Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Surge Protector question ?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 20, 2004 9:53:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I just ordered a Samsung 50" DLP HLP5063W.The Circuit City rep recommended
an $80 surge protector to even out the fluctuations in current due to other
appliances running.Does this sound right or would a standard protector
suffice ? Thanks
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 20, 2004 9:53:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Apothecon" <sailerph@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HwgLc.237$QW5.4@roc.nntpserver.com...
> I just ordered a Samsung 50" DLP HLP5063W.The Circuit City rep recommended
> an $80 surge protector to even out the fluctuations in current due to
other
> appliances running.Does this sound right or would a standard protector
> suffice ? Thanks
>
>

Run away from CC and buy one at Wal-Mart.

bearman
July 20, 2004 10:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

A surge protector protects against power surges. It does not do anything for
current fluctuations. For that you need a power conditioner and starting
prices for a good quality unit are higher than even good surge protectors.
Generally you get what you pay for.

In general, a surge protector is a good investment.

If you live in an area with frequent thunder storms, a surge protector is a
must unless you unplug you devices before the storms.

If you live in an area known for power fluctuations or brown-out then a
power conditioner is almost a must.

Finally, if you live in an area with frequent power outages, then a UPS
would be a good idea. This will allow you to turn off the HDTV, and allow
power to the cooling fan to complete its process extending the life of the
bulb.

Each option gets more expensive.

--
Chris

"Apothecon" <sailerph@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HwgLc.237$QW5.4@roc.nntpserver.com...
> I just ordered a Samsung 50" DLP HLP5063W.The Circuit City rep recommended
> an $80 surge protector to even out the fluctuations in current due to
other
> appliances running.Does this sound right or would a standard protector
> suffice ? Thanks
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 21, 2004 7:08:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I couldn't agree more. I view my Hitachi RPTV plus DVD and Kenwood sound
system the same as my PC and it's peripherals and hence protect it with a
good surge protector and power conditioner. Last year, just after I bought
all this stuff we had the big power outage in the East. The power went off,
then came on, then went off again. Three days later it was still going on
and off periodically. I didn't worry a bit about my electronics. All
nicely protected.

JK

"Chris" <chrisc@ica.net> wrote in message
news:lSgLc.457$KF.2532@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> A surge protector protects against power surges. It does not do anything
for
> current fluctuations. For that you need a power conditioner and starting
> prices for a good quality unit are higher than even good surge protectors.
> Generally you get what you pay for.
>
> In general, a surge protector is a good investment.
>
> If you live in an area with frequent thunder storms, a surge protector is
a
> must unless you unplug you devices before the storms.
>
> If you live in an area known for power fluctuations or brown-out then a
> power conditioner is almost a must.
>
> Finally, if you live in an area with frequent power outages, then a UPS
> would be a good idea. This will allow you to turn off the HDTV, and allow
> power to the cooling fan to complete its process extending the life of the
> bulb.
>
> Each option gets more expensive.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> "Apothecon" <sailerph@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:HwgLc.237$QW5.4@roc.nntpserver.com...
> > I just ordered a Samsung 50" DLP HLP5063W.The Circuit City rep
recommended
> > an $80 surge protector to even out the fluctuations in current due to
> other
> > appliances running.Does this sound right or would a standard protector
> > suffice ? Thanks
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 21, 2004 11:19:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I also highly recommend getting one it only takes one incident, I had an
experience of a power surge a few years ago (thank you Peco) but my TV
and other stuff was on a surge protector, it took a beating (I could
smell burning in my family room it was the surge protector) but it
protected my stuff.
It's a one time purchase for a few dollars that may save you over time
it's like insurance you hope you never need it but if you do you are
glad you have it.


--
rcbridge
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 21, 2004 10:13:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Described was a blackout. Surge protector don't even claim
to protect from blackouts. Read their specs. Where is
protection from a brownout or blackout claimed? In the
meantime, all appliances have protection that eliminates
damage from blackouts and brownouts. Protection that is even
specifically required in industry standards.

No damage using the east coast blackout because appliance
internal circuits worked just as they are required to do.

In the meantime, it is important to ineffective surge
protectors sales to promote blackouts and brownouts (low
voltage) as if they too were surges (excessively high
voltage). Unfortunately these myths are widespread.

John Hall wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. I view my Hitachi RPTV plus DVD and
> Kenwood sound system the same as my PC and it's peripherals
> and hence protect it with a good surge protector and power
> conditioner. Last year, just after I bought all this stuff we
> had the big power outage in the East. The power went off,
> then came on, then went off again. Three days later it was
> still going on and off periodically. I didn't worry a bit
> about my electronics. All nicely protected.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 21, 2004 10:23:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Classic example: protection internal to the TV was more
that sufficient to protect from a trivial surge. But the
protectors was so grossly undersized as to be damaged by a
surge too small to damage the TV.

Do you believe a protector sat between the surge and the
TV? Concept promoted by myths. The surge confronts TV and
surge protectors MOVs simultaneously and equally. But that
surge protector was so grossly undersized (and grossly
overpriced) as to burn. Catastrophic and completely
unacceptable failure.

How much did you pay for that pathetic and undersized
protector? Effective 'whole house' protectors cost about $1
per protected appliance - AND are not grossly undersized.
Price alone says you were taken in by an ineffective protector
manufacturer who, BTW, does not even claim effective
protection. Your own experience demonstrates how effective
internal TV protection really is AND how grossly undersized an
ineffective plug-in protector really was.

They got you wasting money on the order of tens of times.
Look at those numbers. Nothing new here. Your example only
demonstrates why serious communication facilities don't use
plug-in protectors.

rcbridge wrote:
> I also highly recommend getting one it only takes one incident,
> I had an experience of a power surge a few years ago (thank you
> Peco) but my TV and other stuff was on a surge protector, it
> took a beating (I could smell burning in my family room it was
> the surge protector) but it protected my stuff.
> It's a one time purchase for a few dollars that may save you
> over time it's like insurance you hope you never need it but if
> you do you are glad you have it.
>
> --
> rcbridge
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 21, 2004 10:31:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

If Leonard was correct, then appliance manufacturers would
be installing those $0.10 components inside their appliances.
Components are not installed because those components adjacent
to transistors just are not effective.

For example, in hsv.general newsgroup, GS suffered damage
on appliances that were 'on' plug-in protectors. Those
protectors did exactly as their manufacturer claimed:
> Last nights storm got my TV cable box and my PC at home. Both
> are on serge protectors but whatever it was wasn't stopped.
> One circuit breaker popped but it wasn't even near the blown
> items.

What makes more sense? A $30 (or $80 if using Monster)
protector on each of 100 appliances? What protects furnace
electronic controls, smoke detectors, dimmer switches, etc?
Or do we install a protector that has the necessary earth
ground, protects everything, AND costs about $1 per protected
appliance? Just another reason why the plug-in protectors are
not effective? It costs tens of times more money per
protected appliance - as well as does not even claim to
protect from the destructive type of surge.

By tracing the circuit of a destructive surge, we have
demonstrated that two plug-in protectors even contributed to
damage of their adjacent and powered off computers. A surge
that also traveled through the network to damage a third
computer.

What kind of protection was that plug-in protector? It even
contributed to damage of the adjacent computer. It is called
ineffective. Seen this failure too many times to agree with
Leonard's Panamax recommendation. In fact, if the Panamax was
effective, then they would provide numbers for that common
mode transient protection. Panamax does not provide those
numbers; make that claim. Just another problem I have with
that Panamax recommendation.

Theory and field experience both say the Panamax cannot be
effective. The fact that those little Panamax parts are not
inside the appliance only demonstrates how ineffective an
adjacent protector really is. However assuming the Panamax
can provide protection, well, who would spend $3000+ ($8000 if
using Monster) for a protection system that can be purchased
even in Home Depot for less than $50 - a properly sized 'whole
house' protector.

"Leonard G. Caillouet" wrote:
> I wonder why my work load has doubled since the thunderstorms have
> kicked in here in Gainesville. I wonder why I keep finding CRTs
> with large magnetic fields on them, solder and traces blown away,
> fuses blown violently with bridge diodes shorted, and most of
> these reported to be concurrent with lightning strikes and power
> outages. w_tom would lead you to believe that surge suppressors
> are no benefit. I have yet to get one of these damaged sets
> from a customer who had a properly installed Panamax in use.
>
> Real world experience installing and repairing home electronics
> since 1979 tells me that good surge suppressors like Tripplite,
> ESP, and Panamax, and even Monster, seem to offer pretty good
> protection. w_tom is correct, however when he says grounding is
> important and noise on the ac line is completely irrelevant and
> completely eliminated in modern switching power supplies, which
> virtually all consumer video products use. There may be some
> benefit in certain cases with some audio equipment using
> conventional power supplies, but even this is rare.
>
> Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 21, 2004 11:44:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40FEEEC6.69523895@hotmail.com...
> If Leonard was correct, then appliance manufacturers would
> be installing those $0.10 components inside their appliances.
> Components are not installed because those components adjacent
> to transistors just are not effective.

Some manufacturers do put MOVs and other surge protection devices in their
power supplies. The reason that they choose to do so or not has more to do
with cost of production and what they can get away with than their concern
for the service life of your equipment. To hear w_tom talk, manufacturers
of "appliances" really care about protecting against surge and lightning
damage.

> For example, in hsv.general newsgroup, GS suffered damage
> on appliances that were 'on' plug-in protectors. Those
> protectors did exactly as their manufacturer claimed:
> > Last nights storm got my TV cable box and my PC at home. Both
> > are on serge protectors but whatever it was wasn't stopped.
> > One circuit breaker popped but it wasn't even near the blown
> > items.

I can cite many examples of installations where clients had damage on
unprotected equipment due to nearby lightning strikes and the equipment on
the surge suppressors we sell were unaffected.

> What makes more sense? A $30 (or $80 if using Monster)
> protector on each of 100 appliances? What protects furnace
> electronic controls, smoke detectors, dimmer switches, etc?
> Or do we install a protector that has the necessary earth
> ground,

The necessary earth ground already exists on all homes in the US. Any addd
grounds are actually not acceptable.

>protects everything, AND costs about $1 per protected
> appliance? Just another reason why the plug-in protectors are
> not effective? It costs tens of times more money per
> protected appliance - as well as does not even claim to
> protect from the destructive type of surge.

Installing whole house surge suppressors is something that must be done by a
licensed electrician at the electrical service panel. That service call
will increase the cost of your whole house suppression and does not include
protection for the other lines entering the system. Additional protection
on the phone, cabe, sat, and audio lines, providing additional ground paths
for surges, and with protectors with MOVs between all three legs of the
electrical service does indeed add protective capacity to the system.

> By tracing the circuit of a destructive surge, we have
> demonstrated that two plug-in protectors even contributed to
> damage of their adjacent and powered off computers. A surge
> that also traveled through the network to damage a third
> computer.
>
> What kind of protection was that plug-in protector? It even
> contributed to damage of the adjacent computer. It is called
> ineffective. Seen this failure too many times to agree with
> Leonard's Panamax recommendation. In fact, if the Panamax was
> effective, then they would provide numbers for that common
> mode transient protection. Panamax does not provide those
> numbers; make that claim. Just another problem I have with
> that Panamax recommendation.
>
> Theory and field experience both say the Panamax cannot be
> effective. The fact that those little Panamax parts are not
> inside the appliance only demonstrates how ineffective an

This fact "demonstrates" nothing of the sort. Why does it not demonstrate
that the whole house protection that you suggest below is ineffective? Both
use, primarily, MOVs that are in parrallel to the ac lines into the
equipment. The fact is that both the whole house protectors and the unit at
the equipment can be useful. The advantage at the equipment is the ability
to protect all lines into the system and adding capacity to the total
current dumping ability of the whole house system. Remember, you always
insist w_tim that we consider the circuit as a whole. These MOVs are all in
parallel, with the series resistance of the wiring in the system providing
some effect on where the surge gets dumped. Having the extra dumping
capacity in parrallel can only help. It certainly does not hurt.

> adjacent protector really is. However assuming the Panamax
> can provide protection, well, who would spend $3000+ ($8000 if
> using Monster) for a protection system that can be purchased
> even in Home Depot for less than $50 - a properly sized 'whole
> house' protector.

As I said before, this is only partial protection and requires a licensed
electrician to install. A good idea but not a complete solution. You
forget to suggest regular checks and cleaning of the connections to ground,
probably the single biggest problem in most installations, which can make
any surge protector ineffective.

You also neglect to point out that all of these surge protectors that use
MOVs are potentially sacrificial in a large surge. Having an electrician
come out to replace the one in you electrical panel is less likely to happen
in the real world. Also, many reputable protectors like the Panamax and ESP
have lifetime warranties.

Your naysaying and vague references to theory and practice with relation to
surge protection is tiring and misleading and can do real harm to people,
particularly those in high volume lightning areas like we have here in north
central Florida. You keep saying the same stuff and making the same
arguments that conflict with the experience of many who are actively
involved in the repair and installation of consumer electronics. What is
your profession and what makes you such an expert w_tom? And why do you
refer to "appliances"? Do you think it makes you sound more like an
engineer or something? Maybe that is your problem, are you an engineer?

The fact is that there are pros and cons to the use of surge protectors.
Many are not very effective and much of the hype in marketing is silly.
Your focus on the cons exclusively is not helpful.

Do the numbers people and compare the specs. Clean and inspect your grounds
and add as much protection as you can afford if you are in a high lightning
area.

Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 22, 2004 2:00:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I think this dude got all the answers he needed on all the groups he
cross posted to.



On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:53:17 -0400, "Apothecon" <sailerph@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I just ordered a Samsung 50" DLP HLP5063W.The Circuit City rep recommended
>an $80 surge protector to even out the fluctuations in current due to other
>appliances running.Does this sound right or would a standard protector
>suffice ? Thanks
>
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 22, 2004 4:29:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

TV and VCR sitting side by side. Surge enters. Destroys
one. Other remains unaffected. Why? One made the better
path to earth ground - acted as a surge protector to the
other. Or one appliance had even better internal protection
compared to the other. Because some appliances are damaged
and others are not is insufficient proof until you can explain
the circuit details. Which appliances made the better (and
therefore destructive) path to earth ground.

'Whole house' protectors do not need a licensed electrician
which is why they are even sold in Home Depot as Intermatic
IG1240RC. However, for plug-in protectors to be effective,
then the buildings earth ground may need be upgraded to post
1990 NEC requirements. If an electrician is needed, then he
is needed for both type of protectors. The plug-in type that
cost $3000+ to protect all household electronics or the $50
type that provides more effective protection - and does it the
way high reliability facilities also get their protection.

Most homes before 1990 do not have sufficient earth
grounds. But then even homes that meet post 1990 NEC
requirements may need that earthing enhanced. Misrepresented
is "Any addd grounds are actually not acceptable." As you
well know, the single point earth ground is both required by
the NEC and is necessary for effective protection. Figures
from industry professionals demonstrate the concept:
http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr0...
So are these industry professional lying about the all so
essential single point earth ground?
http://www.psihq.com/iread/strpgrnd.htm
> Ten years ago it would have been rare for anyone to talk
> about the importance of low resistance grounding and
> bonding except where mainframe computer systems,
> telecommunications equipment or military installations were
> being discussed. Today, we live in a world controlled by
> microprocessors so low resistance grounding is now critical
> and is a popular topic of conversation.
> The electrical grounding system in most facilities is the
> electrical service entrance ground. In the past it was often
> "OK" to just meet the minimum requirements of the National
> Electrical Code (NEC). Today, the requirements of the NEC
> should only be the starting point for grounding systems and
> bonding.

What do real world protectors manufacturers discuss?
Earthing. What does the Panamax avoid discussing? Earthing.

Furthermore it is foolish and downright wrong to claim a
protector is a sacrificial device. Only the grossly
undersized, ineffective, and overpriced protectors are
sacrificial. That means the undersized protector operates
even as MOV manufacturer did not intend them to operate.
Effective protectors remain functional after every surge
because they are properly sized as well as properly earthed.
Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are
effective.

Let's see. We can earth the incoming surge at the service
entrance. Or we can let the surge travel all the way up to
the appliance, be shunted by an undersized and expensive
Panamax protector, and then try to earth by going back to
earth ground. Both plug-in and 'whole house' protectors must
earth to the same earth ground. Difference is that a surge
permitted up to plug-in protectors will also induce transients
on all other interior building wires. What kind of protection
is that? Again, ineffective. A surge earthed before it can
enter the building will not induce transients on all other
building wires. Best to earth where utility wire enters the
building as is done inside high reliability facilities.

Notice those high reliability facilities don't use grossly
overpriced, plug-in Panamax protectors. They, instead,
enhance their single point earth ground as industry
professionals recommend. Then they install 'whole house'
protectors as required at the service entrance; a short
connection to that earth ground.

BTW, if you think effective protectors are in parallel to AC
mains, then you have no idea what is necessary for protection
from the typically destructive common mode transient.
Effective MOVs are not in parallel with transistorized
equipment. Effective protectors must connect surge on each
incoming wire to earth ground. Only the ineffective
protectors wish to eliminate longitudinal mode transients with
MOVs across wires. MOVs across wires are installed for normal
mode transients. A normal mode protector does nothing
effective for longitudinal mode transient protection. A
normal mode protector - such as that Panamax - has all but no
earth ground.

No earth ground means no effective protection as
demonstrated by previously cited protectors adjacent to two
powered off computers. Both computers damaged by a
longitudinal mode transient because the adjacent protector
shunted transient into the computers. Earth ground - not the
protector - is the heart and soul of effective protection - as
industry benchmarks note repeatedly. Panamax must avoid all
discussion about earthing to make their sales.

Ironic that I am wrong because I cite what the real world
protector manufacturers discuss extensively - single point
earth ground and short connections to that earth ground.

"Leonard G. Caillouet" wrote:
> "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40FEEEC6.69523895@hotmail.com...
> > If Leonard was correct, then appliance manufacturers would
> > be installing those $0.10 components inside their appliances.
> > Components are not installed because those components adjacent
> > to transistors just are not effective.
>
> Some manufacturers do put MOVs and other surge protection devices in their
> power supplies. The reason that they choose to do so or not has more to do
> with cost of production and what they can get away with than their concern
> for the service life of your equipment. To hear w_tom talk, manufacturers
> of "appliances" really care about protecting against surge and lightning
> damage.
>
> > For example, in hsv.general newsgroup, GS suffered damage
> > on appliances that were 'on' plug-in protectors. Those
> > protectors did exactly as their manufacturer claimed:
> > > Last nights storm got my TV cable box and my PC at home. Both
> > > are on serge protectors but whatever it was wasn't stopped.
> > > One circuit breaker popped but it wasn't even near the blown
> > > items.
>
> I can cite many examples of installations where clients had damage on
> unprotected equipment due to nearby lightning strikes and the equipment on
> the surge suppressors we sell were unaffected.
>
> > What makes more sense? A $30 (or $80 if using Monster)
> > protector on each of 100 appliances? What protects furnace
> > electronic controls, smoke detectors, dimmer switches, etc?
> > Or do we install a protector that has the necessary earth
> > ground,
>
> The necessary earth ground already exists on all homes in the US. Any addd
> grounds are actually not acceptable.
>
> >protects everything, AND costs about $1 per protected
> > appliance? Just another reason why the plug-in protectors are
> > not effective? It costs tens of times more money per
> > protected appliance - as well as does not even claim to
> > protect from the destructive type of surge.
>
> Installing whole house surge suppressors is something that must be done by a
> licensed electrician at the electrical service panel. That service call
> will increase the cost of your whole house suppression and does not include
> protection for the other lines entering the system. Additional protection
> on the phone, cabe, sat, and audio lines, providing additional ground paths
> for surges, and with protectors with MOVs between all three legs of the
> electrical service does indeed add protective capacity to the system.
>
> > By tracing the circuit of a destructive surge, we have
> > demonstrated that two plug-in protectors even contributed to
> > damage of their adjacent and powered off computers. A surge
> > that also traveled through the network to damage a third
> > computer.
> >
> > What kind of protection was that plug-in protector? It even
> > contributed to damage of the adjacent computer. It is called
> > ineffective. Seen this failure too many times to agree with
> > Leonard's Panamax recommendation. In fact, if the Panamax was
> > effective, then they would provide numbers for that common
> > mode transient protection. Panamax does not provide those
> > numbers; make that claim. Just another problem I have with
> > that Panamax recommendation.
> >
> > Theory and field experience both say the Panamax cannot be
> > effective. The fact that those little Panamax parts are not
> > inside the appliance only demonstrates how ineffective an
>
> This fact "demonstrates" nothing of the sort. Why does it not demonstrate
> that the whole house protection that you suggest below is ineffective? Both
> use, primarily, MOVs that are in parrallel to the ac lines into the
> equipment. The fact is that both the whole house protectors and the unit at
> the equipment can be useful. The advantage at the equipment is the ability
> to protect all lines into the system and adding capacity to the total
> current dumping ability of the whole house system. Remember, you always
> insist w_tim that we consider the circuit as a whole. These MOVs are all in
> parallel, with the series resistance of the wiring in the system providing
> some effect on where the surge gets dumped. Having the extra dumping
> capacity in parrallel can only help. It certainly does not hurt.
>
> > adjacent protector really is. However assuming the Panamax
> > can provide protection, well, who would spend $3000+ ($8000 if
> > using Monster) for a protection system that can be purchased
> > even in Home Depot for less than $50 - a properly sized 'whole
> > house' protector.
>
> As I said before, this is only partial protection and requires a licensed
> electrician to install. A good idea but not a complete solution. You
> forget to suggest regular checks and cleaning of the connections to ground,
> probably the single biggest problem in most installations, which can make
> any surge protector ineffective.
>
> You also neglect to point out that all of these surge protectors that use
> MOVs are potentially sacrificial in a large surge. Having an electrician
> come out to replace the one in you electrical panel is less likely to happen
> in the real world. Also, many reputable protectors like the Panamax and ESP
> have lifetime warranties.
>
> Your naysaying and vague references to theory and practice with relation to
> surge protection is tiring and misleading and can do real harm to people,
> particularly those in high volume lightning areas like we have here in north
> central Florida. You keep saying the same stuff and making the same
> arguments that conflict with the experience of many who are actively
> involved in the repair and installation of consumer electronics. What is
> your profession and what makes you such an expert w_tom? And why do you
> refer to "appliances"? Do you think it makes you sound more like an
> engineer or something? Maybe that is your problem, are you an engineer?
>
> The fact is that there are pros and cons to the use of surge protectors.
> Many are not very effective and much of the hype in marketing is silly.
> Your focus on the cons exclusively is not helpful.
>
> Do the numbers people and compare the specs. Clean and inspect your grounds
> and add as much protection as you can afford if you are in a high lightning
> area.
>
> Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 22, 2004 8:31:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40FFEB78.FEEBE24A@hotmail.com...
> TV and VCR sitting side by side. Surge enters. Destroys
> one. Other remains unaffected. Why? One made the better
> path to earth ground - acted as a surge protector to the
> other. Or one appliance had even better internal protection
> compared to the other. Because some appliances are damaged
> and others are not is insufficient proof until you can explain
> the circuit details. Which appliances made the better (and
> therefore destructive) path to earth ground.

Agreed. Typical path to ground might be through a diode in the bridge which
breaks down, shorts and the fuse blows, hopefully before more components are
damaged. Now why do you assume that an MOV in the surge suppressor
connected to the unit will not dump at least part of the excess energy as it
is designed to do? Why do you assume that having the coax and or phone
lines commonly grounded and protected in the surge protector is useless?
Your analysis is selective w_tom, not objective.

> 'Whole house' protectors do not need a licensed electrician

Actually, they do. Read the instructions with them. To suggest otherwise
and have consumers playing around in the electrical panel is irresponsible.

> which is why they are even sold in Home Depot as Intermatic
> IG1240RC.

A good unit, but look at the specs. The Panamax, TrippLite, or ESP, even
Monster products are better in many ways. So everything sold in Home Depot
is OK for the typical consumer to install and use? Right, and just because
parts are sold at Radio Shack, the average consumer should play around with
repairing his TV. Some people are certainly experienced enough to do so.
You and I might be, but average Joe is safer with plug in suppressors.

> However, for plug-in protectors to be effective,
> then the buildings earth ground may need be upgraded to post
> 1990 NEC requirements.

Again, you make a statement for plug-in protectors that is equally true for
the whole house protector. Another example of how you are being misleading.

>If an electrician is needed, then he
> is needed for both type of protectors. The plug-in type that
> cost $3000+ to protect all household electronics or the $50
> type that provides more effective protection - and does it the
> way high reliability facilities also get their protection.
>
> Most homes before 1990 do not have sufficient earth
> grounds. But then even homes that meet post 1990 NEC
> requirements may need that earthing enhanced. Misrepresented
> is "Any addd grounds are actually not acceptable." As you
> well know, the single point earth ground is both required by
> the NEC and is necessary for effective protection.

That is why I made the "misrepresented" statement. Single point grounding
is required. You don't want people adding "grounds" carelessly...Below you
go on about the issue of the single point ground. What did I say that
contradicted that...nothing.

>Figures
> from industry professionals demonstrate the concept:
> http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
> http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
>
> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr0...
> So are these industry professional lying about the all so
> essential single point earth ground?
> http://www.psihq.com/iread/strpgrnd.htm
> > Ten years ago it would have been rare for anyone to talk
> > about the importance of low resistance grounding and
> > bonding except where mainframe computer systems,
> > telecommunications equipment or military installations were
> > being discussed. Today, we live in a world controlled by
> > microprocessors so low resistance grounding is now critical
> > and is a popular topic of conversation.
> > The electrical grounding system in most facilities is the
> > electrical service entrance ground. In the past it was often
> > "OK" to just meet the minimum requirements of the National
> > Electrical Code (NEC). Today, the requirements of the NEC
> > should only be the starting point for grounding systems and
> > bonding.
>
> What do real world protectors manufacturers discuss?
> Earthing. What does the Panamax avoid discussing? Earthing.

Exactly how do they "avoid" talking about it? Where do you think the energy
from their units has to go? Have you ever talked to them. Their technical
support people will tell you exactly how important grounding is. A well
grounded home is still subject to damage, as your supprort for whole house
suppression indicates. If you look at the FAQ on the Panamax site they are
very specific about the importance of grounding and refer to NEC 250-50.

> Furthermore it is foolish and downright wrong to claim a
> protector is a sacrificial device. Only the grossly
> undersized, ineffective, and overpriced protectors are
> sacrificial. That means the undersized protector operates
> even as MOV manufacturer did not intend them to operate.
> Effective protectors remain functional after every surge
> because they are properly sized as well as properly earthed.
> Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are
> effective.
>
> Let's see. We can earth the incoming surge at the service
> entrance. Or we can let the surge travel all the way up to
> the appliance, be shunted by an undersized and expensive

Again, do your homework. The Panamax basic units clamp at lower voltages
and dissipate more energy than your Intermatic. They also offer some
protection for other sources of damage.

> Panamax protector, and then try to earth by going back to
> earth ground. Both plug-in and 'whole house' protectors must
> earth to the same earth ground. Difference is that a surge
> permitted up to plug-in protectors will also induce transients
> on all other interior building wires. What kind of protection
> is that? Again, ineffective. A surge earthed before it can
> enter the building will not induce transients on all other
> building wires. Best to earth where utility wire enters the
> building as is done inside high reliability facilities.
>
> Notice those high reliability facilities don't use grossly
> overpriced, plug-in Panamax protectors. They, instead,
> enhance their single point earth ground as industry
> professionals recommend. Then they install 'whole house'
> protectors as required at the service entrance; a short
> connection to that earth ground.
>
> BTW, if you think effective protectors are in parallel to AC
> mains, then you have no idea what is necessary for protection
> from the typically destructive common mode transient.
> Effective MOVs are not in parallel with transistorized
> equipment. Effective protectors must connect surge on each
> incoming wire to earth ground.

Seems like a parallel connection to me. Actually, good protectors have
MOVs, even redundant ones across every combination of lines, in parallel to
the connected equipment. Are you really going to argue that they are not a
parallel configuration?

>Only the ineffective
> protectors wish to eliminate longitudinal mode transients with
> MOVs across wires. MOVs across wires are installed for normal
> mode transients. A normal mode protector does nothing
> effective for longitudinal mode transient protection. A
> normal mode protector - such as that Panamax - has all but no
> earth ground.

It is exactly the configuration of your Intermatic whole house suppressor.
It is true that the distance and resistance to ground is lower with the
installation at the panel, but I have said repeatedly that the whole house
suppressor is a good idea. It also can't hurt to have additional capability
at the device.

> No earth ground means no effective protection as
> demonstrated by previously cited protectors adjacent to two
> powered off computers. Both computers damaged by a
> longitudinal mode transient because the adjacent protector
> shunted transient into the computers. Earth ground - not the
> protector - is the heart and soul of effective protection - as
> industry benchmarks note repeatedly. Panamax must avoid all
> discussion about earthing to make their sales.
>
> Ironic that I am wrong because I cite what the real world
> protector manufacturers discuss extensively - single point
> earth ground and short connections to that earth ground.


As I have said before, you are not "wrong" in many of the facts that you
state, you are wrong in arguing that there is not a benefit to the plug-in
surge suppressors. There may be a great value to having them as opposed to
nothing, particularly when considering the real world application with
cable, sat and phone connections to the system that may have inadequate
grounding. Everyone should confirm and correct any grounding problems in
their system, but few have the knowledge to do so. Plug in protectors are
better than nothing and can add to the protection in a well designed and
grounded system.

You are wrong when you argue points out of context and jsut to support some
point. You are wrong when you contradict yourself, which you do often. You
are wrong to mislead people, which you do with half-truths and incorrect
statements justified with a few good facts taken out of context.

Go away w_tom, you are not being helpful here just like you have done on
other newsgroups.

Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 22, 2004 11:56:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Electronic components in a surge protection circuit include
wire. Wire impedance is why a connection through MOV, from
incoming utility wire to earth ground, must be short (less
than 10 feet), direct (no sharp bends or splices and not
inside metallic conduit), and independent (separated from all
other non-earthing wires and not shared until all earthing
wires meet the single point earth ground). Three engineering
terms that apply to effective protector connections: short,
direct, and independent.

MOVs are shunts. They don't stop, block, or absorb the
surge. They are only effective if shunting to earth ground.
Not just any ground such as safety ground. Lightning seeks
earth ground. Either the surge is provided a low impedance
path to earth ground OR the surge will find many and
destructive paths to earth ground. Earthing is the
'everything' when it comes to protection.

MOVs in an adjacent plug-in protector simply distribute a
surge from one wire to all others. Now that surge is on all
wires and still seeking earth ground. It will find many paths
including through that cable insulation out back of the
computer, into the baseboard heat, linoleum tile floor, or
wall paint; then on to earth ground. Other destructive paths
via the computer can exist because even the table can be a
destructive path to earth ground.

We have defined a circuit that is incoming from the adjacent
protector, destructively through computer, then outgoing to
earth ground. Again, neither the room nor the surge protector
was constructed to support surge protection. Why? The
preferred connection to earth ground was not a single point,
was not adjacent to the protector, was too close to
transistors, and was not the best earthing connection.
Plug-in protector had all but no earth ground - therefore was
not effective.

But then I am only repeating what has been proven in
buildings that don't suffer surge damage from direct lightning
strikes.

In the meantime, the electrical nature of that room and the
impedance in wire are why effective MOVs are not connected in
parallel to the appliance. Even a claim that MOVs in a 'whole
house' protector are in parallel (as in plug-in protectors)
again demonstrates why so confused as to why plug-in
protectors are so ineffective. Plug-in protectors are in
parallel to the appliance. Therefore are not effective for
the typically destructive longitudinal transient. 'Whole
house' protectors connect from earth utility wire to earth
ground - are not in parallel. Obviously not in parallel due
to wire impedance AND because the appliance does not connect
to earth ground. Those who failed to learn these basic
principles also think a wall receptacle is earth ground. It
is only called a safety ground. Too much wire impedance
between that receptacle safety ground and earth ground. Same
impedance that makes plug-in protectors ineffective AND also
enhances the protection provided by 'whole house' protectors.

The number of conductive circuits inside a building are
numerous; including some wall paints, linoleum tile, concrete
floor, etc. Buildings are not constructed so that a MOV
inside a room is part of a complete protection system. MOV
better be complete and absolute because it is too close to
transistors. An effective system is located at building's
service entrance where a single point earth ground exists,
where the earthing point is distant from protected
transistors, and where the earth ground is the best, most
conductive ground. Plug-in protector violate that
requirement.

That effective 'whole house' system also costs tens of times
less money per protected appliance. Better protection at many
times less money. That 'whole house' system is what cell
phone towers, telephone Central Office switching stations,
commercial broadcasters, hardened military facilitates, etc
all do in order to operate in any weather, to have a reliable
system, to make the system easy to implement, and to have
reliable protection at so little cost.

An effective residential protection system is based on those
same well proven principles. Heart of every surge protection
system is the single point earth ground - not some MOV
protectors. No way around that fact. There is no single
point earth ground inside the room; at the plug-in protector.
That plug in protector would be 130 ohms impedance or
something less than 13000 volts from earth ground even during
a trivial 100 amp surge. Again, too must wire impedance
between that plug-in protector and earth ground. Previous
examples of "a surge got past my surge protector" is explained
by a plug-in protector not connected to a single point earth
ground. Effective protection has always been about the
'whole house' protector connected short to a single point
earth ground.

This is damning. Those plug-in protectors from Tripplite,
Panamax and Monster do not even claim to protect from the
destructive type of surge. Some even are bluntly honest about
that ineffective protection. From an SL Waber EP63 Power
Master that uses the same circuit in those other plug-in
protectors:
> This Surge suppressor is not a lightning arrestor and may
> not protect against lightning induced voltage surges.

Again, quote the discussion from Panamax that discusses
earth ground. They and the other plug-in protectors do not
discuss earthing since that would only raise embarrassing
questions. Questions that have been answered here. Too far
from earth ground to be effective. So instead, there is no
dedicated connection to earth ground AND they avoid the
earthing discussion. We call that ineffective AND grossly
overpriced protection.

That SL Waber unit at only 345 joules is rated at 15,000
amps. How does 15,000 amps get 'dumped' into earth ground by
a plug-in protector via a 130 ohm impedance safety ground wire
(a 12 AWG Romex wire 50 feet to breaker box)? 15,000 amps
times 130 ohms means the computer and adjacent surge
protectors will be something less than 1,950,000. IOW that
surge must find other destructive paths to earth so that surge
voltage does not get that high. Excessive impedance in a
safety ground wire that only need meet NEC human safety
requirements therefore does not earth the plug-in protector.
Plug-in manufacturers avoid all discussion about earthing.
Confusing the issue with irrelevant code from the NEC about
human safety grounding does not make a plug-in protector
earthed. In fact it only further demonstrates the myths on
which plug-in protectors are based.

Again, real world protector manufacturers demand a short
(less than 10 foot) connection to earth ground. That short
distance is obviously and absolutely essential to effective
protection. In fact a Polyphaser product has NO connection to
earth ground. That distance to earth ground must be so short
that a Polyphaser product mounts directly ON earth ground.
Zero feet to earth ground to make the protector even more
effective. Distance to earth ground is that essential for
effective protection.

So how does a plug-in protector solve this "short path to
earth ground" problem? They avoid the entire discussion.
Real world protector manufacturers discuss earthing
extensively because a surge protector is only as effective as
its earth ground:
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_technical.asp
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_pen_home.asp

Where are the application notes from Panamax, Tripplite, and
Monster that discuss the most critical component in a
protection system - earthing? Please feel free to post those
URLs that describe earthing in engineering terms and with
numbers .... knowing full well that application notes with
engineering numbers don't exist from ineffective plug-in
protector manufacturers. They are not selling real world
protectors to engineers in high reliability facilities. They
are selling grossly overpriced, typically undersized, and
ineffective protectors to those who would promote or believe
myths. What they fear we might learn: a surge protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.


"Leonard G. Caillouet" wrote:
> Agreed. Typical path to ground might be through a diode in the
> bridge which breaks down, shorts and the fuse blows, hopefully
> before more components are damaged. Now why do you assume that
> an MOV in the surge suppressor connected to the unit will not
> dump at least part of the excess energy as it is designed to do?
> Why do you assume that having the coax and or phone lines
> commonly grounded and protected in the surge protector is
> useless?
> Your analysis is selective w_tom, not objective.
>
>> 'Whole house' protectors do not need a licensed electrician
>> which is why they are even sold in Home Depot as Intermatic
>> IG1240RC.
>
> Actually, they do. Read the instructions with them. To
> suggest otherwise and have consumers playing around in the
> electrical panel is irresponsible.
>
> A good unit, but look at the specs. The Panamax, TrippLite,
> or ESP, even Monster products are better in many ways. So
> everything sold in Home Depot is OK for the typical consumer
> to install and use? Right, and just because parts are sold
> at Radio Shack, the average consumer should play around with
> repairing his TV. Some people are certainly experienced
> enough to do so. You and I might be, but average Joe is safer
> with plug in suppressors.
>
>> However, for plug-in protectors to be effective,
>> then the buildings earth ground may need be upgraded to post
>> 1990 NEC requirements.
>
> Again, you make a statement for plug-in protectors that is
> equally true for the whole house protector. Another example
> of how you are being misleading.
>
>> If an electrician is needed, then he
>> is needed for both type of protectors. The plug-in type that
>> cost $3000+ to protect all household electronics or the $50
>> type that provides more effective protection - and does it the
>> way high reliability facilities also get their protection.
>>
>> Most homes before 1990 do not have sufficient earth
>> grounds. But then even homes that meet post 1990 NEC
>> requirements may need that earthing enhanced. Misrepresented
>> is "Any addd grounds are actually not acceptable." As you
>> well know, the single point earth ground is both required by
>> the NEC and is necessary for effective protection.
>
> That is why I made the "misrepresented" statement. Single point
> grounding is required. You don't want people adding "grounds"
> carelessly...Below you go on about the issue of the single poin
> ground. What did I say that contradicted that...nothing.
>
>>Figures
>> from industry professionals demonstrate the concept:
>> http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
>> http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
>> http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr0...
>>
>> So are these industry professional lying about the all so
>> essential single point earth ground?
>> http://www.psihq.com/iread/strpgrnd.htm
>>> Ten years ago it would have been rare for anyone to talk
>>> about the importance of low resistance grounding and
>>> bonding except where mainframe computer systems,
>>> telecommunications equipment or military installations were
>>> being discussed. Today, we live in a world controlled by
>>> microprocessors so low resistance grounding is now critical
>>> and is a popular topic of conversation.
>>> The electrical grounding system in most facilities is the
>>> electrical service entrance ground. In the past it was often
>>> "OK" to just meet the minimum requirements of the National
>>> Electrical Code (NEC). Today, the requirements of the NEC
>>> should only be the starting point for grounding systems and
>>> bonding.
>>
>> What do real world protectors manufacturers discuss?
>> Earthing. What does the Panamax avoid discussing? Earthing.
>
> Exactly how do they "avoid" talking about it? Where do you
> think the energy from their units has to go? Have you ever
> talked to them. Their technical support people will tell you
> exactly how important grounding is. A well grounded home is
> still subject to damage, as your supprort for whole house
> suppression indicates. If you look at the FAQ on the Panamax
> site they are very specific about the importance of grounding
> and refer to NEC 250-50.
>
>> Furthermore it is foolish and downright wrong to claim a
>> protector is a sacrificial device. Only the grossly
>> undersized, ineffective, and overpriced protectors are
>> sacrificial. That means the undersized protector operates
>> even as MOV manufacturer did not intend them to operate.
>> Effective protectors remain functional after every surge
>> because they are properly sized as well as properly earthed.
>> Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are
>> effective.
>>
>> Let's see. We can earth the incoming surge at the service
>> entrance. Or we can let the surge travel all the way up to
>> the appliance, be shunted by an undersized and expensive
>
> Again, do your homework. The Panamax basic units clamp at
> lower voltages and dissipate more energy than your Intermatic.
> They also offer some protection for other sources of damage.
>
>> Panamax protector, and then try to earth by going back to
>> earth ground. Both plug-in and 'whole house' protectors must
>> earth to the same earth ground. Difference is that a surge
>> permitted up to plug-in protectors will also induce transients
>> on all other interior building wires. What kind of protection
>> is that? Again, ineffective. A surge earthed before it can
>> enter the building will not induce transients on all other
>> building wires. Best to earth where utility wire enters the
>> building as is done inside high reliability facilities.
>>
>> Notice those high reliability facilities don't use grossly
>> overpriced, plug-in Panamax protectors. They, instead,
>> enhance their single point earth ground as industry
>> professionals recommend. Then they install 'whole house'
>> protectors as required at the service entrance; a short
>> connection to that earth ground.
>>
>> BTW, if you think effective protectors are in parallel to AC
>> mains, then you have no idea what is necessary for protection
>> from the typically destructive common mode transient.
>> Effective MOVs are not in parallel with transistorized
>> equipment. Effective protectors must connect surge on each
>> incoming wire to earth ground.
>
> Seems like a parallel connection to me. Actually, good
> protectors have MOVs, even redundant ones across every
> combination of lines, in parallel to the connected equipment.
> Are you really going to argue that they are not a parallel
> configuration?
>
>> Only the ineffective
>> protectors wish to eliminate longitudinal mode transients with
>> MOVs across wires. MOVs across wires are installed for normal
>> mode transients. A normal mode protector does nothing
>> effective for longitudinal mode transient protection. A
>> normal mode protector - such as that Panamax - has all but no
>> earth ground.
>
> It is exactly the configuration of your Intermatic whole house suppressor.
> It is true that the distance and resistance to ground is lower with the
> installation at the panel, but I have said repeatedly that the whole house
> suppressor is a good idea. It also can't hurt to have additional capability
> at the device.
>
> > No earth ground means no effective protection as
> > demonstrated by previously cited protectors adjacent to two
> > powered off computers. Both computers damaged by a
> > longitudinal mode transient because the adjacent protector
> > shunted transient into the computers. Earth ground - not the
> > protector - is the heart and soul of effective protection - as
> > industry benchmarks note repeatedly. Panamax must avoid all
> > discussion about earthing to make their sales.
> >
> > Ironic that I am wrong because I cite what the real world
> > protector manufacturers discuss extensively - single point
> > earth ground and short connections to that earth ground.
>
> As I have said before, you are not "wrong" in many of the facts that you
> state, you are wrong in arguing that there is not a benefit to the plug-in
> surge suppressors. There may be a great value to having them as opposed to
> nothing, particularly when considering the real world application with
> cable, sat and phone connections to the system that may have inadequate
> grounding. Everyone should confirm and correct any grounding problems in
> their system, but few have the knowledge to do so. Plug in protectors are
> better than nothing and can add to the protection in a well designed and
> grounded system.
>
> You are wrong when you argue points out of context and jsut to support some
> point. You are wrong when you contradict yourself, which you do often. You
> are wrong to mislead people, which you do with half-truths and incorrect
> statements justified with a few good facts taken out of context.
>
> Go away w_tom, you are not being helpful here just like you have done on
> other newsgroups.
>
> Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 23, 2004 1:34:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Leonard G. Caillouet" <lcaillo_ns_@devoynet.com> wrote in message
news:mxVLc.15509$GT3.10795@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40FFEB78.FEEBE24A@hotmail.com...
> > TV and VCR sitting side by side. Surge enters. Destroys
> > one. Other remains unaffected. Why? One made the better
> > path to earth ground - acted as a surge protector to the
> > other. Or one appliance had even better internal protection
> > compared to the other. Because some appliances are damaged
> > and others are not is insufficient proof until you can explain
> > the circuit details. Which appliances made the better (and
> > therefore destructive) path to earth ground.
>
> Agreed. Typical path to ground might be through a diode in the bridge
which
> breaks down, shorts and the fuse blows, hopefully before more components
are
> damaged. Now why do you assume that an MOV in the surge suppressor
> connected to the unit will not dump at least part of the excess energy as
it
> is designed to do? Why do you assume that having the coax and or phone
> lines commonly grounded and protected in the surge protector is useless?
> Your analysis is selective w_tom, not objective.
>
> > 'Whole house' protectors do not need a licensed electrician
>
> Actually, they do. Read the instructions with them. To suggest otherwise
> and have consumers playing around in the electrical panel is
irresponsible.
>
> > which is why they are even sold in Home Depot as Intermatic
> > IG1240RC.
>
> A good unit, but look at the specs. The Panamax, TrippLite, or ESP, even
> Monster products are better in many ways. So everything sold in Home
Depot
> is OK for the typical consumer to install and use? Right, and just
because
> parts are sold at Radio Shack, the average consumer should play around
with
> repairing his TV. Some people are certainly experienced enough to do so.
> You and I might be, but average Joe is safer with plug in suppressors.
>
> > However, for plug-in protectors to be effective,
> > then the buildings earth ground may need be upgraded to post
> > 1990 NEC requirements.
>

I've found that a Whole house protector in the main electrical pannel
connected to an adequite ground (the ground rod should extend into the water
table) is the first step in protecting your house. Also, if you have
external wiring in your yard like a well the electrical from that should
also have a surge protector at the well to protect the pump and a protector
at the panel to protect against energy coming in to the house thru that
wire. If you have yard lights, the same applys.

For electronic devices in the home a plug in surge protector should also be
used. These protectors should have a clamp voltage that is as low as
possible (400v is common now).

Not discussed is a lightning rod attached with at least #6 copper to a
seperate ground rod that would protect the structure of the house from being
hit.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 23, 2004 10:21:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Well water pumps turn a simple and effective protection
system into what can be an engineering art. The simplicity of
the single point ground at service entrance makes a vast
improvement on household protection. But if the well pump now
becomes a superior earth ground, then the building no longer
has a single point earth ground. This is a serious
complication that can compromise the entire building
protection system.

BTW, that separate lightning rod's earth ground should
connect to the building's single point earth ground via a
buried wire. The two ground systems should be interconnected
through earth.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
> I've found that a Whole house protector in the main electrical pannel
> connected to an adequite ground (the ground rod should extend into
> the water table) is the first step in protecting your house. Also,
> if you have external wiring in your yard like a well the electrical
> from that should also have a surge protector at the well to protect
> the pump and a protector at the panel to protect against energy
> coming in to the house thru that wire. If you have yard lights,
> the same applys.
>
> For electronic devices in the home a plug in surge protector should
> also be used. These protectors should have a clamp voltage that is
> as low as possible (400v is common now).
>
> Not discussed is a lightning rod attached with at least #6 copper to
> a seperate ground rod that would protect the structure of the house
> from being hit.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 24, 2004 6:26:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40FEEEC6.69523895@hotmail.com>...
> If Leonard was correct, then appliance manufacturers would
> be installing those $0.10 components inside their appliances.
> Components are not installed because those components adjacent
> to transistors just are not effective.
>
> For example, in hsv.general newsgroup, GS suffered damage
> on appliances that were 'on' plug-in protectors. Those
> protectors did exactly as their manufacturer claimed:
> > Last nights storm got my TV cable box and my PC at home. Both
> > are on serge protectors but whatever it was wasn't stopped.
> > One circuit breaker popped but it wasn't even near the blown
> > items.
>
> What makes more sense? A $30 (or $80 if using Monster)
> protector on each of 100 appliances? What protects furnace
> electronic controls, smoke detectors, dimmer switches, etc?
> Or do we install a protector that has the necessary earth
> ground, protects everything, AND costs about $1 per protected
> appliance? Just another reason why the plug-in protectors are
> not effective? It costs tens of times more money per
> protected appliance - as well as does not even claim to
> protect from the destructive type of surge.
>
> By tracing the circuit of a destructive surge, we have
> demonstrated that two plug-in protectors even contributed to
> damage of their adjacent and powered off computers. A surge
> that also traveled through the network to damage a third
> computer.
>
>

W_Toms forensic skills are most impressive. The investigation always
starts with the forgone conclusion that plug-in protectors can't
possibly work and ends with some convoluded path being found to
explain away the obvious. My favorite is when he diagnosed the path
of lightening through my Tivo, which had the telephone modem blown
during a thunderstorm. According to him, without even seeing the
unit, the surge didn't come in through the phone line, but rather came
in through the AC, went through a surge protector, then blew the modem
on it's way out through the phone line.




What kind of protection was that plug-in protector? It even
> contributed to damage of the adjacent computer. It is called
> ineffective. Seen this failure too many times to agree with
> Leonard's Panamax recommendation. In fact, if the Panamax was
> effective, then they would provide numbers for that common
> mode transient protection. Panamax does not provide those
> numbers; make that claim. Just another problem I have with
> that Panamax recommendation.
>
> Theory and field experience both say the Panamax cannot be
> effective. The fact that those little Panamax parts are not
> inside the appliance only demonstrates how ineffective an
> adjacent protector really is. However assuming the Panamax
> can provide protection, well, who would spend $3000+ ($8000 if
> using Monster) for a protection system that can be purchased
> even in Home Depot for less than $50 - a properly sized 'whole
> house' protector.
>
>

I like that line of reasoning. It's like saying that because a high
security deadbolt lock is not included with every front door, it shows
how adding one makes the house less secure. As for field experience,
I'd go with my experience and that of Leonard, which is that a decent
plug-in surge protector is of value and rather than contributing to
damage, helps prevent it.



"Leonard G. Caillouet" wrote:
> > I wonder why my work load has doubled since the thunderstorms have
> > kicked in here in Gainesville. I wonder why I keep finding CRTs
> > with large magnetic fields on them, solder and traces blown away,
> > fuses blown violently with bridge diodes shorted, and most of
> > these reported to be concurrent with lightning strikes and power
> > outages. w_tom would lead you to believe that surge suppressors
> > are no benefit. I have yet to get one of these damaged sets
> > from a customer who had a properly installed Panamax in use.
> >
> > Real world experience installing and repairing home electronics
> > since 1979 tells me that good surge suppressors like Tripplite,
> > ESP, and Panamax, and even Monster, seem to offer pretty good
> > protection. w_tom is correct, however when he says grounding is
> > important and noise on the ac line is completely irrelevant and
> > completely eliminated in modern switching power supplies, which
> > virtually all consumer video products use. There may be some
> > benefit in certain cases with some audio equipment using
> > conventional power supplies, but even this is rare.
> >
> > Leonard
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
July 24, 2004 6:36:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<40FEECC8.80D793EE@hotmail.com>...
> Classic example: protection internal to the TV was more
> that sufficient to protect from a trivial surge. But the
> protectors was so grossly undersized as to be damaged by a
> surge too small to damage the TV.
>
> Do you believe a protector sat between the surge and the
> TV? Concept promoted by myths. The surge confronts TV and
> surge protectors MOVs simultaneously and equally. But that
> surge protector was so grossly undersized (and grossly
> overpriced) as to burn. Catastrophic and completely
> unacceptable failure.
>
> How much did you pay for that pathetic and undersized
> protector? Effective 'whole house' protectors cost about $1
> per protected appliance - AND are not grossly undersized.
> Price alone says you were taken in by an ineffective protector
> manufacturer who, BTW, does not even claim effective
> protection. Your own experience demonstrates how effective
> internal TV protection really is AND how grossly undersized an
> ineffective plug-in protector really was.
>
> They got you wasting money on the order of tens of times.
> Look at those numbers. Nothing new here. Your example only
> demonstrates why serious communication facilities don't use
> plug-in protectors.
>
> rcbridge wrote:
> > I also highly recommend getting one it only takes one incident,
> > I had an experience of a power surge a few years ago (thank you
> > Peco) but my TV and other stuff was on a surge protector, it
> > took a beating (I could smell burning in my family room it was
> > the surge protector) but it protected my stuff.
> > It's a one time purchase for a few dollars that may save you
> > over time it's like insurance you hope you never need it but if
> > you do you are glad you have it.
> >
> > --
> > rcbridge


Some more positive field experience dismissed by Tom because it
disproves his claims. Here you have a report of the surge protector
taking the hit, saving the TV, and again, it's dismissed. As for the
surge appearing simultaneously at both the plug-in protector and the
TV being a reason for plug-ins not working, well wouldn't that then be
true of any surge protector, including a whole house one, which Tom
endorses? And just for the record, surges travel at the speed of
light, so they most certainly appear at any external protection before
getting to the appliance.
!