Power Conditioner Recommendations

[westom]

1. You have accused me of lying, but cannot point to even one post of mine which would support that assertion.

You lie constantly. You put forth spin that looks advanced – as science fiction. When you subvert science as you do, that is not just lying. That is a direct insult to those who learn this stuff. Technical profanity.

Your do not represent science. For example, you did not grasp the kettle example. It was a destructive path to earth BECAUSE surge energy was permitted inside the building. And again I am repeating a fundamental concept of surge protection that you do not get. A surge current inside the building found numerous destructive paths to earth.

Protection is always about where energy dissipates. Either surges are harmlessly absorb outside. Or that energy is inside hunting for destructively. He had damage because surge energy was permitted inside the building. Once inside, that surge hunts for earth destructively - with or without ineffective plug-in protectors. It is that simple.

Once that surge was inside the building, then damage can result. The cone of protection from his trees did not include the house. To avert that surge meant something simple - Ben Franklin lightning rods - because lightning rods are properly earthed. Will provide the harmless connection to earth.

Well you are again claiming electromagnetic fields cause damage because you have no electromagnetic field training. One tiny NE-2 neon glow lamp can even conduct that tiny transient without damage. And that reality was posted repeatedly – so you would ignore it again.

Transients created by nearby fields are made irrelevant by what is inside every appliance. So you again ignore so many examples that demonstrate you never learned this stuff. If you ignore reality, then your myths will have credibility? Explain why all car radios, cell phones, and wrist watches remains functional after nearby lightning strikes. You simply ignore that challenge to again claim the EM field myth.

You still *know* damage from nearby lightning strikes exist because a field is 4 kilovolts per square meter. Anyone can cite numbers in an incendiary manner – without understanding what they mean. When will you learn why that number says no damage? Or we just make it obvious using example after example.

How often is your AM radio destroyed by nearby lightning. That radio has an antenna designed to maximize 4 kilovolts per square meter on its most sensitive transistor - the RF amplifier. According to your speculation, every AM radio in the neighborhood is destroyed with every nearby lightning strike. Reality - you are hyping half truths using a number you do not even understand. That 4 kilovolts per square meter does not even harm the most sensitive transistor in the radio.

That is your MO. Make wild claims so that layman cannot see how egregious your lies really are. Perversion is insulting to those to bothered to spend years actually learning this stuff.

You inability to even learn is insulting. When does you education admit that even an NE-2 makes those fields irrelevant. Nearby lightning strikes only cause damage when your education is called junk science. Will refuse to even learn from your mistakes.

 

[jneutron]

Golly gee, what fun...thanks again for the rants...

You lie constantly.

And yet, you have not shown anything to substantiate that despite repeated requests to do so...

You put forth spin that looks advanced – as science fiction.

To paraphrase Arthur C Clark...sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. To you, what I say may be magic. However, others well versed in maxwells equations and electromagnetic field theory already know and understand what I say.

Your do not represent science. For example, you did not grasp the kettle example. It was a destructive path to earth BECAUSE surge energy was permitted inside the building.

The flashover at the kettle was a result of inductive voltage on the pipe as a result of di/dt plus the loop induction of the appliance wiring. Just ask Marzloff, he can explain this to you...

Well you are again claiming electromagnetic fields cause damage because you have no electromagnetic field training. One tiny NE-2 neon glow lamp can even conduct that tiny transient without damage. And that reality was posted repeatedly – so you would ignore it again.

As I've stated many times, I can teach you this stuff, but you need to have a minimal level of understanding. You have not demonstrated a level of understanding sufficient to be able to learn what I derive on a daily basis..that is why you really should be asking questions instead of attacking. Only that way will you be able to learn this stuff. Don't worry, I tell all the high school kids I give tours to that they too can learn this stuff. It's not rocket science after all..

Magnetic induction is a reality dude. You need to learn..

Explain why all car radios, cell phones, and wrist watches remains functional after nearby lightning strikes. You simply ignore that challenge to again claim the EM field myth.

Already did, dude.. Remember the derivation with the cell phone loop area and the total induced voltage of 9 volts? Course you do, but you ignore that which conflicts with your rants..

Anyone can cite numbers in an incendiary manner – without understanding what they mean.

You are the poster child for that..

And again, you have posted absolutely NOTHING technical. Just continued attacks in lieu of intelligent repartee...


Thank you again for the comic relief...your posts are just sooo funny..

Cheers, John

 

[avliner]

Guys,

couple of weeks ago I've got a new power center, over at Guitar Center though and considering I had a $ 130 bonus, I considered a good deal and so I picked up the Pro 3500 power center model for my HT. See details below:

http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=2140

Any specific comments on the a/m model??

 

[JerryLove]

So you again misquote and misrepresent. You really do aspire to be another jneutron.

Thank you. Having recently read some of his posts, I'd call that a laudable goal; and a compliment that you find similarity.

I did not call plug-in protectors useless. Please read before replying. Those profit centers were described as ineffective. NIST is blunter. The NIST said your beloved protectors are "useless". How many times must I explain the difference between what I said and what the NIST says before you finally get it?

Once would be good. What is the pragmatic difference between "useless" and "ineffective"?

Please note I said "pragmatic", by which I mean "for the purposes of the actual topic". Obviously you believe that surge-supressors are useful for generating revenue.

Jerry Love cites the NIST brochure. Jerry, at what point do you read the NIST warning about those "useless" protectors that you so love? This quoted directly from your own NIST citation - that you did not understand:
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will work by diverting
> the surges to ground. The best surge protection in the world can be useless if
> grounding is not done properly.

Since I'm aspiring to be jneutron, I'll go ahead and copy his coloring scheme.

As most anyone knows: a surge supressor's job is to make sure that there's a better path to ground for an over-voltage than through the equipment.

If that's not possible, then it's not possible. Fortunately: code requires that to be possible.

Perhaps if the device on the other side of your surge supressor has a direct path to ground: it will represent less resistance than the grounding wire, or return path on the outlet... but that would seem to be the abnormal case.

Jerry - first read to have knowledge. Even you own citation contradicts the myths you are reciting.

It seems to me that's what I told you as I quoted your citations contradicting you. Let me read on to see if you can tell me where those cites didn't say what they obviously said.

Did you read your IEEE citation? A discussion about safely designing MOV based protectors. MOV protectors do same as semiconductor, carbon block, and GDT type protectors. But how MOVs are designed for human safety, et al is different. Why do you twist it into proof that plug-in protectors work? That IEEE citation makes no such discussion.

How does "no mention" equate to "contradicting"?

But yes, a guide to best practices in building effective and safe surge supressors seems to be an advocay for surge supressors.

Amazing you do not know that a 'whole house' protector is an MOV protector. You would if you had read your own citation.

I'm actually well aware that it is. There's no substantive difference between a whole-house and plug-in surge supressor. Both use MOVs to redirect over-voltages to ground.

So you routinely do not read what you post. You simply post citation URLs so that others will think you are informed. Your own citation defined a plug-in protector as "useless". Did you read it?

Yes. It was very similar to the one that said that earth grounding can actually be harmful from the other cite you cited.

You may want to consider the difference between "can" and "is".

Even your lightningsafety quote only agrees with what I have been posting.

The one that says ground rods "may be harmful"?

Protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Even your own citations says that – agree with me. So why are you again posting nasty myths?

If dolphins are so smart how come they live in igloos.

There are several seperate statements you are falsely juxtiposing.

1) Surge supressors require a path to earth to function.
2) Surge supressors are "ineffective".

These two statements are not the same. I agree with "1", no matter how many times you assert that I do not (though, such as with an open circuit, that path may be further back on line). You contradict yourself every time you argue "2".

Electricty will find a way to path to ground. Effective surge-supression ensures that path is not through your equipment.

Unplugging your equipment, for example, is pretty effective.

 

[JerryLove]

http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=2140

Any specific comments on the a/m model??

I don't typically spend more than $30 on anything without a battery in it (http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=PRO8TV).

It's a pretty unit. I do like that it powers up in-sequence (that would actually be useful with my Behringer gear). I've little doubt it functions properly. I don't know that I'd spend that on surge-supression though.

 

[westom]

There are several seperate statements you are falsely juxtiposing.
1) Surge supressors require a path to earth to function.
2) Surge supressors are "ineffective".

You keep getting it only half right. For example, "Surge suppressors are ineffective" would be what jneutron reads to post incendiary posts. I never said that. Intentionally distorting what I post is necessary for him to justify baseless attacks.

If you grasp what I posted, then your point 2) is never posted. No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors have earthing. Plug-in protectors do not.

Safety ground is not earth ground. Your reference to 'resistance' means you again missed a key point. Critical to protection is "impedance". Impedance is why an earthed protector is short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth. Why effective protectors are located at the service entrance. And why protectors adjacent to appliances can even earth surges destructively via appliances.

Whereas a 'whole house' and plug-in protectors both use MOVs, the two protectors are functionally completely different. 'Whole house' protectors will earth direct lightning strikes - and remain functional. Plug-in protectors will often fail because that failure promotes more sales. Plug-in protector circuit selling for $7 in a grocery store can also sell for $150 under the Monster label. Its purpose is profits - not protection. An overwhelming majority would not even know the difference due to information only from retail propaganda sheet.

Plug-in protector is not used where damage cannot happen. The 'whole house' protector has been the solution for over 100 years so that damage does not happen. Major differences between plug-in and 'whole house' protectors even though both use MOVs. The most significant difference is what does protection. No protector does protection. A protector is only as effective as the thing it connects to - what actually does the protection - single point earth ground. No earth ground (plug-in protectors) means no effective protection.

Back to concepts you are not grasping. Protection is always about where energy dissipates. How does that plug-in protector stop, absorb, or dissipate hundreds of thousands of joules? It does not. Therefore it will not discuss earthing. And does not claim to protect from destructive surges even in manufacturer specs.

Resistance is not relevant; impedance is. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which plug-in protectors do not have and will not discuss. 'Whole house' protectors have what plug-in protectors do not have - that always required, short, and dedicated connection to earth.

So yes, you get the concept of earthing. And then do not understand a fundamental fact. Plug-in protectors do not have earthing, will not discuss the concept, will not discuss where energy dissipates, and do not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. For same reasons, 'whole house' protectors have been earthing surges harmlessly for over 100 years.

Since you do not understand some critical concepts - resistance verse impedanc - then you believe plug-in protetors and 'whole house' protectors are same. Therefore you don't understand why professionals use 'whole house' protectors - and not plug-in protectors. Why do telcos need their protectors up to 50 meters separated from electronics? Because they want protection. Impedance says why.

A glaring word that says you still do not get it. You said resistance - impedance is why plug-in protectors do not have earthing - do not claim protection in their numeric specs.

 

[westom]

... I considered a good deal and so I picked up the Pro 3500 power center model for my HT.

Where are Monster spec numbers that list each type of surge and protection from that surge? Monster will not make that claim for a simple reason. It does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

Monster has decades of history identifying scam markets. Then selling similar products at even higher profit margins. The name Monster has long been associated with scams. That includes speaker wire that had polarity. One end marked for the amp; other end for speakers. Monster could sell $7 of speaker wire for $70 because that is what Monster is good at - selling myths for higher profit.

Where does it list protection from each type of surge? That is not a rhetorical question. It cannot - as you will learn only if you answer that question.

Essential to an effective protection 'system' is something that actually does that protection. That is never the protector. Protection is always about where energy dissipates - what the protector connects to. How does that Monster protector make hundreds of thousands of joules just disappear? Another reason why Monster will not discuss energy and will not discuss earth ground.

Effective protectors - rated for direct lightning strikes - cost about $1 per protected appliance. How much was the Monster? About 100 times more money ... and it does not even claim protection in numeric specs. A classic profit center.

 

[JerryLove]

You keep getting it only half right. For example, "Surge suppressors are ineffective" would be what jneutron reads to post incendiary posts. I never said that.

"That is the job of its power supply. Make voltage variations (even that large) completely irrelevant. Meanwhile, surge protectors and power conditioners do nothing for that electrical anomaly." - Westom

Post #36 is another example of you dismissing plug-in protectors as useless.

The list goes on.

No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors have earthing. Plug-in protectors do not.

That is incorrect and yet you repeat it over and over. Plug-in protectors do ground over-voltages. That's what the varisistor does (provide a path for over-voltage: which is then sent to ground).

Safety ground is not earth ground. Your reference to 'resistance' means you again missed a key point. Critical to protection is "impedance". Impedance is why an earthed protector is short (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth.

A lightning rod is more than 10' long.

You advocate (earthed) lightning rods as effective.

You therefore assert that something with more than 10' to ground is effective while simultaniously saying anything more than 10' is ineffective.

You contradict yourself.

I've been in a faraday cage much bigger than me when a Tesla coil fired. It was bigger than 10'. It stopped lightening.

An airline doesn't attach to ground at all. It is protected from lighting by offering a path around the skin of the aircraft with less resistance than the access to the inside.

Similarly: people in cars are fairly well protected by the faraday cage of the car.

Yet another example is the inside of the microwave: which ground energy back through the outlet via a faraday cage. Again more than 10', again energy moving through air.

Then there's the examples you yourself asserted. I've been on air-force bases (one example would be McDill). They use plug-in surge supressors there. You've appealed to them as proof they are useless.

Shall I go on? Is there a point? You won't listen.

Whereas a 'whole house' and plug-in protectors both use MOVs, the two protectors are functionally completely different. 'Whole house' protectors will earth direct lightning strikes - and remain functional.

Which reminds me of another one of your contrary claims:

"How does its 2 cm parts stop something that could not be stopped by three miles of sky?" - Westom.

So now you are asserting that the MOV in a whole house protector, which is only a couple cm in size, *will* divert lightning without damage: in complete opposition to your own post.

You continue to argue based on terribly false premises. You don't seem to have let your own self-contradiction to slow you down.

 

[avliner]

...It's a pretty unit. I do like that it powers up in-sequence (that would actually be useful with my Behringer gear). I've little doubt it functions properly. I don't know that I'd spend that on surge-supression though.

Thanks Jerry,

it seems indeed to be a very solid unit and the most important is that I paid little more than half MSRP though, which is not a bad deal at all, IMO.

Sure there are several other good options out there for less money, but at Guitar Center they just had this Monster and another Furman model on sale, with 8 outelts only (and I need 10 outlets, minimum).

As a side note, before pulling the trigger over at Guitar Center ( I knew I'd buy there anyway), I've also been at Sam Ash just to check things out and the coincidence was that both shops uses this very same power center to connect/protect their demo gears... Marketing or not, I don't know, but what I believe is this little monster just do the job the right way, no?


Westom,

thanks for your comments, but if there's one thing I ALWALYS DO whenever a lightning storm approaches, is to disconnect ALL power cords from the outlets and tell you what, for more than 35 years I've had no issues whatsoever in this regard. Oh, BTW, not only power cords, but phone lines and TV cables are also pulled out, just in case.

Bottom line is that I do use the power center to have a clean power and to protect my gears for surge-supression purpopses; that's all

 

[highfigh]

Where are Monster spec numbers that list each type of surge and protection from that surge? Monster will not make that claim for a simple reason. It does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

Monster has decades of history identifying scam markets. Then selling similar products at even higher profit margins. The name Monster has long been associated with scams. That includes speaker wire that had polarity. One end marked for the amp; other end for speakers. Monster could sell $7 of speaker wire for $70 because that is what Monster is good at - selling myths for higher profit.

Where does it list protection from each type of surge? That is not a rhetorical question. It cannot - as you will learn only if you answer that question.

Essential to an effective protection 'system' is something that actually does that protection. That is never the protector. Protection is always about where energy dissipates - what the protector connects to. How does that Monster protector make hundreds of thousands of joules just disappear? Another reason why Monster will not discuss energy and will not discuss earth ground.

Effective protectors - rated for direct lightning strikes - cost about $1 per protected appliance. How much was the Monster? About 100 times more money ... and it does not even claim protection in numeric specs. A classic profit center.

Nobody gives a crap about Monster- their protectors burn up when the voltage is excessive or the neutral is lifted. Show the $1 part with links and prices.

 

[westom]

Bottom line is that I do use the power center to have a clean power and to protect my gears for surge-supression purpopses; that's all

Any power cleaning or filtering that a power center might do is already required inside all power supplies. View its numeric specs. I did not see numbers for that unit. But that unit (and other companies selling similar products) is typically nothing more than a power strip protector repackaged for higher profit.

For example, filtering: how much filtering is already inside electronics? Electronics start with a serious line filter that meets FCC and other requirements. Equal or superior to what Monster equivalent products claim. Then AC is converted to higher voltage DC. Then filtered again. Then converted to high voltage radio frequency electricity. At this point, any noise from AC mains virtually eliminated by filtering and is dwarfed by that radio frequency electricity. Moving on. More filtering and galvanic isolation converts to high current (low voltage) radio waves. Then converted to DC. Then filtered again. Some supplies even do more. In comparison, that Monster has near zero filtering.

Monster does not claim effective surge protection. View its numbers. It does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

What must you protect? Your furnace, bathroom GFCIs, dishwasher, timer switches, microwave oven, etc. What appliance most needs protection during a surge? Smoke detectors. Spend less money to have a protector that actually does protect all those and more. A 'whole house' protector costs less AND actually does surge protection. Direct lightning strikes to wires down the street are direct lightning strikes to your appliances. 'Whole house' protectors make even direct strikes irrelevant. Remains undamaged during such surges. And costs less money.

Your concern is a surge that can protection already inside every appliance. Only 'whole house' protectors do that - for tens or 100 times less money than what you have paid.

Effective protection means using all appliances during every thunderstorm - without fear. You cannot disconnect an appliance fast enough. Only way to make disconnecting effective is to never use the appliance. Install the well proven solution. Disconnecting is only effective if you never use your digital clocks and computer. Typically destructive surges occur without warning - even precede the sound of thunder.

Monster does not claim to do what you have 'hoped'. Near zero filtering. It also leaves an attached appliance exposed to typically destructive surges. Spend less than $130 to actually surge protect everything. To use appliances normally as intended - without fear. What protects your clock radios? Spend less to have even protected them. Monster has a long history promoting scams. It does not 'clean' power or 'protect' from surges. View its numeric specs.

 

[avliner]

Westom,

thanks for the explanation, but what you're saying leads me to believe that ANY surge supressors/power conditioners are nothing short of... BS.

Not talking about Monster brand only (as I know they have a real nasty mark-up policy, although not a bad product at all), but to all other manufacturers as well, such as Furman, APC, Belkin, Panamax and so on...

My question though: is that true??? If so I'd say that - in a worldwide level -not only the recording studios, but live concert sound engineers and the like are a bunch of idiots, as they always use the very same protection devices throughout, though ( brands may vary though, but the idea is the same), so would you mind telling me whether or not they're all wrong??

 

[JerryLove]

It's always funny when he does this (make claims disprovable in black-and-white: and he's made an been corrected omn this one before).

Monster does not claim effective surge protection.

"Monster Power centers protect your equipment" - http://www.monstercable.com/power/Monster_Power.asp?tg=ps

View its numbers. It does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

"PowerCenter also does an excellent job of protecting your equipment from harmful power surges" - http://www.monstercable.com/productdisplay.asp?pin=2140

How can anyone who actually reads his posts take him seriously. He's not even arguing that the claim is wrong: he's arguing that the claim doesn't exist.

 

[westom]

My question though: is that true??? If so I'd say that - in a worldwide level -not only the recording studios, but live concert sound engineers and the like are a bunch of idiots, as they always use the very same protection devices throughout, though

The informed sound engineer or power engineer buys a protector or conditioner that addresses specific issues. For example, Monster does not address power factor. A 'conditioner' that does power factor correction is one example of how the informed engineer addresses problems. He reads the spec numbers - not sales brochures.

Harmonics? Another 'conditioner' that may require something completely different. Recording studios may want to address noise that you would never hear in your equipment but that their sensitive equipment might detect. One solution is series mode filters such as Zerosurge, Surgex, or Brickwall. Notice how large and heavy those may be.

If it is a magic conditioner, then it is probably a scam. If the conditioner is for voltage stability or to eliminate high frequency noise, then the manufacturer specifications say so - always with numbers.

I was recently discussing noise problems with railroad engineers. They suffer signaling problems due to high voltage transmissions lines. Therefore their filter is a heavy box (a coil) to filter out that noise. Filters at those frequencies are massive - on the order of 100 pounds. How heavy is the Monster? To do that conditioning, it may weight more than a desktop computer and monitor.

Some power conditioners hype a myth about balanced power. Companies such as Furman are hyping what are essentially power strip protectors as magic boxes using such myths. The myth works when selling to naive consumers. Others hype a myth about contaminating the ground. Another way to promote this nonsense is to discuss ground as if all grounds are same. Lesser manufacturers would confuse all grounds as same so that their half truths remain unexposed.

If your training comes from sales myths, then you must learn which to unlearn before you can relearn how electricity works. Those popular myths make learning that much more difficult.

Bottom line: power conditioners and protectors are uniquely designed for different anomalies. Many anomalies are solved inside the power supply. Others must be solved at the service entrance. Telcos solve such problems by designing the entire building (even air ducts) to address these anomalies.

In a conference of EMC/RFI/EMI engineers, the author noted how many are bald - as if solving problems leads to so much head scratching. In reality, these electrical anomalies can be so complex that such engineers often have decades of experience - ergo so many bald engineers. There is no magic solution. Solving some electrical anomalies can be an art. Others can be solved simply by only cleaning up how gronds are connected. Understanding the difference between longitudinal mode and transverse mode electricity makes some problems solutions simple and obvious. But you know this much. If it does not specifically state which anomaly it solves ... with numbers ... then it is probably a scam.

See those citations from Jerry Love? Classic scam. He cites sales brochures as a technical source. Where are the long lists of spec numbers? None. Where does it list each type of surge and protection from that surge? It only says, "protects your equipment". A classic example of how easily scams are promoted and recommended.

Maybe only 5% actually know what those numbers mean. But to keep the 5% from 'blowing a whistle', many manufacturers simply avoid or hide all numbers. Another symptom of a less responsible manufacturer.

 

[avliner]

Hi Jerry,

matter of fact, I do agree with your signature, though... women first...

 

[JerryLove]

See those citations from Jerry Love? Classic scam. He cites sales brochures as a technical source.

See this claim from Westom. I didn't cite monster's brochures as a technical source. He did not make a technical claim when I quoted him.

"Monster does not claim effective surge protection." - Westom
"It does not claim to protect from typically destructive surges. " - Westom

Of course Monster makes exactly those claims. Verbatim. Westom is lying.

Where are the long lists of spec numbers? None. Where does it list each type of surge and protection from that surge? It only says, "protects your equipment". A classic example of how easily scams are promoted and recommended.

But types of protection and values aren't what you asked for. They aren't what I quoted you saying monster didn't have.

Back when we were having the exact same mastubitory session over APC (a brand I do like), you made the same claim over them. I did provide specific numbers (as APC readily provides them, because much of their market is the 5% you are about to mention). You continued making the claims regardless.

Maybe only 5% actually know what those numbers mean. But to keep the 5% from 'blowing a whistle', many manufacturers simply avoid or hide all numbers. Another symptom of a less responsible manufacturer.

I wouldn't be surprised if monster avoids putting up numbers exactly to avoid proper comparisons of usefulness. Monster is at best over-priced; and at worst poorly built and overpriced.

That would be terribly important if there was a monster advocate here. There isn't.

 

[jneutron]

No earth ground means no effective protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Effective protectors have earthing. Plug-in protectors do not.

So then, airplanes have a honkin long ground wire??

Why effective protectors are located at the service entrance.

Gee, then I guess then I can throw away the 90 pieces of 120 kiloamp three phase 208 volt protectors that are not at the service entrance?? Wow! What a cost savings...letting the 13 kV 5 megawatt service try to absorb the induced voltages from nearby and overhead strikes on an 800 meter loop of 250 mcm...

And why protectors adjacent to appliances can even earth surges destructively via appliances.

Stating that ridiculously inaccurate "pseudo-factoid" over and over again doesn't make it any closer to reality.

Whereas a 'whole house' and plug-in protectors both use MOVs, the two protectors are functionally completely different.

Really? How?

Both clamp wire to wire voltages to whatever let-through the unit is designed for. The only significant difference is a whole house has the second line available to provide additional line to line clamping for 240 volt devices.

'Whole house' protectors will earth direct lightning strikes - and remain functional.

Martzloff has a whole house surge device at his house. Yet, it didn't protect his tv, nor did it prevent flashover between the sink and the kettle.

Why? Because there is NO device which can be placed in the service panel, and NO amount of grounding/earthing on this planet that could have prevented the flashover at the kettle. A direct result of both ohm's law, inductive reactance, and Faraday's law of induction.

As for the tv, Martzloff notes that the "concept of a multiport spd had not yet surfaced". (also referred to as a surge-reference equalizer). Subsequent papers by Martzloff discuss the appicability of multiport spd's at the end-of-branch location of the appliances for good protection against induction of the cable or telephone services.


You really need to learn the topic.

Cheers, John

 

[Highlander]

Only scam artists promote protectors that magically stop surges - like dams to stop floods. Both are myths.

Please can you explain what you mean by 'flood' more precisely?

 

[westom]

Please can you explain what you mean by 'flood' more precisely?

Flood to a dam is a massive quantity of water. Flood to electricity is a massive quantity of electrons.

Surges are an electric current that will flow no matter what. Any attempt to stop a surge means voltage increases as necessary so that the same current will still flow.

Flood is water that will flow no matter what. Any attempt to stop a flood means water height increases as necessary so that the same water will still flow.

Neither a flood nor a surge is stopped. In both cases, the solution is always to give the water or electrons a shorter, non-destructive and more conductive path downriver or into earth.

 

[JerryLove]

Surges are an electric current that will flow no matter what. Any attempt to stop a surge means voltage increases as necessary so that the same current will still flow.

Flood is water that will flow no matter what. Any attempt to stop a flood means water height increases as necessary so that the same water will still flow.

Then these would both be words of fictional things.

All water, and all current eventually stop. Indeed, all flow of energy of any kind in the universe will eventually stop unless it turns out thermodynamics wrong.

For what "flood" means in English: flood control is a partion of the function of most damns. They build resovours of water and control the rate of release. As the rate of water flowing into the resovour waxes and wanes, the rate of water flowing out can be controlled (note it is not redirected: but rather held and released at a controlled rate). Sometimes, such as on the Tennessee river, several damns work in concert to control flooding.

Of course this is really very dissimilar to how surge supressors work. They (the ones we are discussing that you keep calling useless) do indeed work by providing a path back to neutral (ground), but only for over-voltages (the purpose of the MOV).

BTW, I was wrong in relying on the passive endorsement of the early NIST (your cite) page. If I move down to later pages I find things like:

"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to that question: Yes for one link appliances; No for two-link appliances"

Pages 7, 12, and 18 are also related with specific recommendations for plug-in protectors from (again, I point out this is your own cite) NIST.