes the
reader to ignore technical reality and to only believe popular urban
myths.

Since Bud is promoting for plug-in protector manufacturers, since
those protector claim no protection from the destructive type of
surge, AND since those protectors have no earthing wire, then Bud
must spin myths and intentionally lie to confuse the importance of
earthing. If you forget that earthing provides the protection, then
you will spend tens (maybe 100) times more money per protected
appliance for his ineffective products.

If earthing was not critical; if earthing did not provide protection
- then why do all facilities that cannot suffer surge damage center
their protection system around the most critical component of that
protection 'system'? Single point earth ground. Why do they not
waste money on plug-in protectors that are grossly overpriced and
typically undersized? Bud will say anything to pervert this reality:
protection is earth ground. The protector is only as effective as its
earth ground.

Why did the adjacent TV on Page 42 Figure 8 get damaged by a surge
seeking earth ground? According to Bud, surge was not seeking earth
ground because the neutral wire was earthed. Even with an earthed
neutral wire, that surge was permitted inside the building,
distributed to other wires, and therefore found earth ground
destructively via an adjacent TV. Why did the surge seek earth ground
when Bud says it is transverse mode - does not seek earth ground? Who
do we believe? Bud or his citation - Page 42 Figure 8. Since the
surge was not earthed before entering a building.... well Bud claims
everything needs a plug-in protector - meaning $2000 or $4000 of these
ineffective protectors. Massive profits on protectors that don't even
claim to protect from a surge that causes TV damage on Page 42 Figure
8. But that protector is so profitable.

Page 42 Figure 8 - a surge that Bud claims is transverse mode
because neutral wire is earthed, instead, found earth ground
destructive via an adjacent TV. Surge energy must be dissipated
somewhere AND must find a path to earth ground. On Page 42 Figure 8
of Bud's own citation: 8000 volts destructively through the TV.

Bud repeatedly cites Martzloff - but only the parts that promote his
half truths. Meanwhile even Martzloff says plug-in (point of use)
protectors may create appliance damage. A point so important in
Martzloff's 1996 IEEE paper that the point is conclusion number one:
> 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.

What are the destructive surges that Martzloff studies? Its not
transverse mode. They are made irrelevant by protection inside
appliances. Destructive surges seek earth ground. Ground the
typically destructive surge either without damage via a 'whole house'
protector or direct earth ground connection, OR with damage
destructively via household appliances. But again, what does
Martzloff discuss, what is demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8, and what
does Bud avoid discussing? Protection is defined by earthing because
destructive surges seek earth ground.

Bud even lies about what his own citations say. Both say how a
protector might work AND how protectors can even create appliance
damage if the surge is not earthed. Even his own citation says the
protector should really be called a diverter because the effective
protector diverts surges to earth. Did Bud forget to mention that
part again? Yes. His intent is to create confusion - to protect
sales of those grossly overpriced and ineffective plug-in protectors
that high reliability facilities don't even waste money on.

On Sep 4, 10:56 am, bud-- <remove.BudN...@isp.com> wrote:
> w_ has said elsewhere that MOVs do not dissipate much of the energy of a
> surge.
>
> 100J would be very small for a plug-in suppressor. Very high ratings are
> readily available.
>
> The current (and energy dissipation) at a plug-in suppressor is limited
> by the impedance of the branch circuit wiring to a surge.
>
> If a surge comes in on power lines, with no service panel suppressor,
> there will be arc-over at panels and receptacles at about 6000V.
> Arc-over at the service panel dissipates most of a really large surge.
> (But service panel suppressors are a good idea.)
>
> In the US, any surge entering on the service neutral is directly earthed
> by the neutral-ground bond. Beyond the service, all surges will be
> transverse mode.
> ...
>
> The lie repeated. The plug-in suppressor protected the TV connected to
> it. It lowered the surge voltage at the 2nd TV. The point for the IEEE
> and anyone who can think is "to protect TV2, a second multiport
> protector located at TV2 is required." The cause of problems is a
> 'ground' wire from the cable entry to the power service that is too
> long, which is the case in many houses. The guide says when that happens
> "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
> multiport protector."
>
> A power service suppressor would provide *no* protection to either TV.
> ...
>
> Take a service panel suppressor in a system with a single ground rod.
> With a modest 1000A surge current to earth and a very good 10 ohms
> resistance to earth there will be 10,000V from the system ground to
> 'absolute' earth. As a rule of thumb, 70% of the voltage drop from a
> ground rod is in the first 3 feet from the rod. The voltage from system
> ground to earth beyond 3 feet from the rod will be 7,000V or more. That
> is most of the house in contact with the earth.
> ...

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:02:22 -0700, w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:

> A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is
> the energy dissipated?

True. The energy has to go elseware.

Ken wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:02:22 -0700, w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>> A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is
>>the energy dissipated?
>
>
> True. The energy has to go elseware.
>

The simple fact is that electrical energy gets
converted to heat energy whenever there is current
through resistance in the path 6the current takes,
in accordance with P = I^2R.

The energy in the case of a point of use protector
is what comes out of the panel and travels through the
specific branch circuit wiring to the MOV, *not* the
entire energy in the source outside of the house
(presumably lightning), or even the entire energy
that gets through the panel and splits among all
the branch crcuits.

What the point of use protector is clamping is the
let through voltage on the specific circuit, and the
MOV doesn't "see" all of it while it is clamping - some
is dropped in the wiring.

The energy is dissipated in the path from the panel to
the MOV protector, the MOV itself, and the path from the
MOV back to the panel. Electrical energy is converted
to heat, in accordance with ohm's law:

-- I-->
| |----PathR(t)----+
S |P | |
U--|A | MOVr
R--|N | |
G |E | |
E |L |----PathR(b)----+
| |
--

The energy will go to three places and be
converted to heat in each place:

Some energy will be converted to heat in the
top path as follows: I^2 * PathR(t) In conjunction
with the energy going to heat, there will be a
voltage drop in the path of V = I * PathR(t)

Some will be converted to heat in the MOV
as follows: I^2 * MOVr In conjunction with the energy
going to heat, there will be a voltage drop in the
MOV of V = I * MOVr

Some will be converted to heat in the
bottom path as follows: I^2 * PathR(b)
In conjunction with the energy going to heat, there
will be a voltage drop in the path of V = I * PathR(b)

The voltage across the MOV will be clamped by the
MOV to some value much lower than the let through
voltage, until the MOV dies or the let through
voltage drops below the level that keeps the MOV
in the low resistance state. 340 volts is a typical
clamping voltage spec.

Ed

On Sep 7, 5:33 am, Ken <_ken...@telia.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:02:22 -0700, w_tom <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
>> A surge has energy. If voltage is limited, then where is
>> the energy dissipated?
>
> True. The energy has to go elseware.

Some are claiming an MOV protector without earth ground is
sufficient protection. Somehow all that surge energy will be absorbed
by wires. And that current will stop seeking what it wants to connect
to - earth ground. Effective protectors are sold on science. The
energy is diverted to earth 1) so that the electrical path is via
things not damaged, and 2) so that the energy is absorbed in earth.
Wires and the MOV do not absorb all that energy as ehsjr claims.

In effective protection, little energy is absorbed by wires and
MOV. Massive energy is absorbed in earth. Only with proper earthing
is a little protector is so massively effective. That energy has to
go elsewhere. Those promoting protectors without earthing simply
pretend that energy it trivial or does not exist.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Earth is
where surge energy must be absorbed - not inside an MOV protector as
ehsjr so often claims.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:33:16 -0500, bud-- <remove.BudNews@isp.com>
wrote:

> Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug in suppressors are effective.

Yes, but only if they are connected in the right way.
They have to route the energy to ground.