Surge Protectors
in [Repair]
|
From: ian field on 4 Jun 2010 16:03 <vjp2.at(a)at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com> wrote in message news:htq3ba$a0r$2(a)reader1.panix.com... > > *+-even the cheap suppressors I've bought had 3 MOVs,one for each leg to > *+-ground and from one leg to the other. I guess that's a "delta" config. > > Do surge supressors exist for two-line phone connections? Most commercial telecom kit has MOVs but some high end gear has gas discharge surge suppressors. Once in a while I've found answering machines with something resembling a neon bulb where the line lead connects to the PCB.
From: Jeffrey D Angus on 8 Jun 2010 17:48 Cydrome Leader wrote: > So, did martzloff test this item? > > http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10184.html ETL Certified. > http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04573.html No listing of it on the Belkin home page, or in their recall listings. > how about energizer branded products, were these tested: > > http://cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04002.html Canadian UL So, what point were trying to make about UL ? Jeff -- �Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.� Frank Leahy, Head coach, Notre Dame 1941-1954 http://www.stay-connect.com
From: westom on 8 Jun 2010 22:24 On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...(a)isp.com> wrote: > Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical > to test whether they work. Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a protector have to be working after all tests? No. Protector can fail - provide no protection. But if that failure does not create a fire threat, then the protector is UL Listed. UL is not about surge protection. UL is only about human safety. And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors from causing house fires. Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct lightning strikes do not cause protector failure. Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited Dr Martzloff says no. Plug-in protectors, in some cases can contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground) earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. UL does not care. UL's only concern is that protector does not cause a house fire. From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection) protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute to nearby appliance damage: > 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 do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector. Then expensive Tripplite, et al plug-in protectors are protected.
From: bud-- on 9 Jun 2010 11:36 westom wrote: > On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...(a)isp.com> wrote: >> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical >> to test whether they work. > > Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a > protector have to be working after all tests? No. westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he uses google groups to look for "surge". As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during later tests that determine they fail safely. So does a suppressor have to be working after *all* the tests? No. The later tests are intended to cause failure. Does it have to successfully suppress the test surges and remain fully functional? Yes. > > And still UL Listed protector were causing house fires. So now we > have UL 1449 3rd edition. More attempts to keep undersized protectors > from causing house fires. In westom's mind plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and service panel suppressors have mega-ratings. In fact: - UL listed suppressors have been tested to provide at least a floor level of protection. - As I said previously, the amount of energy absorbed in a MOV in a plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small, even with a very strong strike to a utility pole behind a house (information from Martzloff technical papers). - Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily and cheaply available. UL standards are constantly changing. Where is the massive record of house fires? > > Better is to earth a properly sized protector so that even direct > lightning strikes do not cause protector failure. westom's objection to plug-in suppressors is really based on his belief that all protection must directly involve earthing the surge. Since plug-in suppressors protect primarily by clamping, not earthing, westom cannot figure out how they work. Perhaps because his earthing belief makes him look like even more of a nut, it is almost nonexistent in this thread. > > Do plug-in protectors do effective surge protection? Even the cited > Dr Martzloff says no. What does Martzloff really say about plug-in suppressors? Read what he wrote in the NIST surge guide: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. > Plug-in protectors, in some cases can > contribute to nearby appliance damage which is what bud's IEEE > brochure shows on page 42 Figure 8: > http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf > It shows a nearby protector (located too far from earth ground) > earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. If poor westom could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE surge guide says in this example: - A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it. - "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." - In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector." - westom's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection. It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example damages the second TV. > > From Dr Martzloff's 1994 IEEE paper on plug-in (point of connection) > protectors - his first conclusion says a protector can even contribute > to nearby appliance damage: westom forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same paper: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport surge suppressors (including ports for phone and cable) were just a concept or very new. The whole point of his paper was that multiport suppressors were effective protecting, for example, TVs with both power and cable connection. On alt.engineering.electrical, westom similarly misconstrued the views of Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, and provoked a response from an electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL." Trying to twist sources to say the opposite of what they really say is a favorite tactic. > > What do informed homeowners do so that plug-in protectors do not > cause house fires? Earth one 'whole house' protector. A service panel suppressor is a good idea. But again quoting from NIST surge guide: "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." A service panel suppressor does not limit the voltage between power and cable/phone wires, which the NIST surge guide suggests is the cause of most equipment damage. For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides to surge protection. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective - there are none. Simple questions that have never been answered: - 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"? - Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42? - Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]"? - Why does Dr. Mansoor support multiport plug-in suppressors? -- bud--
From: GregS on 9 Jun 2010 12:49
In article <8b8a$4c0fb589$cde8d56a$17907(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, bud-- <remove.budnews(a)isp.com> wrote: >westom wrote: >> On Jun 7, 2:56 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...(a)isp.com> wrote: >>> Some equipment, like TVs are tested to fail safely - it is not practical >>> to test whether they work. >> >> Which is what UL testing does. It tests for human safety. Does a >> protector have to be working after all tests? No. > >westom (aka w_tom) is a well known internet nut on a religious crusade >to eliminate the scourge of plug-in suppressors. He is here because he >uses google groups to look for "surge". > >As I said previously (and westom conveniently did not include), UL >requires that suppressors - plug-in and service panel - be fully >functional after a series of 20 test surges. They can fail only during >later tests that determine they fail safely. I have been thinking of putting a main surpressor in the breaker box. When I moved in the power company said there was one installed in the meter, and if I wanted to continue using it it would cost so much per month. i didn't of course, but I wonder if they really took it out. ?? I put a couple in in the old house on the telephone lines to ground on the main wooden panel after I destroyed a modem. Never had any know hits after that though. just last week guy here said his surge surpressor exploded as a hit happened outside the house. His TV still works. greg |