Lightning eats SSA Excom Minutes

Doug Haluza wrote:

Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
damaged--they are connected to two different systems.

If the surge protector has a cable or phone jack connector in addition
to the AC sockets, would that protect the TV or telephone?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:

Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
damaged--they are connected to two different systems.

If the surge protector has a cable or phone jack connector in addition
to the AC sockets, would that protect the TV or telephone?

It is helpful to have a common surge protector for low energy
disturbances, but it cannot completely make up for a lack of proper
bonding in a high energy situation. For example, if the telephone guy
drove a separate ground rod, and it is not bonded to your power service
ground, your $10 surge protector is not going to survive a nearby
strike.

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Doug Haluza wrote:

Current flows in a complete circuit--direction is arbitrary and
irrelevant. What actually happens in many cases of applicance damage is
not voltage surges, it's ground potential difference. If your power,
telephone, cable TV and water services do not enter at the same point
and have common grounding, they can have different "gound" potentials
relative to each other. Even if lightning does not strike your house
directly, it disturbs the ground potential for a large area. This is
why telephones, televisions and refrigerators with ice makers are often
damaged--they are connected to two different systems.

If the surge protector has a cable or phone jack connector in addition
to the AC sockets, would that protect the TV or telephone?

To the extent that the surge protector is able, yes. However, the cheap
power strip surge protectors that people often have are unlikely to absorb
a lighting strike. If this is your goal, make sure you purchase one that
says it can handle it. The good ones have attached equipment guarantees,
where they'll pay for damage if their stuff fails to protect your stuff.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:
To the extent that the surge protector is able, yes. However, the cheap
power strip surge protectors that people often have are unlikely to absorb
a lighting strike. If this is your goal, make sure you purchase one that
says it can handle it. ...

Show me a surge protector with numbers that can 'absorb' or therefore
eliiminate surges? Myth purveyors - those who never looked inside nor
read a manufacturer datasheet - believe a surge protector somehow stops
or absorbs what three miles of sky could not. An appliance connects
directly to AC mains when plugged into a power strip protector. What
is 'in series' to absorb those joules? Nothing. There is no
electrical dam inside that power strip protector. Absorbing is not a
protector function. But with profits so high, myth promoters need you
to make that assumption and hope you ignore those numbers. How many
joules?

They are shunt mode devices. They become conductors only during a
transient - shunting a transient to all other wires. IOW transient now
has even more wires to find earth ground destructively via adjacent
appliances. Yes, adjacent protectors have even contributed to damage
of a powered off appliance. What is the shunt path to earth? Reread
the Carswell story. That transient will seek any path to earth. Give
it a better, non-destructive path; no damage. That is what 'whole
house' protectors and lightning rods accomplish because they provide a
shorter path to earth. Nothing absorbed by protector or lightning rod.

Effective protectors are best located farther from an appliance and
as close to earth ground as is possible ... to shunt to earth. But
again. Show me the numbers. Do you really believe a protector rated
for but hundreds of joules will absorb thousands or millions of joules?

There is no stopping or blocking of lightning as plug-in
protector manufacturers hope you believe. Lightning
damage is made irrelevant by installing a so inexpensive
and properly sized 'whole house' protector on AC mains
where that wire enters the building AND earthed to same
electrode used by telephone and cable TV. Effective
protectors are found in Lowes, Home Depot, and
electrical supply houses using responsible brand names
such as Intermatic, Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton,
Square D, and GE. Effective protector for a typically
most destructive lightning path costs about $1 per
protected appliance.

That protector also does not stop or absorb anything. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Effective protectors make a short and temporary
connection to earth.

Cheap power strips include those $150 Monster Cable products sold in
Circuit City. How do you know they are cheap? Where is the dedicated
earthing wire? No earth ground means no effective protection.

somewhere, in some safety bulletin somewhere, or maybe in the soaring
magazine, is a truly FRIGHTENING account by Ken Sorenson when his plane
(while flying) was struck by lightening.....glass and carbon, but you
would be amazed. Ken was flying in a contest at Moriarty when it
happened. He was able to land safely, after the cockpit exploded from
the pressure wave....

I don't think anyone wants to "experiment" like that!

Micki and
Charlie-Lite

w_tom wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
To the extent that the surge protector is able, yes. However, the cheap
power strip surge protectors that people often have are unlikely to absorb
a lighting strike. If this is your goal, make sure you purchase one that
says it can handle it. ...

Show me a surge protector with numbers that can 'absorb' or therefore
eliiminate surges? Myth purveyors - those who never looked inside nor
read a manufacturer datasheet - believe a surge protector somehow stops
or absorbs what three miles of sky could not. An appliance connects
directly to AC mains when plugged into a power strip protector. What
is 'in series' to absorb those joules? Nothing. There is no
electrical dam inside that power strip protector. Absorbing is not a
protector function. But with profits so high, myth promoters need you
to make that assumption and hope you ignore those numbers. How many
joules?

"Says it can handle it" is more than technical specs. A good attached
equipment guarantee is the best way to say that it can handle a strike.
This gives the manufacturer a good financial incentive to build their
equipment well, and if they fail then they'll pay you for the equipment
lost. Of course they won't recover lost data, but that's why you should
make backups anyway.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Guarantee is obviously so chock full of exemptions as to only convince
the naive. Plug-in protectors do not claim to provide protection. It
provides protection from a typically non-destructive transient. Then
phrase the claim so that naive will assume that is protection from all
types of surges. Same half-truth word games got so many to believe
Saddam had WMDs.

That plug-in protector does not claim to handle anything. Have
doubts? Then put up their numerical specifications for each type of
transient. Little hint. No such numerical claims exist. But then
tobacco companies also successfully promoted claims in 1950s and 1960s
that smoking provided better health. Yes, many also believed those
myths.

Hardware protectors that are effective are those that have that
dedicated earthing wire. Effective solutions also costs tens of times
less money. Plug-in protectors avoid discussion about earthing to sell
grossly profitable and often grossly undersized protectors. They are
good at getting others to strongly endorse myths - as demonstrated in
this thread. Where are the numbers? Not provided because so many know
only using subjective reasoning.

So where are numerical specs that "says it can handle it"? Numbers
don't exist for same reason an American president could proclaim Saddam
had WMDs. No numbers - just subjective claims. Sufficient to have many
promote myths rather than ask some embarrassing questions.

Home protection including appliances has always been about earthing -
as even Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752.

Michael Ash wrote:
"Says it can handle it" is more than technical specs. A good attached
equipment guarantee is the best way to say that it can handle a strike.
This gives the manufacturer a good financial incentive to build their
equipment well, and if they fail then they'll pay you for the equipment
lost. Of course they won't recover lost data, but that's why you should
make backups anyway.

On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, "w_tom" wrote:

That plug-in protector does not claim to handle anything.
Humor for the day.

Have
doubts? Then put up their numerical specifications for each type of
transient. Little hint. No such numerical claims exist.
A bs argument. You have never provided a link to any site that has the
specs you say are required. If you could look at the nice pictures in
the IEEE guide you could see power wires have MOVs H-N, H-G, N-G -
covering all modes. In addition, common mode surges (H & N lift away
from G) coming in on the power line are converted to transverse mode
surges (H lifts away from N & G) by the N-G bond in US services.


Hardware protectors that are effective are those that have that
dedicated earthing wire.
Your religious views on earthing are not shared by the IEEE or NIST.
Plainly described in the IEEE guide - protection is by clamping, not
earthing.



They are
good at getting others to strongly endorse myths - as demonstrated in
this thread. Where are the numbers? Not provided because so many know
only using subjective reasoning.
I have provided links from the IEEE and NIST that say plug-in surge
suppressors are effective. You have provided your myths and subjective
reasoning.

--
bud--

Check this guy out (click view profile in Google groups)!

He keeps on posting the same answers in different group discussions
that have to do with lightning strikes.

Amateur lightning enthusiast? Industry advocate? Surge protector
vendor?

Who knows...


bud-- wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, "w_tom" wrote:

That plug-in protector does not claim to handle anything.
Humor for the day.

Have
doubts? Then put up their numerical specifications for each type of
transient. Little hint. No such numerical claims exist.
A bs argument. You have never provided a link to any site that has the
specs you say are required. If you could look at the nice pictures in
the IEEE guide you could see power wires have MOVs H-N, H-G, N-G -
covering all modes. In addition, common mode surges (H & N lift away
from G) coming in on the power line are converted to transverse mode
surges (H lifts away from N & G) by the N-G bond in US services.


Hardware protectors that are effective are those that have that
dedicated earthing wire.
Your religious views on earthing are not shared by the IEEE or NIST.
Plainly described in the IEEE guide - protection is by clamping, not
earthing.



They are
good at getting others to strongly endorse myths - as demonstrated in
this thread. Where are the numbers? Not provided because so many know
only using subjective reasoning.
I have provided links from the IEEE and NIST that say plug-in surge
suppressors are effective. You have provided your myths and subjective
reasoning.

--
bud--