APC's Current-Gen SurgeArrest: A Modern Tear-Down
Tags:
-
Power Supplies
- APC
Last response: in Photo reports comments
Anonymous
a
b
)
Power supply
October 8, 2014 11:59:36 PM
After our first tear-down, APC wanted to send in a modern equivalent to demonstrate the company's dedication to quality. Follow along as we tear open another power strip and dig deep into its electrical composition.
APC's Current-Gen SurgeArrest: A Modern Tear-Down : Read more
APC's Current-Gen SurgeArrest: A Modern Tear-Down : Read more
More about : apc current gen surgearrest modern tear
-
Reply to Anonymous
errdizzy
October 9, 2014 12:30:42 AM
-
Reply to errdizzy
m
0
l
jll544
October 9, 2014 2:25:51 AM
"Surprisingly, the new unit has higher surge suppression voltage ratings than the old unit"
Actually, not surprising because it's not valid to compare the ratings between the different generations. The old surge protector was rated under UL 1449 2nd Edition, whereas the new one was rated under UL 1449 3rd Edition. The 3rd Edition test applies a much higher current, so the higher voltage is expected.
Actually, not surprising because it's not valid to compare the ratings between the different generations. The old surge protector was rated under UL 1449 2nd Edition, whereas the new one was rated under UL 1449 3rd Edition. The 3rd Edition test applies a much higher current, so the higher voltage is expected.
-
Reply to jll544
m
2
l
SWB02
October 9, 2014 5:20:11 AM
APC sent you this unit? If so, then knowing it would be subjected to a public teardown and critique, I expect they will have thoroughly inspected it beforehand to ensure it was a shining example of their absolute best workmanship.
Much more interesting would be a teardown of a unit obtained independently through normal retail channels.
Much more interesting would be a teardown of a unit obtained independently through normal retail channels.
-
Reply to SWB02
m
7
l
Peter Martin
October 9, 2014 6:04:29 AM
Peter Martin
October 9, 2014 6:06:00 AM
Daniel Sauvageau
October 9, 2014 6:33:12 AM
jll544 said:
Actually, not surprising because it's not valid to compare the ratings between the different generations. The old surge protector was rated under UL 1449 2nd Edition, whereas the new one was rated under UL 1449 3rd Edition. The 3rd Edition test applies a much higher current, so the higher voltage is expected.I wanted to take a look at that but could not find a free copy of it online; only various companies' notes highlighting differences relevant to their respective business. Without access to the original document, I have no idea how comprehensive and accurate those whitepapers's change lists are.
For example, GE's version does describe the new test conditions (6kV at up to 500A for 2nd vs 6kV input at up to 3kA for 3rd) but it is preceded by a mention that only type-1 and type-2 SPDs (meter/panel-mount) will be further discussed, which seemed to imply that the above was specific to those types.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 9, 2014 6:46:49 AM
SWB02 said:
APC sent you this unit? If so, then knowing it would be subjected to a public teardown and critique, I expect they will have thoroughly inspected it beforehand to ensure it was a shining example of their absolute best workmanship.They most likely did at least check it out for any obvious issues but then again, the new design has fewer wires attaching to the PCB and none of them directly to the traces from the copper side, which should considerably reduce the potential for handling mistakes.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
merikafyeah
October 9, 2014 7:18:17 AM
Sacrificial surge suppressors are all well and good when you're on a budget, but they still don't hold a candle to non-sacrificial surge suppressors like those from Brickwall and SurgeX. All things considered, the cheaper Brickwall units are actually not THAT much more expensive than the most expensive sacrificial surge suppressors, and they are well worth every penny, especially considering you never need to replace them.
I recommend this unit in particular for its value/$:
http://www.brickwall.com/collections/surge-protectors-h...
Made in USA, not China like almost every other surge suppressor you can buy today. You get what you pay for, and I learned the hard way with cheap suppressors.
I recommend this unit in particular for its value/$:
http://www.brickwall.com/collections/surge-protectors-h...
Made in USA, not China like almost every other surge suppressor you can buy today. You get what you pay for, and I learned the hard way with cheap suppressors.
-
Reply to merikafyeah
m
0
l
errdizzy said:
I still don't touch APC products anymore. I used to have all TVs, computers and game systems in my house connected to them. It only took a year for the batteries in all of them to die (at different times). I switched the another manufacturer and haven't had a problem since. Going on 2 years now...Agreed .... same here .... and replacing the batteries is not done because it's cheaper to buy a new unit. Since The Schneider take over, it's not the same company and certainly not the same product we used to see.
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 9, 2014 4:09:41 PM
merikafyeah said:
Sacrificial surge suppressors are all well and good when you're on a budget, but they still don't hold a candle to non-sacrificial surge suppressors like those from Brickwall and SurgeX.Do you happen to have an appnote or something that details how Brickwall/SurgeX's "non-sacrificial" surge protection works? Both companies have the exact same diagram that does not give any useful details about it.
Everything I can find about anything resembling that from other vendors effectively boils down to slapping an LC filter in front of the MOVs to block or dampen most of the high-frequency, high-energy stuff so the MOVs do not need to deal with (as much of) it.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
1
l
SWB02 said:
APC sent you this unit? If so, then knowing it would be subjected to a public teardown and critique, I expect they will have thoroughly inspected it beforehand to ensure it was a shining example of their absolute best workmanship.Much more interesting would be a teardown of a unit obtained independently through normal retail channels.
I don't see what wrong with that, most of review got their material from the company..
It's the same with GPU, CPU, mobo, phone, etc..
most (all) of them is supplied by the manufacturer,
the cost will be too much to handle, if all review need to buy the product and then sells it with lower price later..
But I'm agree, real market sample is much better and objective for review...
-
Reply to rdc85
m
0
l
mctylr
October 10, 2014 9:09:27 AM
First I believe Brickwall / SurgeX are simply two lines manufactured by the same company. There are simply induction based (hence in series with the AC lines) which limits rapid high frequency voltage changes.
I don't believe their claim "clamps 2V above peak" as inductors are not sharp (the proverbial "brick wall") filters, Ask anyone who has worked with hobby electronics or electric motors knows that back-EMF can easily be higher than the supply voltage. Though I don't think this configuration would generate back EMF, other than perhaps at power off.
Most surge protection (the so called "sacrificial" variety) are in fact shunt based designs that shunt the extra energy from an over-voltage event (at or above the clamping voltage). This includes Metal-Oxide Varistors (MOV), Transient Voltage Suppressor (TVS) diodes, Zener (Avalanche) diodes, potentially combined with a slower shunting device such as the gas discharge tubes, and most surge protection shunt devices do have a non-trivial failure rate.
Please find an EE to write about electronics. I'm not a professional, but even as a hobbyist I cringed at some of the lack of knowledge. See: EDN, EE Times, Clive Maxfield http://www.clivemaxfield.com/ the Amp Hour podcast, and even manufacturers such as Texas Instruments or OnSemi, are likely willing to offer their own in-house engineering staff to assist in such writing such articles.
I don't believe their claim "clamps 2V above peak" as inductors are not sharp (the proverbial "brick wall") filters, Ask anyone who has worked with hobby electronics or electric motors knows that back-EMF can easily be higher than the supply voltage. Though I don't think this configuration would generate back EMF, other than perhaps at power off.
Most surge protection (the so called "sacrificial" variety) are in fact shunt based designs that shunt the extra energy from an over-voltage event (at or above the clamping voltage). This includes Metal-Oxide Varistors (MOV), Transient Voltage Suppressor (TVS) diodes, Zener (Avalanche) diodes, potentially combined with a slower shunting device such as the gas discharge tubes, and most surge protection shunt devices do have a non-trivial failure rate.
Please find an EE to write about electronics. I'm not a professional, but even as a hobbyist I cringed at some of the lack of knowledge. See: EDN, EE Times, Clive Maxfield http://www.clivemaxfield.com/ the Amp Hour podcast, and even manufacturers such as Texas Instruments or OnSemi, are likely willing to offer their own in-house engineering staff to assist in such writing such articles.
-
Reply to mctylr
m
0
l
mctylr
October 10, 2014 9:24:11 AM
I believe APC suffered from the declining profit margins in the consumer market, before they were acquired by Schneider and now Eaton, and I think that (thin margins) is what caused their decline in quality, a rushed attempt to shrink their overhead in a market with thin margins.
Personally I do prefer brands that are better known in industrial / enterprise markets including TrippLite, and PowerWave (also owned by Eaton).
Personally I do prefer brands that are better known in industrial / enterprise markets including TrippLite, and PowerWave (also owned by Eaton).
-
Reply to mctylr
m
0
l
mctylr
October 10, 2014 9:50:15 AM
rdc85 said:
I don't see what wrong with that, most of review got their material from the company..
It's the same with GPU, CPU, mobo, phone, etc..
The problem, which is the current norm in web based review sites, is that manufacturers have been repeatedly accused, rightly and wrongly, of cherry-picking the review samples. In fact in recent CPU reviews here, the reviewers have disclosed their opinions when samples are not as a "prime" as they expected that perhaps they didn't received hand-picked CPU samples for review purposes.
The US consumer magazine Consumer Report, published by their own not-for-profit organization has been considered a leader in unbiased reviewing because it has strict policies on only reviewing products that they buy themselves through normal retail channels.
This technique also works against fraudsters, who may provide a real (but expensive) review sample as a means of generating free marketing, but plan on selling low-manufacturing-cost (defective or fake) products in the market.
The ethics, and integrity of product reviews has a long and complicated history.
-
Reply to mctylr
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 10, 2014 4:53:42 PM
mctylr said:
Please find an EE to write about electronics. I'm not a professional, but even as a hobbyist I cringed at some of the lack of knowledge.Not sure what you are cringing at since everything you said, I had already written and drawn - if you look at the simplified diagrams, you see the MOVs in shunt configuration, the inductors in series with live and neutral (ignore the MOVs with both terminals on the mains-side) and the capacitor across those L/N inductors to complete the LC filter.
This is a picture story for the typical THG reader; not a reference paper for EMI/SPD engineers and advanced hobbyists. With a target budget of about 750 characters per image (that's the editorial guideline for picture stories - if I go too far above that, I get asked to axe stuff because the text overrun starts breaking the picture-story page layout,) I am already well over-budget on character count by merely scratching the surface.
As for the retail vs review sample thing, I agree that reviewing from retail would be better but that cost would come right out of my own pocket and I cannot afford that unless I can get 5+ picture-story slides or 2+ review-style pages per $10 spent - unless it is something I already had (the old SurgeArrests and BX1000) or something I would have bought anyway.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
merikafyeah
October 11, 2014 5:00:11 AM
To answer a few questions some may have about SurgeX products and its derivatives, first off, no, they do not use MOVs. MOVs by design wear down over time from surge events and will eventually fail. SurgeX products do not use components that can wear down from surge events and cannot fail due to a surge or transient spike.
Companies like ZeroSurge, BrickWall, and Torus Power license their technologies from SurgeX, as SurgeX holds the patent for its unique surge elimination design. Note how I say surge "elimination" and not "suppression". We're talking about a whole different beast here. Cheaper knockoff products from companies that do not use the SurgeX design as a base may use MOVs and will most likely not offer the same level of protection as SurgeX's "series mode" design. SurgeX has since improved its design and is now marketing it under the term "Advanced Series Mode". SurgeX has not yet licensed this newer design afaik so all derivatives currently use the older SurgeX design from the 90s, which is not necessarily a bad thing as the design is solid, but it may not be as efficient or robust.
The following videos may help further illustrate the SurgeX design and differences with other typical surge suppressors:
SurgeX Technology Overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p3ysUnx_Y
SurgeX vs MOV Suppressors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RixUrc-FRcM
As shown in the second video, typical surge suppressors pollute the ground and/or neutral connections which is a huge no-no for audio equipment and other delicate electronics and only SurgeX has a viable solution for those who want real protection for their equipment.
Many people have been confused about SurgeX and similar products, as can be seen here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-p...
Most of the other technical questions people have can be answered by contacting SurgeX, as I am not a certified technician.
Companies like ZeroSurge, BrickWall, and Torus Power license their technologies from SurgeX, as SurgeX holds the patent for its unique surge elimination design. Note how I say surge "elimination" and not "suppression". We're talking about a whole different beast here. Cheaper knockoff products from companies that do not use the SurgeX design as a base may use MOVs and will most likely not offer the same level of protection as SurgeX's "series mode" design. SurgeX has since improved its design and is now marketing it under the term "Advanced Series Mode". SurgeX has not yet licensed this newer design afaik so all derivatives currently use the older SurgeX design from the 90s, which is not necessarily a bad thing as the design is solid, but it may not be as efficient or robust.
The following videos may help further illustrate the SurgeX design and differences with other typical surge suppressors:
SurgeX Technology Overview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79p3ysUnx_Y
SurgeX vs MOV Suppressors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RixUrc-FRcM
As shown in the second video, typical surge suppressors pollute the ground and/or neutral connections which is a huge no-no for audio equipment and other delicate electronics and only SurgeX has a viable solution for those who want real protection for their equipment.
Many people have been confused about SurgeX and similar products, as can be seen here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-p...
Most of the other technical questions people have can be answered by contacting SurgeX, as I am not a certified technician.
-
Reply to merikafyeah
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 11, 2014 10:57:13 AM
merikafyeah said:
Companies like ZeroSurge, BrickWall, and Torus Power license their technologies from SurgeX, as SurgeX holds the patent for its unique surge elimination design. Note how I say surge "elimination" and not "suppression". We're talking about a whole different beast here.Not that different when you read SurgeX's patents including US 7 068 487 from 2004 - the biggest difference is the use of a fancy RCD snubber (yes, I noticed the SCRs but all they do is switch in extra capacitance during surges to bring snubber voltage down further) network with three large electrolytic capacitors in place of MOVs to eat the surge energy and those tend to have finite lifespan when you charge them using 100-200A pulses. The use of series inductors to limit instantaneous peak current is every bit as applicable to RCDs as it is to MOVs - SurgeX conveniently omitted that fact in their '89 patents to make MOVs look as bad as possible.
If you put a 120µH inductor in the path of a 6kV, 8µs surge, you are effectively current-limiting it to a much more manageable 400A peak and you need something to shunt that current or otherwise you will not get any voltage drop across the inductor. Unless SurgeX has found a way to break Kirchoff's current law, that 400A coming out of the source, through the inductor and RCD network still has to return to the source through the neutral wire - the sum of all currents coming in or out of a node must be zero. There is still surge current getting shunted to neutral; the inductor is simply making it about an order of magnitude more manageable than having none - enough to make the resistor demonstration work.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 11, 2014 2:34:51 PM
http://www.brickwall.com/pages/no-failures
10yrs of 100 surges of the what IEEE considers some of the harshest environments out there, [B3 strikes] isn't bad
Just a point of reference here. IF you're saying they are no different than MOV's I think I have a problem with that. If a $30 tripplite (etc) could perform like these I don't think these guys could sell their stuff for $240 and up and live long in the market. Stadiums (cowboys, yankees, carnegie hall etc) don't use this tech for nothing.
"You do not have to take our word for it. Consider the following:
IEEE (The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) states that 6000V is the largest transient that the interior of a building would experience.
IEEE defines its harshest interior surge environment as one that could experience 100 surges of 6000V, 3000A in a years time (category B3).
A new federal guideline recommends that a surge protector utilized in a harsh environment should be capable of withstanding 1000 surges of 6000V, 3000A or ten years worth of IEEE's category B3.
UL (Underwriters Laboratories) now provides a new adjunct testing service (in addition to the 1449 safety classification) that will test surge protectors to the 1000 surge, 6000V, 3000A federal protocol."
""Early in 1996, 1000 surges (at 60 second intervals) of 6000V and 3000A were applied to an off-the-shelf Series Mode Surge Protector.
There were no failures. There was no performance degradation. Let through voltage did not exceed 400V.
We still perform this testing on our equipment today."
These things can take this and live. How long would your MOV last?
http://surgex.com/aboutus.html
"100% Fail Safe Protection: For the past twelve years, SurgeX technology has never failed to protect connected equipment, due to an AC surge-related event. That’s a fact. "
So are you saying they're lying? ZERO failures is impressive if true (and they are all claiming it). You are essentially saying they'll fail just like MOV's here right?
Isn't 1000 strikes of 6000v or 3000amps every 60 secs higher than your 100-200a pulses? They hit these with 1000 of them and they lived. Doesn't this kind of blow a hole in your example? Can you show me an MOV based surge that can take this much testing an live? They don't EAT the voltage, they slow it down.
http://www.brickwall.com/pages/how-it-works
How brickwall says their units work.
http://surgex.com/library/10001_WhatisTrueSeriesMode.ht...
Their claims of what is different, for anyone who cares
http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_i...
APC says it can take A 6000v spike, but no claim of taking A 1000 of them.
http://espei.com/catalog/pdfs/product-sheets/ESP-SurgeX...
Let through of 0v and can take 1000+ spikes.
In this article of yours, aren't you saying they can take maybe one or two big hits and then fail? I'll take 1000 vs. 1 or 2. I used to sell tripplite/apc and I've seen a tripplite I sold, fail with one night of strikes (and they didn't cover the customers stuff either). So you'll have to forgive me if I go with the one that says it can withstand 10yrs in the the harshest environments of 100 strikes each year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surge_protector
More reading...There seems to be no argument MOV's don't hold a candle to these SM (series mode) units.
"These devices are not rated in joules because they operate differently from the earlier suppressors, and they do not depend on materials that inherently wear out during repeated surges."
"Because SM work on both the current rise and the voltage rise, they can safely operate in the worst surge environments."
Ok then...Not that wikipedia is the best source, just an example. You might say these have a finite lifespan, but at 1000+ B3 strikes I'd say in my area I'll be dead LONG before my surge will be. But go ahead and get the $50 APC if you'd like
"But since the SM devices do not wear out and are not required to be replaced every few years, the overall cost of ownership is much lower."
Either they are saying they are BETTER, or I'm just not picking up what this guy is putting down.
DO NOT WEAR OUT is pretty clear language no?
"Surges are not diverted but actually suppressed. The inductors slow down the energy. Since the inductor in series with the circuit path slows the current spike, the peak surge energy is spread out in the time domain and harmlessly absorbed and slowly released from a capacitor bank.[31]"
They sure sound DIFFERENT to me. Slowing the current down and EATING it are two completely different things. EATING=quick death. Slowing=longer life. I could go on, but I'm thinking you should get the point by now. The OP was correct, these are a different BEAST (thus ~5-10x more expensive up front).
10yrs of 100 surges of the what IEEE considers some of the harshest environments out there, [B3 strikes] isn't bad
Just a point of reference here. IF you're saying they are no different than MOV's I think I have a problem with that. If a $30 tripplite (etc) could perform like these I don't think these guys could sell their stuff for $240 and up and live long in the market. Stadiums (cowboys, yankees, carnegie hall etc) don't use this tech for nothing."You do not have to take our word for it. Consider the following:
IEEE (The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) states that 6000V is the largest transient that the interior of a building would experience.
IEEE defines its harshest interior surge environment as one that could experience 100 surges of 6000V, 3000A in a years time (category B3).
A new federal guideline recommends that a surge protector utilized in a harsh environment should be capable of withstanding 1000 surges of 6000V, 3000A or ten years worth of IEEE's category B3.
UL (Underwriters Laboratories) now provides a new adjunct testing service (in addition to the 1449 safety classification) that will test surge protectors to the 1000 surge, 6000V, 3000A federal protocol."
""Early in 1996, 1000 surges (at 60 second intervals) of 6000V and 3000A were applied to an off-the-shelf Series Mode Surge Protector.
There were no failures. There was no performance degradation. Let through voltage did not exceed 400V.
We still perform this testing on our equipment today."
These things can take this and live. How long would your MOV last?
http://surgex.com/aboutus.html
"100% Fail Safe Protection: For the past twelve years, SurgeX technology has never failed to protect connected equipment, due to an AC surge-related event. That’s a fact. "
So are you saying they're lying? ZERO failures is impressive if true (and they are all claiming it). You are essentially saying they'll fail just like MOV's here right?
Isn't 1000 strikes of 6000v or 3000amps every 60 secs higher than your 100-200a pulses? They hit these with 1000 of them and they lived. Doesn't this kind of blow a hole in your example? Can you show me an MOV based surge that can take this much testing an live? They don't EAT the voltage, they slow it down.
http://www.brickwall.com/pages/how-it-works
How brickwall says their units work.
http://surgex.com/library/10001_WhatisTrueSeriesMode.ht...
Their claims of what is different, for anyone who cares
http://www.apc.com/products/resource/include/techspec_i...
APC says it can take A 6000v spike, but no claim of taking A 1000 of them.
http://espei.com/catalog/pdfs/product-sheets/ESP-SurgeX...
Let through of 0v and can take 1000+ spikes.
In this article of yours, aren't you saying they can take maybe one or two big hits and then fail? I'll take 1000 vs. 1 or 2. I used to sell tripplite/apc and I've seen a tripplite I sold, fail with one night of strikes (and they didn't cover the customers stuff either). So you'll have to forgive me if I go with the one that says it can withstand 10yrs in the the harshest environments of 100 strikes each year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surge_protector
More reading...There seems to be no argument MOV's don't hold a candle to these SM (series mode) units.
"These devices are not rated in joules because they operate differently from the earlier suppressors, and they do not depend on materials that inherently wear out during repeated surges."
"Because SM work on both the current rise and the voltage rise, they can safely operate in the worst surge environments."
Ok then...Not that wikipedia is the best source, just an example. You might say these have a finite lifespan, but at 1000+ B3 strikes I'd say in my area I'll be dead LONG before my surge will be. But go ahead and get the $50 APC if you'd like
"But since the SM devices do not wear out and are not required to be replaced every few years, the overall cost of ownership is much lower."
Either they are saying they are BETTER, or I'm just not picking up what this guy is putting down.
DO NOT WEAR OUT is pretty clear language no?"Surges are not diverted but actually suppressed. The inductors slow down the energy. Since the inductor in series with the circuit path slows the current spike, the peak surge energy is spread out in the time domain and harmlessly absorbed and slowly released from a capacitor bank.[31]"
They sure sound DIFFERENT to me. Slowing the current down and EATING it are two completely different things. EATING=quick death. Slowing=longer life. I could go on, but I'm thinking you should get the point by now. The OP was correct, these are a different BEAST (thus ~5-10x more expensive up front).
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
falchard
October 11, 2014 11:32:56 PM
As a former cable technician, I hope no one buys this for the Coaxial surge protection. If it's a 15 year old design, chances are it will not properly transport the signal. Plus surge protection on coaxial should not be an issue unless the cable was improperly installed, like a hot ground.
BTW my CyberPower UPS has been going strong since 2010. Pretty happy with it, but the battery age will probably be creeping up soon.
BTW my CyberPower UPS has been going strong since 2010. Pretty happy with it, but the battery age will probably be creeping up soon.
-
Reply to falchard
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 12, 2014 5:39:18 AM
somebodyspecial said:
IF you're saying they are no different than MOV's I think I have a problem with that.An RCD network is obviously not exactly the same thing as a MOV and the SurgeX snubber uses SCRs to trigger its secondary snubbers that give the SurgeX its "voltage dip" characteristic in mid-surge. But they are similar enough in function for SurgeX to choose to use the MOV symbol to represent their snubbers in their simplified schematics for prior-art-vs-invention comparisons.
somebodyspecial said:
So are you saying they're lying? ZERO failures is impressive if true (and they are all claiming it). You are essentially saying they'll fail just like MOV's here right?SurgeX's patent does not state what capacitor model they use; only that they are 100-200µF 450V. I do not think there are any electrolytic caps rated for 200-400A charge current. I do not think I have seen electrolytics rated over 10A RMS. It may take thousands of cycles at such a charge current but I would expect them to fail eventually.
somebodyspecial said:
Isn't 1000 strikes of 6000v or 3000amps every 60 secs higher than your 100-200a pulses? They hit these with 1000 of them and they lived. Doesn't this kind of blow a hole in your example? Can you show me an MOV based surge that can take this much testing an live?3000A is the current limit on the source but the actual output will not go that high unless the load has low enough impedance to allow it, which is exactly what the inductor is there to prevent: if you put a a 120µH inductor in series, current rise from a 6kV voltage difference gets limited to 50A/µs, which translates into about 400A peak at the end of a 8µs pulse. Split this between two MOVs, that becomes about 200A each, split four-ways and it becomes about 100A each. 20DnnnK and most equivalent MOVs are rated for 10 000 shots at 100A with less than 10% parameter deviation. The potential for a surge suppressor manufacturer to build high-endurance MOV-based designs is certainly there. Also keep in mind that 6kV is what UL deems to be the worst-case surge voltage that should be allowed to get indoors so the typical everyday surge would be nowhere near that bad and the MOVs' useful life would end up that much longer.
somebodyspecial said:
They sure sound DIFFERENT to me. Slowing the current down and EATING it are two completely different things. EATING=quick death. Slowing=longer life. I could go on, but I'm thinking you should get the point by now. The OP was correct, these are a different BEAST (thus ~5-10x more expensive up front).As noted in my previous responses and alluded to in the article itself ("taking the edge off surges"), "slowing the current" by using inductors is every bit as applicable to MOV-based designs as it is to SurgeX's snubbers. Since you get no voltage drop across an inductor unless there is a current change through it, something has to eat that 50A/µs ramp for any surge suppression, elimination or whatever marketing wants to call it to occur. Without the shunt components sinking that current, whatever they might be, the small inductors become useless.
The SurgeX still needs to eat (snub) all the excess energy coming through that inductor like the MOV does. The difference is that a simple MOV cannot do anything more than follow its I-V curve as the inductor current rises while the SurgeX can switch in its discharged caps to soak up that energy when it detects a fast edge and momentarily drag the voltage down. Both will need to eat the same 400A ramp and both will need to dissipate about the same amount of energy.
Is SurgeX's design better? In most circumstances, yes. Is it worth paying 5-10X as much for? Not when everything you are going to plug into it already has tolerance to 500-600V peak due to universal input SMPS which can easily accommodate a good MOV-based suppressor's 340-400V peak clamping voltage.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 12, 2014 7:49:47 AM
falchard said:
As a former cable technician, I hope no one buys this for the Coaxial surge protection. If it's a 15 year old design, chances are it will not properly transport the signal. Plus surge protection on coaxial should not be an issue unless the cable was improperly installed, like a hot ground.How much have two-way splitters changed over the past 50 years? Macroscopically, they still look exactly the same and internally, they are also wired the same. The only difference is the material the ferrite core and coupling capacitors (if any) are made of with newer splitters using materials more suitable for 1GHz instead of the old powdered iron cores that could only go to something like 350MHz.
Transmission line and transformer theory has not changed in decades so there is not much of a reason to expect a major re-invention here. The layout is the same but they may have updated components inside, such as using a lower capacitance TVS.
I can think of one simple reason to use the surge protection: tying grounds so cable ground is referenced to the same ground as your expensive AV equipment. If you end up with different ground voltages between equipments for whatever reason, surges can start jumping around.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
falchard
October 12, 2014 10:52:50 AM
I am not overly familiar with the science behind cable signals, I just know in the last 15 years there was a jump from analog to digital. Before every 6 MHz would give you one channel that may appear as white noise if the signal is not clean enough. On the switch to digital it changed to binary so any interference made parts of the screen stop for a second. They also began increasing the channels per 6 MHz band. I think its something like 8 to 16 channels per band now. The major difference over the last 15 years is that the degree of error in detecting a 0 or 1 has gotten smaller due to pushing more information through the same 6 MHz band.
If the pass through does not hold a consistent enough signal it may cause some issues. For instance the coaxial threading material is copper in this and galvanized steel in the rest of the line, so it may not have sufficient grounding to prevent minute amounts of RF interference.
If the pass through does not hold a consistent enough signal it may cause some issues. For instance the coaxial threading material is copper in this and galvanized steel in the rest of the line, so it may not have sufficient grounding to prevent minute amounts of RF interference.
-
Reply to falchard
m
0
l
mctylr
October 12, 2014 2:40:02 PM
Daniel Sauvageau said:
mctylr said:
Please find an EE to write about electronics. I'm not a professional, but even as a hobbyist I cringed at some of the lack of knowledge.Not sure what you are cringing at since everything you said, I had already written and drawn - if you look at the simplified diagrams, you see the MOVs in shunt configuration, the inductors in series with live and neutral (ignore the MOVs with both terminals on the mains-side) and the capacitor across those L/N inductors to complete the LC filter.
Apologies for the confusion there, I meant the series vs. shunt comparison as part of my retort to "merikafyeah;" whom I'm not certain is also "somebodyspecial."
Daniel Sauvageau said:
mctylr said:
Please find an EE to write about electronics. I'm not a professional, but even as a hobbyist I cringed at some of the lack of knowledge.My cringing was more directed at your earlier articles, where for example on:
or even explain what TVSS (Transient Voltage Surge Suppressor) means or implies - that is that the devices are only intended to suppress a short (hence transient) voltage surge (a massive) over-voltage condition. It does not mean that such surge protectors devices (SPD) can be used to regulate AC voltage from a gas or diesel generator for safe usage with electronics.
In summary in the first article from the PTC non-identification to speculating in public whether the copper trace may of been designed as a fuse annoyed me, but I felt there was the gigantic missed opportunity to try and clear up much of the FUD about surge protection devices was still missed in this latest article. I do believe the latest article did benefit in clarity and quality from not having the change of intention as your first piece did.
Daniel Sauvageau said:
This is a picture story for the typical THG reader; not a reference paper for EMI/SPD engineers and advanced hobbyists. With a target budget of about 750 characters per image (that's the editorial guideline for picture stories - if I go too far above that, I get asked to axe stuff because the text overrun starts breaking the picture-story page layout,) I am already well over-budget on character count by merely scratching the surface.Okay, I understand, and I did expect something more inline with a recent reference series articles How To Choose A Motherboard: A Guide For Beginners, or How To Calibrate Your HDTV, or the very detailed Display Testing Explained: How We Test Monitors and TVs.
Daniel Sauvageau said:
As for the retail vs review sample thing, I agree that reviewing from retail would be better but that cost would come right out of my own pocket and I cannot afford that unless I can get 5+ picture-story slides or 2+ review-style pages per $10 spent - unless it is something I already had (the old SurgeArrests and BX1000) or something I would have bought anyway.Again, that wasn't intended as a specific criticism towards yourself or this article or series, but a general observation, and a general response to rdc85's comments on reviewing manufacturer supplied samples.
-
Reply to mctylr
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 12, 2014 7:41:14 PM
mctylr said:
Daniel Sauvageau said:
mctylr said:
Please find an EE to write about electronics. I'm not a professional, but even as a hobbyist I cringed at some of the lack of knowledge.Not sure what you are cringing at since everything you said, I had already written and drawn - if you look at the simplified diagrams, you see the MOVs in shunt configuration, the inductors in series with live and neutral (ignore the MOVs with both terminals on the mains-side) and the capacitor across those L/N inductors to complete the LC filter.
Apologies for the confusion there, I meant the series vs. shunt comparison as part of my retort to "merikafyeah;" whom I'm not certain is also "somebodyspecial."
It's comic you see two posts that agree, and immediately think conspiracy. Surely toms could tell you our IP's are different, which cable provider we use etc etc etc
Not sure who the other guy/gal is (nor do I care, unimportant), but his/her general point is correct. But since that comment (both I guess) was sort of slammed, I decided to add a little more detail for the person in their defense (and they did it themselves also). There is a difference in quality or the ones with MOV's would be advertising they can take 1000 strikes in their spec sheets also, instead of a SINGLE strike. Period.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 12, 2014 8:56:43 PM
Daniel Sauvageau said:
somebodyspecial said:
IF you're saying they are no different than MOV's I think I have a problem with that.An RCD network is obviously not exactly the same thing as a MOV and the SurgeX snubber uses SCRs to trigger its secondary snubbers that give the SurgeX its "voltage dip" characteristic in mid-surge. But they are similar enough in function for SurgeX to choose to use the MOV symbol to represent their snubbers in their simplified schematics for prior-art-vs-invention comparisons.
somebodyspecial said:
So are you saying they're lying? ZERO failures is impressive if true (and they are all claiming it). You are essentially saying they'll fail just like MOV's here right?SurgeX's patent does not state what capacitor model they use; only that they are 100-200µF 450V. I do not think there are any electrolytic caps rated for 200-400A charge current. I do not think I have seen electrolytics rated over 10A RMS. It may take thousands of cycles at such a charge current but I would expect them to fail eventually.
Quote:
That's a lot of guesswork on your part, and to date (Unless they're lying anyway), they haven't failed yet. So until they do, you're still wrong
As shown many sources say they DO NOT FAIL like MOV. Even if they do at some point, my main point here is they are BETTER and different or they wouldn't be advertising 1000 strikes vs. 1 for mov's. somebodyspecial said:
Isn't 1000 strikes of 6000v or 3000amps every 60 secs higher than your 100-200a pulses? They hit these with 1000 of them and they lived. Doesn't this kind of blow a hole in your example? Can you show me an MOV based surge that can take this much testing an live?3000A is the current limit on the source but the actual output will not go that high unless the load has low enough impedance to allow it, which is exactly what the inductor is there to prevent: if you put a a 120µH inductor in series, current rise from a 6kV voltage difference gets limited to 50A/µs, which translates into about 400A peak at the end of a 8µs pulse. Split this between two MOVs, that becomes about 200A each, split four-ways and it becomes about 100A each. 20DnnnK and most equivalent MOVs are rated for 10 000 shots at 100A with less than 10% parameter deviation. The potential for a surge suppressor manufacturer to build high-endurance MOV-based designs is certainly there. Also keep in mind that 6kV is what UL deems to be the worst-case surge voltage that should be allowed to get indoors so the typical everyday surge would be nowhere near that bad and the MOVs' useful life would end up that much longer.
Quote:
So based on a hypothetical product you're sort of claiming "they can do it too". I'm comparing what you're reviewing (and mov products in general) to what SURGEX etc is selling. Their ~$250 product is far better than your reviewed product. Which was the point of my comment. You don not get the same for $40-50 as you do at $250 (their spec sheets show this clearly). I didn't say they can't build a better MOV product and charge $200+, just that what you're reviewing (and most of these in general being sold today) are nowhere near being in the same league.somebodyspecial said:
They sure sound DIFFERENT to me. Slowing the current down and EATING it are two completely different things. EATING=quick death. Slowing=longer life. I could go on, but I'm thinking you should get the point by now. The OP was correct, these are a different BEAST (thus ~5-10x more expensive up front).As noted in my previous responses and alluded to in the article itself ("taking the edge off surges"), "slowing the current" by using inductors is every bit as applicable to MOV-based designs as it is to SurgeX's snubbers. Since you get no voltage drop across an inductor unless there is a current change through it, something has to eat that 50A/µs ramp for any surge suppression, elimination or whatever marketing wants to call it to occur. Without the shunt components sinking that current, whatever they might be, the small inductors become useless.
The SurgeX still needs to eat (snub) all the excess energy coming through that inductor like the MOV does. The difference is that a simple MOV cannot do anything more than follow its I-V curve as the inductor current rises while the SurgeX can switch in its discharged caps to soak up that energy when it detects a fast edge and momentarily drag the voltage down. Both will need to eat the same 400A ramp and both will need to dissipate about the same amount of energy.
Is SurgeX's design better? In most circumstances, yes. Is it worth paying 5-10X as much for? Not when everything you are going to plug into it already has tolerance to 500-600V peak due to universal input SMPS which can easily accommodate a good MOV-based suppressor's 340-400V peak clamping voltage.
Thanks, that's what I said
RE: their value being worth it? I guess it depends on your perspective. I have thousands of dollars in devices plugged into my surge protectors in few places in the house, so for me, knowing in AZ (and previously in TX) we have a LOT of lightning, I'd rather have peace of mind in those areas. Clearly cheap devices don't need more than a good MOV product. Knowing a few situations where a unit was blown and took a PC (that I built for a customer) and some other stuff with it, and it wasn't covered (a unit I sold in one case), again I error on the side of caution especially if you have the money to do so, at least for certain situations. If in most circumstances they're better (you said it), I don't even understand why you responded. You're admitting exactly what the OP and I said and if you had the cash, surely you'd buy BETTER every time you could.I mean, AMD APU's can get the job done (if I'm POOR), but there is ZERO cases where I'd buy AMD when I can afford Intel+NV gpu currently (Until someone makes something better than this combo, it's no contest right now). The argument made by the OP and I wasn't that MOV's don't work, just that there is something BETTER you can buy if you can afford it and for many are good choices anyway since you don't have to re-buy them. So far, unless they are lying about ZERO failures (due to strikes/surges anyway), they are a lifetime purchase for everyone. Maybe one day, 10yrs from now etc, they'll have their first failure after 1000's of strikes or something and we can put a avg lifetime on them at that point. But for now, it appears to be ZERO failure and a one time purchase is what you get for your money. I VALUE that a bit more highly than you I guess, at least in the entertainment & PC areas of my house. They have other advantages also, like not diverting energy to ground/neutral (for SurgeX latest stuff ZERO let through here).
http://www.brickwall.com/pages/no-failures
As noted here "Our surge protectors can withstand the harshest surge environment indefinitely."
Further: "Our surge protector products do not utilize MOV's and have none of their inherent limitations."
and more: "Unfortunately MOV's are sacrificial components. This means that the performance life of any surge protector utilizing this technology is finite. With every surge current diversion above a modest level an MOV comes closer to its inevitable end. Surge protector with an exploded MOV"
Other's using the tech say the same in one way or another, not that brickwall is a fav or anything, just simple to copy theirs for the intended point. It's like describing night and day here to me. You say they die eventually (we'll see), but they all say, it's FINITE vs. INDEFINITELY.
http://www.zerosurge.com/residential/surge-suppresssion...
For car lovers, zerosurge seems to sum up surge protection pretty well with a car analogy
Just pointing here to show I have no real fav, just like the tech behind them all. -
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 12, 2014 9:01:08 PM
mctylr
October 13, 2014 8:09:42 AM
somebodyspecial said:
mctylr said:
Apologies for the confusion there, I meant the series vs. shunt comparison as part of my retort to "merikafyeah;" whom I'm not certain is also "somebodyspecial."
It's comic you see two posts that agree, and immediately think conspiracy. Surely toms could tell you our IP's are different, which cable provider we use etc etc etc
Not sure who the other guy/gal is (nor do I care, unimportant), but his/her general point is correct.
Okay I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but can I ask if you are associated or affiliated with SurgeX, ZeroSuge, and related companies (manufacturers, reseller, distributor)?
-
Reply to mctylr
m
0
l
mctylr
October 13, 2014 8:37:41 AM
somebodyspecial said:
Note at the top of that zerosurge page, they also say 0% FAILURE RATE. So again, ZERO. Until one of these guys has a failure, I submit you're incorrect on your "I would expect them to fail eventually" suggestion. You get what you pay for here IMHO, quite clearly.I like the number zero as well. But you seem to misunderstand that a zero-failure rate of a product that I estimate has sold in the hundreds, that is a tiny installation base, and too small a sample to be impressive. If these products have tens or hundreds of thousands of units sold, and still had no failures I would be impressed.
While at the price point they are sold, I assume they are every unit is tested before be sold, it does not negate the truth that no surge device will safely handle a the surge of a direct strike at building entry, nor does it negate the fact that while the explanation focuses on the in-series inductor, there are additional components; electrolytic capacitors, SCR that also have non-trivial failure rates just like MOVs that are necessary to dissapate the surge energy.
You and merikafyeah appear to both not acknowledge the existence of these shunting components in ZeroSurge / SurgeX / Brickwall products. And that these components can fail. Electrolytic capacitors are well known for their failures in a multitude of fashions, and SCR like other semiconductors still have breakdown voltage limits.
So am I impressed with the possibly much smaller <1% failure rate of SurgeX / ZeroSurge / Brickwall surge protectors compared with the approximately <1% failure of APC and other companies using traditional MOVs & other components which sell for one tenth the cost? No.
-
Reply to mctylr
m
0
l
Gunbuster
October 13, 2014 12:36:41 PM
merikafyeah
October 14, 2014 1:53:03 AM
mctylr said:
I like the number zero as well. But you seem to misunderstand that a zero-failure rate of a product that I estimate has sold in the hundreds...
So am I impressed with the possibly much smaller <1% failure rate of SurgeX / ZeroSurge / Brickwall surge protectors compared with the approximately <1% failure of APC and other companies...
From where exactly are you pulling these numbers? Only "hundreds" sold? If you are assuming low sales due to the relatively higher cost per unit, I think you'd be surprised at how enterprise budgets operate at a different scale than your average consumer. SurgeX may have a consumer line of products, but that does not mean that is their primary market. Also, SurgeX has been around for more than 20 years, and you think they've only sold "hundreds" of units during that time? Really?
Regarding failure rates, the "<1%" failure rate would apply to SurgeX products because they boldly claim "0%" failure rate, but where does this number come from for the other manufacturers? I could not find any documentation in regards to failure rate over time from APC or others. Where is the impressively large sample group from which you've derived this percentage rate? Is it "you and all the people you know who've bought APC and similar suppressors over the years"? If so that's not a very large sample group.
mctylr said:
While at the price point they are sold, I assume they are every unit is tested before be sold, it does not negate the truth that no surge device will safely handle a the surge of a direct strike at building entry, nor does it negate the fact that while the explanation focuses on the in-series inductor, there are additional components; electrolytic capacitors, SCR that also have non-trivial failure rates just like MOVs that are necessary to dissapate the surge energy.
You and merikafyeah appear to both not acknowledge the existence of these shunting components in ZeroSurge / SurgeX / Brickwall products. And that these components can fail. Electrolytic capacitors are well known for their failures in a multitude of fashions, and SCR like other semiconductors still have breakdown voltage limits.
Make no mistake, my feet are firmly planted on the ground. No man-made construct can function for an infinite amount of time, no matter how zealous the marketing speak may be. No one is seriously expecting to receive some kind of miracle device that can withstand a direct lightning strike equaling 1,000,000s of volts that can make a large tree explode in an instant. No one is saying that. The specs themselves clearly state a max of 6000 volts which supposedly represents the typical worst-case for an industrial surge. Natural disasters excluded.
I am not ignoring the fact that there are other components in use in SurgeX devices and similar. I am very well aware that electrolytic capacitors can and do often fail and perhaps something like solid capacitors would be better, but that is beside the point. I was merely parroting Brickwall's lofty marketspeak regarding no use of components that routinely fail in conventional suppressors. I have already stated that I am not a certified technician so I cannot qualify these claims, but if you are accusing Brickwall of outright LYING even in a charitable interpretation of their advertising, then you'll have to take that up with them. I have no affiliation with Brickwall / SurgeX , etc.
But the takeaway is this:
You have an expensive setup with equipment costing hundreds or thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands or a storage array with TBs of data, and you would feel fine securing all that with a $40 suppressor? According to you the failure rate is about the same so I don't see why not, but I personally do not feel confident in this approach.
Now, would I buy a Brickwall just to secure my lamp / toaster / blender? Hell no. Let's be real here.
-
Reply to merikafyeah
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 14, 2014 1:58:39 PM
mctylr said:
In summary in the first article from the PTC non-identification to speculating in public whether the copper trace may of been designed as a fuse annoyed me, but I felt there was the gigantic missed opportunity to try and clear up much of the FUD about surge protection devices was still missed in this latest article. I do believe the latest article did benefit in clarity and quality from not having the change of intention as your first piece did.How would you identify a component that has an unfamiliar logo and a model number that returns no search results? I can only afford to spend so much time on something that seems like a dead-end before it is no longer worth my time - they are PTCs of some description, they act as slow self-healing fuses, not much else to add regardless of who the manufacturer is. BTW, "Silk Road" was not my title for that slide - one of the editors must have changed it and I did not notice it when I reviewed the edits. My title for that slide was "E.T. Phones Home." The speculation about the trace in the first SurgeArrest story is based on the simple facts that 1) it did blow up before its built-in 15A breaker and the mains' 20A breaker tripped and 2) it had solder mask on it instead of being soldered over like the remainder of the very same trace, which means it was definitely not designed with the same thermal and electrical capacity. These changes do not occur by accident and as I found out by opening my oldest old unit, those traces did use to be soldered over like all other current-carrying traces.
As for the gigantic missed opportunity, that would not be particularly interesting without proper lab equipment to show practical results.
mctylr said:
Is a $1-2 dollar store SPD of sufficient quality or misplaced trust?That's actually my next story. Sort of. It will probably be out in 2-3 weeks.
mctylr said:
Again, that wasn't intended as a specific criticism towards yourself or this article or series, but a general observation, and a general response to rdc85's comments on reviewing manufacturer supplied samples.Regardless of who your criticism was aimed at, the reality still is that most reviewers cannot afford to get review units at their own expense unless it was stuff they were planning to buy anyway - and presumably not review in a potentially destructive and warranty-voiding way.
If manufacturers stopped sending review units out, half the hardware and other sites that are in the business of giving their own (counter-)spin to the manufacturer's own would probably close because they cannot afford to buy enough review samples at full retail prices to keep their sites going.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 14, 2014 2:20:01 PM
somebodyspecial said:
They have other advantages also, like not diverting energy to ground/neutral (for SurgeX latest stuff ZERO let through here).You were asking where I was disagreeing, that would be it: "not diverting energy to neutral" since all of SurgeX's patents clearly show a shunt capacitor across live and neutral. In my circuit simulations, the surge current through that capacitor and the others in parallel that are SCR-triggered can conduct over 600A during a surge based on the older patents' 80µH inductor.
The newer patent from 2004 trades the lossy inductor for an auto-transformer which reduces surge current in my simulations to 60-80A from live to neutral - I missed the relatively subtle change when I wrote my initial reply. An order of magnitude better than their former designs' plain 80µH inductor but still nowhere near zero. BTW, this simple auto-transformer trick would also enhance MOVs' performance and lifespan by a similar amount.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 15, 2014 4:24:04 PM
mctylr said:
somebodyspecial said:
mctylr said:
Apologies for the confusion there, I meant the series vs. shunt comparison as part of my retort to "merikafyeah;" whom I'm not certain is also "somebodyspecial."
It's comic you see two posts that agree, and immediately think conspiracy. Surely toms could tell you our IP's are different, which cable provider we use etc etc etc
Not sure who the other guy/gal is (nor do I care, unimportant), but his/her general point is correct.
Okay I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but can I ask if you are associated or affiliated with SurgeX, ZeroSuge, and related companies (manufacturers, reseller, distributor)?
I'm in IT. I have nothing to do with any company discussed here. I used to sell tripplite/apc etc a decade ago now, as a PC business owner. No relation to any of this crap, nor anyone who works for them (no family, no friends etc). Is there some reason I'd have to prove myself for defending a VASTLY superior product anyway? I like Intel too, but have no relation to them whatsoever. I think EVERY IT person has at least a good dozen or so companies they believe in regardless of who they work for just due to life experience with many products on the job (and I had a lot more as a PC business for 8yrs). I don't recommend (for purchase in my job I mean) any surge related stuff (that's the electrical dept's job usually) aside from personal usage in response to internal customer questions. Do you do this in every product discussion?
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
somebodyspecial
October 15, 2014 4:43:30 PM
mctylr said:
somebodyspecial said:
Note at the top of that zerosurge page, they also say 0% FAILURE RATE. So again, ZERO. Until one of these guys has a failure, I submit you're incorrect on your "I would expect them to fail eventually" suggestion. You get what you pay for here IMHO, quite clearly.I like the number zero as well. But you seem to misunderstand that a zero-failure rate of a product that I estimate has sold in the hundreds, that is a tiny installation base, and too small a sample to be impressive. If these products have tens or hundreds of thousands of units sold, and still had no failures I would be impressed.
While at the price point they are sold, I assume they are every unit is tested before be sold, it does not negate the truth that no surge device will safely handle a the surge of a direct strike at building entry, nor does it negate the fact that while the explanation focuses on the in-series inductor, there are additional components; electrolytic capacitors, SCR that also have non-trivial failure rates just like MOVs that are necessary to dissapate the surge energy.
You and merikafyeah appear to both not acknowledge the existence of these shunting components in ZeroSurge / SurgeX / Brickwall products. And that these components can fail. Electrolytic capacitors are well known for their failures in a multitude of fashions, and SCR like other semiconductors still have breakdown voltage limits.
So am I impressed with the possibly much smaller <1% failure rate of SurgeX / ZeroSurge / Brickwall surge protectors compared with the approximately <1% failure of APC and other companies using traditional MOVs & other components which sell for one tenth the cost? No.
You estimate they're sold in the hundreds? None of these 3 companies would be in business then...LOL. They sell devices all over the place (amazon, staples, newegg etc not to mention pro audio/video etc type places).
You misunderstand the failure point. It's not that some have manufacturer defects or not etc, it's ZERO failures due to a surge. I have been witness to equipment lost on MOV protection (and then not covered by the company warranty also). Not much point in arguing with someone who makes up numbers etc and ignores the data. I should have just ignored the post after reading the first comment about imaginary sales numbers and the previous post that attacked the person not the data (my integrity...jeez).
You're not impressed by a better product and don't mind saving some money at the risk of your equipment. I get it, move along. Even the article writer here admits they're better in "MOST CASES". Nuff said.
-
Reply to somebodyspecial
m
0
l
somebodyspecial said:
You're not impressed by a better product and don't mind saving some money at the risk of your equipment. I get it, move along. Even the article writer here admits they're better in "MOST CASES". Nuff said.Discussion uses numbers that do not say what is being claimed. For example, it does not matter if a Zerosurge, Brickwall, etc (shunt mode filters) does not fail. If it does not protect attached appliances, then it can still claim 0 protector failures.
MOV protectors also do not fail. But only if properly sized. Many MOV based protectors do not claim to protect from destructive surges. Only claim to protect from a type of surge typically made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. Undersizing them to fail on surges too tiny to overwhelm protection already inside appliances gets many to recommend that undersized (and extremely profitable) protector.
Any protector adjacent to an appliance either absorbs that energy or blocks it. Provided numbers say these shunt mode filters.will absorb maybe 3000 joules. Destructive surges can be hundreds of thousands of joules. Where is the protection?
Surges are a current source. That means if a current is incoming to the shunt mode filter, then a same current is simultaneously outgoing from that filter into attached appliances. That current may dissipate 3000 joules inside that filter. Additional energy may dissipate destructively inside attached appliances. Sincde the same current is everywhere in that path from cloud to earth. A shunt mode filter does not fail as they claim. But the attached appliance is still damaged.
An IEEE number said interior voltages will not exceed 6000 volts. 6000 between what and what? A common mistake by IT and other layman not educated in electric principles and how hardware works. For example, one AC wire could be at 16,000 volts and another at 10,000 volts. Voltage between those two wires is only 6000 volts. And 10,000 or 16,000 volts is created by a current passing through an adjacent appliance. Again, background knowledge is essential to understand, for example, how these series mode filters are promoted to only provide limited protection.
Another problem is its safety ground wire. A path that completely bypasses this series mode filter and connects a destructive transient into adjacent appliances.
Nothing will block a destructive surge.Nothing. Series mode filters to block transients are for tiny surges often made irrelevant by what is already inside electronics. Surges that do damage will blow through that series mode filter. Protection from this other type of transient must connect to earth BEFORE entering a building. If permitted inside, then that transient will go hunting for earth ground destructively via appliances. Nothing can stop that destructive hunt.
A well proven protection often uses MOVs. Not grossly undersized protection circuits often found in power strips. When MOV protectors are properly sized, then even direct lighting strikes do not damage these protectors. Spec numbers provided by those manufactuers say why no damage. But again, protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Protection means the homeowner can say where that energy is harmlessly absorbed. That can only happen when a surge current connects low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth BEFORE entering the building. Only then will a series mode protector add additional protection.
Again, if protection is effective, then a recommendation will say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A solution proven by over 100 years of science and experience does just that. Consumers can spend about $1 per protected appliance for this well proven solution mostly sold by companies with better reputations; companies well known to any 'guy'. Protectors inside the building cannot block or absorb destructive surges. So they forget to discuss the other and typically destructive transient.
-
Reply to westom
m
0
l
Daniel Sauvageau
October 17, 2014 11:57:14 PM
somebodyspecial said:
A well proven protection often uses MOVs. Not grossly undersized protection circuits often found in power strips. When MOV protectors are properly sized, then even direct lighting strikes do not damage these protectors.All MOVs get damaged by surges and fail eventually. The difference lies in how much over-engineering goes into the surge suppressor: if you have enough source impedance to limit current rise and then put enough MOVs in parallel to limit peak current per MOV to about 100A, you get over 10 000 nominal-current surges worth of useful life. Since the typical surge will be orders of magnitude less than nominal-current design, that would translate into negligible SPD aging from everyday surges. Feed one or two 200kA surges through a 20kA nominal / 200kA peak panel-mount surge suppressor though and you are very likely to fry it.
As for the "IEEE numbers," I would bet it is 6kV from any live wire to true ground since that is what UL uses. If the site expects to see surges beyond 6kV L-G/L-N, UL compliance (if you want all those UL stickers/numbers on your downstream equipment to remain valid) requires the installation of meter-mount or panel-mount surge suppression and possibly chokes/filters to deal with those. On split-phase 240V circuits, you could still end up with surges where one line is at +6kV and the other at -6kV though.
BTW, current that gets shunted through the SPD does not reach the load: it gets shunted to neutral and/or ground (returned to the source) to reduce the surge voltage seen by downstream devices and whatever surge currents this may cause. If the MOVs clamp the power bar's let-through at 400V L-N, the loads only see 400V and react accordingly.
-
Reply to Daniel Sauvageau
m
0
l
!