Surge Protector recommendations - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 774 Old 12-14-2009, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Speedskater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 2,034
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 20
I don't think that (for the most part) that westom is talking NEC code. He's writing about places that want more protection than code, like communication tower and broadcast transmitter buildings. It's not code required but it is best practice.

Kevin
Speedskater is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 774 Old 12-14-2009, 05:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV Doogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinness77 View Post

Well,
I confirmed that I have just the one ground connected to the incoming water pipe. I would probably like to add another ground close to the panel (two 8ft foot rods driven into the ground 6 ft apart). Unless there would be a better option.
Oh, and I have another question. Is it recommended to put a protector on the incoming cable line? And if so what product would you recommend? When Verizon Fios becomes available is that a better option since they use fiber to the house instead of RG6?

Thanks Again

Guinness,

I would certainly recommend installation of additional driven rods to 'supplement' the grounding provided by the water connection. Generally speaking, you are required to install one rod as long as it meets the minimum resistance recommendation. In many circumstances a second rod may not provide improved ground impedance results. Soil resistivity, moisture, change in soil per depth and other factors greatly influence the need for additional driven rods.

I always recommend protection of phone and cable lines entering the facility. You can find them at the Innovative Technology (EATON) web site as well as others listed in some of the suppression threads here.

A fiber connection will not allow electrical anomalies to enter your house.

My Home Theater Site:

DJ-Theater
AV Doogie is offline  
post #93 of 774 Old 12-14-2009, 05:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV Doogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedskater View Post

I don't think that (for the most part) that westom is talking NEC code. He's writing about places that want more protection than code, like communication tower and broadcast transmitter buildings. It's not code required but it is best practice.

Then he should not state the information as:

Code says an earth ground must be less than 20 feet. That is also for human safety. For surge protection, a ground wire must be even shorter. Other characteristics not defined by code include separated from non-grounding wires, not inside metallic conduit, and no sharp bends. Requirements that are defined by the NEC. Characteristics essential to surge protection.

The only legal earth electrode that must always be supplemented because it is insufficient even for human safety: water pipe. For surge protection, every incoming utility wire must connect short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to the same (single point) earth ground. All ground wire separate until they meet at that electrode. These requirements not defined by the NEC are important for surge protection.

My Home Theater Site:

DJ-Theater
AV Doogie is offline  
post #94 of 774 Old 12-14-2009, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
IIRC there is a requirement in recent versions of the NEC that says the ground wire from the point when things like antenna cables enter a building to the service entrance must be 20' or less, and if not, a second ground rod needs to be installed and properly bonded to the first one. I don't recall anything about the length of the equipment grounding conductor from the service entrance to the ground rod. But it may have changed, too. In any case, the shorter the better as I am sure we all agree.
Colm is offline  
post #95 of 774 Old 12-14-2009, 09:23 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinness77 View Post

I confirmed that I have just the one ground connected to the incoming water pipe. I would probably like to add another ground close to the panel (two 8ft foot rods driven into the ground 6 ft apart). Unless there would be a better option.
Oh, and I have another question. Is it recommended to put a protector on the incoming cable line?

Those ground rods would be minimally sufficient as well as necessary.

Cable companies recommend no protectors on their cable. Protectors degrade signals. Better protection is provided by connecting the cable's ground block directly to earth. IOW the cable must drop down close to those electrodes before rising back up to enter the building.

If your environment is particularly harsh, you might consider protectors that are not signal harmful. But those tend to be expensive. See examples from Polyphaser. You are not installing protection anywhere near to what is required in cell phone towers, et al. More that sufficient protection is often provided by a $2 ground block connected short to earth.

BTW, even FIOS has a metallic sheath that also should be earthed.
westom is offline  
post #96 of 774 Old 12-15-2009, 11:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Guinness77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks everyone for the help.

Westom,
Do you have a suggestion on something better than the two ground rods that I would be able to implement? Also, I believe the water table is about 5 -6 feet down in the location I would put the rods. Would that pose a problem?

Thanks
Guinness77 is offline  
post #97 of 774 Old 12-15-2009, 04:58 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinness77 View Post

Do you have a suggestion on something better than the two ground rods that I would be able to implement?

To make better recommendations requires knowledge of geology, a decade history including neighbor's experiences, how utilities and underground pipelines are routed, etc. In one location, proper earthing was subverted by a vein of graphite on that building's far side. Surge took paths through household appliances to connect to that more conductive geology. In that case, a solution was to encircle the building with a bare copper wire loop.

For most everyone, two ground rods with a ground wire routed as short and straight as possible would provide significant improvement. Better is to have those rods in always moist earth - which is also why the bottom of that electrode does so much more and why a four foot ground rod does so little.

Better is to install earthing electrodes interconnected by bare copper wire between those rods buried at least 18". The rods are driven below the surface. A 6 inch PCV pipe and pipe cap creates the equivalent of a manhole so that wire bonding to rod can be inspected and so that the connection is not exposed to trip humans or harm a lawnmower.

Experience is better than anything I can say from here. Direct lightning strikes should result in no damage. If damage does occur, then your earthing system is where the investigation begins; may need upgrading. No way to test a protection system (unfortunately). First test comes from experience - from the first lightning strike.

For example, a FL home suffered repeated lightning strikes to a bathroom wall. They had lightnig rods installed and connected to eigh foot ground rods. Lighting struck the bathroom again. Why? Bathroom pipes connected underground to more conductive limestone. Lightning rods were only earthed in sand. Where did the investigation start? First thing - what made the better connection to earth. Bypassed lightning rods to obtain a better connection to earth via bathroom pipes. Welcome to the art where magic does not exist and science does not always have enough information.

Neighborhood experience may also recommend lightning rods. Again, local history is a best indicator of what is sufficient.

Two ground rods connected short to all utilities is a minimum for any building. As you have demonstrated, many buildings do not even have earthing for post 1990 human safety requirements - let alone something better for transistor safety. You need at least one ground rod just for human safety.
westom is offline  
post #98 of 774 Old 12-16-2009, 07:18 AM
Newbie
 
whatever86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Instead of waiting for the first lightning to hit your house and test the grounding rod. You can build a grounding pit(earth pit) base on your location. Grounding pit offer year round effectiveness earth grounding. You might need to add water before winter came.
whatever86 is offline  
post #99 of 774 Old 12-16-2009, 03:31 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatever86 View Post

You can build a grounding pit(earth pit) base on your location. Grounding pit offer year round effectiveness earth grounding.

That pit is also called a landfill. A perfect location for storing used lightning bolts.
westom is offline  
post #100 of 774 Old 01-03-2010, 12:59 AM
Newbie
 
agmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First off a very Happy New Year to you all!!

I must say my respect for AVS Forums is going north everyday, this thread is a perfect example!!

!!bump!!, but can any of you guys kindly tell me your opinion about this device:
ETHEREAL Esp-1010
I found a good deal here(pretty much gives you an idea of my budget!):
h t t p:// w w w .accessories4less . c o m/make-a-store/item/ETHESP1010/ETHEREAL/Esp-1010-10-Outlet-Surge-Protector-With-Digital-Voltage-Display/1.html

My setup is regular Home Theater components, i.e.,
-HDTV
-Receiver
-BD player
-Subwoofer
-Cable + wifi router

I live in a rental apartment so whole house protection is not feasible.
Would appreciate your suggestions/recco.

Thanks...
agmar is offline  
post #101 of 774 Old 01-03-2010, 01:34 AM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by agmar View Post

I live in a rental apartment so whole house protection is not feasible.

Any landlord should be happy to have you donate a 'whole house' protector that would protect all his appliances. Landlord only need install it.

Second, AC utility can sell or lease a 'whole house' protector that they install behind your electric meter.

Third - the kludge. The principles remain same. A protector as close to earth as possible. And distance between protector and electronics increased. For example, buy a protector of maximum joules. But off its six foot power cord as short as possible. Locate the wall receptacle closest (by wire length) to the breaker box. Therefore as close to earth as possible. That becomes the best (shortest) earthing connection.

Now locate the wall receptacle farthest (by wire length) from the breaker box. That increases distance between the protector and electronics. The kludge solution connects a protector as short as practical to earth. And increase separation between protector and electronics.

Two effective solutions and a kludge solution provided. Each is about where energy must be harmlessly dissipated.
westom is offline  
post #102 of 774 Old 01-03-2010, 08:06 AM
Newbie
 
agmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by westom View Post

Third - the kludge. The principles remain same. A protector as close to earth as possible. And distance between protector and electronics increased. For example, buy a protector of maximum joules. But off its six foot power cord as short as possible. Locate the wall receptacle closest (by wire length) to the breaker box. Therefore as close to earth as possible. That becomes the best (shortest) earthing connection.

Thanks, that def was layman friendly , i think I'll stick with the kludge solution ...
So I take it tht you don't think this particular model has anything that others lack and tht they are all more or less similar at this price range!
agmar is offline  
post #103 of 774 Old 01-03-2010, 01:21 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by agmar View Post

So I take it tht you don't think this particular model has anything that others lack and tht they are all more or less similar at this price range!

A Monster Cable protector at $150 is the same protector circuit selling for $7 in grocery stores. Monster Cable has a long history of identifying scam markets. Then selling products in that market for even higher profits. Another reason why a kludge solution requires so much more work.

A scam solution is more dangerous as well as significantly reduced (if any) protection. Irresponsible is to jump at a kludge solution only because you understand the executive summary - did not understand the previous text written at a layman's level.

Apartment fires have been created by plug-in protectors. Examples that most every fire department has seen. Reasons from a fire marshal are why plug-in protectors are a threat. Cutting its power cord short at least makes an ineffective solution at least a little less ineffective. Far simpler is to have your landlord install a 'whole house' protector that costs many times less than the Monster Cable protector. Or have the electric company install their superior solution - does not require the landlord's permission.

A kludge solution is only when those others solutions are, without doubt, impossible. Only valid after first attempting those responsible solutions. View the scary pictures to appreciate another reason why the kludge solution is so undesirable - just one step above nothing:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://*******.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/les...tectorfire.htm
http://www.pennsburgfireco.com/fullstory.php?58339
westom is offline  
post #104 of 774 Old 01-03-2010, 09:48 PM
Newbie
 
agmar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks for the rebuke and the useful URLs.
I'll def check with my power company, but in the meanwhile I did go ahead and order a device that is UL certified and follows the guidelines as outlined in one of the URLs mentioned in your comment above ...
With all due respect to your evident expertise on the matter as well as the thoughtfully detailed responses, I don't think it is that bad a thing to even consider surge protectors.
There is, like you pointed out, some risk involved with using these devices (aka kludge solutions), which probably can be controlled to some extent using the guidelines provided on the following page
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs..._unit_info.htm
agmar is offline  
post #105 of 774 Old 01-04-2010, 03:30 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by agmar View Post

Thanks for the rebuke and the useful URLs.
I'll def check with my power company, but in the meanwhile I did go ahead and order a device that is UL certified and follows the guidelines as outlined in one of the URLs mentioned in your comment above ...

A protector can fail during UL testing and still be UL listed. UL says nothing about protection. Only that no sparks and flames appear during their test waveforms. Protectors in those scary pictures were UL listed - which only means fire is less likely.

Appreciate the 'mistake' made in your citation. If the protector fails - thermal fuse trips to avoid a house fire - then protector abandon the appliance. The appliance had to protect itself. A common problem with power strip protectors. A surge too tiny to overwhelm protection in any appliance can easily destroy the ineffective power strip protector. Fortunately, all appliances already contain significant protection.

Second, MOV manufacturers state that any condition (necessary to blow that fuse) must never exist. That catastrophic failure is a complete violation of MOV manufacturer specs. But that catastrophic failure is too often seen in power strip protectors. By undersizing a protector (violating what MOV manufacturers state), then failure gets the naive to recommend more such protectors.

Third, once the light reports MOVs disconnected, now you have a perfectly safe ($4) power strip. MOVs are no longer connected to create a (potential) house fire.

Fourth, how does a 200 or 600 joule protector absorb typically destructive surges (hundreds of thousands of joules)? It does not. Surges that small typically do not overwhelm protection already inside all appliances. Protector that small can be damaged by a surge that would not overwhelm protection inside all appliances.

Fifth, that protector must be located away from flammable materials. A fact I neglected to mention previously. Away from dust balls, rugs, and desktop papers.

One final note. See that reference to response time? More nonsense. All protectors respond in nanoseconds. For example, MOVs respond so quickly that the length of its wire lead (typically 3 inches) can significantly change the MOVs response time. View manufacturer data sheets. Response time testing even discuss how long the leads are because even that wire can change a protectors response time. If response time is that close to near zero, then why do many discuss it? Popular myths are promoted without first reading manufacturer data sheets.

Notice which source is citing datasheets that only designers read. That alone indentifies which source has better credibility. Identifies who learned this stuff by designing it - and having his designs 'tested' by direct lightning strikes.

The kludge solution is not recommended. It is only a poor option.
westom is offline  
post #106 of 774 Old 01-09-2010, 12:43 PM
Member
 
t5volvov70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What are your opinions on this Panamax product?

http://www.panamax.com/Products/In-W....aspx#tab_spec

I'm not ready to install a whole house system. However, I'm looking for surge protection behind my new Pioneer plasma wall mount installation. In my case I already have a standard wall outlet, but need something slim or that will replace the standard outlet.

As always, your opinions are always appreciated. If there is another wall option product that will fit behind the TV what would you recommend.

Note: When lit, there's an LED indicates there is an overvoltage condition with the power to the MIW Power-Pro PFP. I'm wondering how well this will work. I won't even be able to see the light since it's mounted behind the TV

New Owner of Pioneer Elite 141FD
Denon AVR-3810CI
Pioneer Elite 23FD
t5volvov70 is offline  
post #107 of 774 Old 01-09-2010, 04:14 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by t5volvov70 View Post

What are your opinions on this Panamax product?

Located adjacent to the TV, it must absorb surges that are hundreds of thousands of joules. View its numbers. 546 joules means it uses only 183 joules and never more than 360 joules ... to absorb how much energy?

Your telco never wastes money on that protector for same reasons. Your telco knows no 'magic box' provides protection. You have few choices. So that protection inside that plasma TV is not overwhelmed, you must earth that energy BEFORE it enters the building. Energy at that protector may even obtain earth destructively via the TV.

Too often, eyes glaze over when the numbers arrive. Did you view those numbers - ie 546 joules? Where does that protector claim protection for each type of surge in its numeric specs? View these numbers yourself. It makes no such protection claims. Anything that protects that plasma TV is already inside the TV. Protection that also requires an earthed 'whole house' protector.

What does the LED report? Protectors (MOVs) fail by degrading. No light can report the acceptable failure mode. But when a protector is grossly undersized, a protector must completely disconnect from the surge to avoid a house fire - leaving the surge to confront the TV. That light can only report a protector so grossly undersized as to fail in an unacceptable manner. Where to learn this? MOV manufacturer datasheets and application (design) notes. Or, simply ask what happens when 546 joules tries to absorb surges that are less than hundreds of thousands of joules.

Without a 'whole house' protector, then the solution is difficult. See that furnace, dishwasher, and smoke detector? If your TV needs protection, then so do all those other appliances. What protects them? Same thing that provides effective TV protection. Either you do the easy thing (one 'whole house' protector), or buy a protector that must somehow absorb how much energy? No way around reality. The protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That wall protector, instead, must somehow magically make surge energy disappear.
westom is offline  
post #108 of 774 Old 01-09-2010, 05:02 PM
Member
 
t5volvov70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Weston - wow! Is sounds like we are preparing for the final voltage spike/surge

I fully understand your logic, but I'm just looking for something that can help minimize something small. We don't have very many lightning strikes out in the NW. When I get some time and I'll investigate the whole house system. As mentioned in my original post I'm not looking to install a house system at this time. Mostly looking for something that will fit behind by TV and hopefully minimize any problems that could come about from higher than normal activity on the line.

Cheers!

New Owner of Pioneer Elite 141FD
Denon AVR-3810CI
Pioneer Elite 23FD
t5volvov70 is offline  
post #109 of 774 Old 01-09-2010, 05:26 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by t5volvov70 View Post

I fully understand your logic, but I'm just looking for something that can help minimize something small.

1) Anything that protector might protect from is made irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance. How often every week did you troop to hardware stores replacing clock radios, dimmer switches, door bells, and bathroom GFCIs. Even the tiny dimmer switch contains protection that makes most every transient irrelevant.

By installing only one 'whole house' protector, all lesser transients are also made further irrelevant. Cost of one 'whole house' protector is about $1 per protected appliance - to protect from all types of surges. What protects when a 4,000 volt primary wire falls and shorts to your incoming wires?

Anything that 546 joule protector might do is already inside the TV.

Appreciate the reality. View the output of a 120 volt UPS when in battery backup mode. Two 200 volt square waves with a spike of up to 270 volts between those square waves? Electricity considered so 'dirty' as to be harmful to small electric motors and power strip protectors. And also ideal power to computers and other electronics. Electronics are so robust - already contain significant protection so that UPSes may even output 'dirty' power.

2) Which should you worry about? Protection for that big screen TV should also protect other critical appliances. Bathroom GFCIs can fail - provide no human safety protection in the bathroom - if you do not protect them. What appliance is most critical during a surge? Smoke detectors. What protects them? Same protection also protects a big screen TV. Why install a protector that does nothing for potentially destructive surges? That 546 joule protector does not even make protection claims in its numeric specs.

A 'whole house' protector is the standard and effective solution to other potentially destructive surges - ie 4,000 volts incoming on your AC electric wires. Show me where that 546 joule device claims such protection?

3) Worse, a protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can (and we engineers even traced such damage) even earth a surge destructively through the adjacent TV. And 4), to not be a fire risk, that 546 joule protector needs protection only provided by one 'whole house' protector.

Surge protection is always about where energy dissipates. IOW the protector (from typically destructive surges) is only as effective as its earth ground. What does the 546 joule protector not have and not discuss? Earthing.

Why do telcos not use adjacent protectors? Why do they want protectors up to 50 meters distant from electronics? That separation increases protection.
westom is offline  
post #110 of 774 Old 01-10-2010, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV Doogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by westom View Post

1) Anything that protector might protect from is made irrelevant by protection already inside every appliance. How often every week did you troop to hardware stores replacing clock radios, dimmer switches, door bells, and bathroom GFCIs. Even the tiny dimmer switch contains protection that makes most every transient irrelevant.

Most appliances and electronics contain one or two MOVs for limited suppression capability. I have heard that this is to maintain the device through the warranty period. The MOV devices are nothing special and provide very little protection from any significant transient event.

My Home Theater Site:

DJ-Theater
AV Doogie is offline  
post #111 of 774 Old 01-10-2010, 06:22 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV Doogie View Post

Most appliances and electronics contain one or two MOVs for limited suppression capability.

Nobody said anything about MOVs or equivalent devices inside any appliances.

Apple once put MOVs inside the Apple II. No longer. MOVs adjacent to electronics are ineffective. Too close to electronics. Too far from earth ground. In some cases, even contributed to electronics damage.

All appliances contain significant protection in the design. An international standard in 1970 required 600 volts without damage. Today that number is thousands of volts. Protection that can be overwhelmed by a rare transient. Protection what requires MOVs located at the service entrance. Protection that is inherent in how power supplies are designed and how supplies operate. Protection not provided by MOVs inside an appliance.
westom is offline  
post #112 of 774 Old 01-10-2010, 06:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AV Doogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by westom View Post

Nobody said anything about MOVs or equivalent devices inside any appliances.

Apple once put MOVs inside the Apple II. No longer. MOVs adjacent to electronics are ineffective. Too close to electronics. Too far from earth ground. In some cases, even contributed to electronics damage.

All appliances contain significant protection in the design. An international standard in 1970 required 600 volts without damage. Today that number is thousands of volts. Protection that can be overwhelmed by a rare transient. Protection what requires MOVs located at the service entrance. Protection that is inherent in how power supplies are designed and how supplies operate. Protection not provided by MOVs inside an appliance.

Open up some modern appliances and learn!

Your diatribes do not help those folks trying to obtain helpful information.

My Home Theater Site:

DJ-Theater
AV Doogie is offline  
post #113 of 774 Old 01-10-2010, 06:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by westom View Post

Even the tiny dimmer switch contains protection that makes most every transient irrelevant.

Interestingly enough, the two things that fail less often in my house since installing a whole-house surge protective device are incandescent lamps and triac-based dimmers. Both of them are inherently safe against surges less than about 1500V according to the old NBS research I read.

FWIW I have never had a failure of a more complex device that I could attribute to a surge, before or after installing a surge protective device, which testifies to the inherent immunity of common electric and electronic devices to typical surges. But I live in a location where lighting is not a significant threat more than a couple of times a year. Almost all of the transients I experience are power utility switching transients, etc.
Colm is offline  
post #114 of 774 Old 01-10-2010, 08:09 PM
Member
 
t5volvov70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Westom - So your recommendation would be to install nothing if I'm not ready to install a house system?

New Owner of Pioneer Elite 141FD
Denon AVR-3810CI
Pioneer Elite 23FD
t5volvov70 is offline  
post #115 of 774 Old 01-10-2010, 09:28 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by t5volvov70 View Post

Westom - So your recommendation would be to install nothing if I'm not ready to install a house system?

Are you trooping to the hardware store weekly to replace dimmer switches, etc. Your concern is transients that occur maybe once every seven years. A number that varies significantly even in the same town. A numbers better obtained from neighborhood history over the past decade. Maybe you have plenty of time.

Meanwhile, you may want to address only part of the 'system' because earthing also is critical to human safety. Something like two out of ten older homes are missing that ground - for human safety. Only way to verify that ground is inspection. Adding a 'whole house' protector may be installed later. Inspecting and fixing grounds should be done sooner.

Are you a gambler?
westom is offline  
post #116 of 774 Old 01-14-2010, 06:54 PM
Member
 
Trey9128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've thought about the lightning issue quite a bit, as I've had at least two serious lightning strikes in the last 10 years, with quite a bit of equipment damage.

In the first instance, lightning struck the ground and a small tree on the side of the house opposite the electrical service. The energy went through our invisible fence system and the sprinkler system and there was black discoloration on some of the outlets on that side of the house. Talking to experts at the time, it was apparent that the damage was caused by a retrograde surge of electricity, and a whole house protector would have been useless.

The second time we had damage, most of the energy seemed to enter the house through the cable TV system, and our neighbors also had damage to everything hooked up to the cable system. Again, I think a whole house system would have provided no real protection.

So while I certainly wouldn't argue against a whole house system, I think protecting expensive electronics with a proximate protection device (for both power and other low voltage connections that might transmit energy from outside the house) makes sense.

It's my understanding that
Trey9128 is offline  
post #117 of 774 Old 01-14-2010, 07:45 PM
 
westom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey9128 View Post

So while I certainly wouldn't argue against a whole house system, I think protecting expensive electronics with a proximate protection device (for both power and other low voltage connections that might transmit energy from outside the house) makes sense.

So, when the energy is at the appliance, where does that protector put the energy? An IEEE brochure shows what we also saw. That energy can be earthed destructively via an adjacent appliance.

Your post only makes sense when assuming a protector is protection. It is not. The protector only gives a surge more paths. Where is the best path to earth? Often via some nearby appliance.

Let's assume energy entered on the cable as you posted. Why was that cable not properly earthed? Why would that current on an earthed cable seek earthing ground destructively inside the building? It wouldn't.

Having said that, if your earthing is defective (multiple ground points), then Duke Energy recommends a solution:
http://*******.com/yefm8n9 or
http://www.duke-energy.com/indiana-b...ech-tip-08.asp

Why does your telco use 'whole house' protectors? Not put protectors next to the appliance? To increase protection, telcos want protectors up to 50 meters separated from electronics. Why? Wire impedance explains why that separation increases protection. And why a protector close to earth and distant from electronics dumps energy into earth; not into some household appliance.

If it was not clear. Every wire inside every cable (overhead and underground) must connect short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to that single point earth ground. Every wire connected either directly (cable TV) or via a protector (AC electric, telephone). Any wire not properly earthed (ie to that invisible fence) may violate the entire protection system.

t5volvov70 - I cannot emphasis enough the only thing that provides protection. The one thing you must upgrade (in most cases) is the only thing that provides protection - single point earth ground. Details posted above.

That applies to your protection - the secondary protection system. Same applies to the primary protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

As posted above, earthing is the important solution. Any protector without earthing (ie plug-in) simply cannot provide that protection.
westom is offline  
post #118 of 774 Old 01-14-2010, 09:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trey9128 View Post

Again, I think a whole house system would have provided no real protection.

A whole-house system includes protection of every path a surge can take into a house, not just your AC service. And that is just what westom has been crusading about in these forums. The paths that caused your damage are common sources of damage.
Colm is offline  
post #119 of 774 Old 01-16-2010, 08:57 AM
Member
 
Trey9128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colm View Post

A whole-house system includes protection of every path a surge can take into a house, not just your AC service. And that is just what westom has been crusading about in these forums. The paths that caused your damage are common sources of damage.

OK. So if I understand you correctly, a whole house suppressor system would isolate EVERY wired connection entering the house, not just the electrical main service? That would be great, but most of the time I just see people referring to protection at the electric main, which would not protect against these retrograde surges (which are pretty common it seems to me).
Trey9128 is offline  
post #120 of 774 Old 01-16-2010, 12:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Colm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
Yes, you understand correctly. Some of the protection can be quite simple, like grounding blocks on coaxial cables, with a short path to ground. The most overlooked paths appear to be things like sprinkler system wiring and antenna rotator wiring.
Colm is offline  
Reply Tweaks and Do-It-Yourself

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off