Surge protectors.

[ChrisA]

So at night while I'm sleeping, I charge my iPhone 5, iPod touch 5, iPad 3, and leave my iMac mid 2011plugged in of course, and all these are plugged into a standard outlet extender (the long thing with multiple outlets you plug in) and its annoying when it thunderstorms here (every knight for the past 2 weeks) I can't charge.....

Nothing will save you from a direct hit. A good surge protector might save your stuff it lightening hits the power line a mile or so from your house. It is all a matter of probabilities. The changes of a strike a mile away is more likely than a direct hit and the chance of a strike within 25 miles is much more likely than one that is closer.

A cheap surge protector will protect you from the most likely problems. Nothing short of a very expensive system will help if you get a strike right on your house. Themost cost effective protection is to use the surge strip all the time but unplug it when lightening is predicted.

in most case, an UPS is NO BETTER than a surge strip. Almost all UPSes are the "cut-over" type and connect your computer directly to the AC power until a power fail is detected then switch you to the battery. Some quite expensive systems are "full time" and allways run off bettery power and use a built-in charger that allso runs full time. These offer slightly better protection but not much better.

If you have a few thousand dollars to spend you can have a system installed at the building service entrance andalso maybe have the power drop re-routed under ground. But even this can't help if the strike is directly in your house.

Best plan. Some surge strips come with an equipment warranty where they offer to replace stuff if it is damaged when plugged into the strip. The high-end brands have this. Then just don't worry

BUT,.... make sure your backup data is off line. Time machine is good but lightening will take it out. Have a few copys of data in a fire safe in more than one building. Then along with the equipment warranty from the power strip company, just don't worry

 

[Bear]

...
Best plan. Some surge strips come with an equipment warranty where they offer to replace stuff if it is damaged when plugged into the strip. The high-end brands have this.
...

And from what I've seen from people who didn't have surge protectors, I'll keep using them for various things including my stereo.

And as for my computer, I'll keep using a UPS. I'd rather have a controlled shutdown instead of a crash. And if I'm working on something, I can close it off neatly. Also, it prevents interruptions when you get those 1 second power flickers.

Yes I know I'm not protected from everything, but that's no reason to skip all protection as some people in the thread seem to advocate.

 

[Macsonic]

in most case, an UPS is NO BETTER than a surge strip. Almost all UPSes are the "cut-over" type and connect your computer directly to the AC power until a power fail is detected then switch you to the battery. Some quite expensive systems are "full time" and allways run off bettery power and use a built-in charger that allso runs full time. These offer slightly better protection but not much better.

Best plan. Some surge strips come with an equipment warranty where they offer to replace stuff if it is damaged when plugged into the strip. The high-end brands have this. Then just don't worry

A technician advised me it's best to have both a Surge Protector and UPS. He said the UPS is not fast enough to counteract the electrical spike from lightning while the Surge Protector is faster with electrica spikes. Though this is second hand information so I am also not sure if this is true.

 

[Nuke61]

A technician advised me it's best to have both a Surge Protector and UPS. He said the UPS is not fast enough to counteract the electrical spike from lightning while the Surge Protector is faster with electrica spikes. Though this is second hand information so I am also not sure if this is true.

Depends on the specific UPS. One of the CyberPower UPS's that I have has built-in surge suppression of a bit over 1000 joules and the other has a capacity of 1500 joules. A previous APC that I used had no surge suppression, although it was 1/2 the price of either CyberPower UPS.

 

[cynics]

For lightning strikes only a whole house arrester installed at the electrical service panel will protect your equipment.

This. However do NOT rely strictly on that. Lightning is to unpredictable. A direct strike on a nearby pole and its game over.

Here is a whole house protector I installed in my house.

Installation is relatively easy with a bit of electrical know how. With extra spaces in the panel its easy. If not you may need to use "cheaters" to make space. I'd recommend using cheaters on small things like lights, and outlets that are normally not used.

Then supplement that protection with HIGH QUALITY outlet surge protectors. APC professional line. I use an old PRO8T2MP12B.

Also my local power provider offers a whole house protector that's installed on the meter outside. Basically it goes on between the "glass part" and the base. Unfortunately they charge a monthly fee for it, but it does include a bit of financial protection.

 

[westom]

... what is being disputed is your unsubstantiated assertion that plug-in surge protectors offer no protection against surges..

I never said that. We constantly argue the same thing because you read what you want to hear rather than what is posted.

Which type of surges does a plug-in protector address? A type surge that typically does no damage. A type that is typically made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.

Earth a 'whole house' protector for over 99.5% of protection (a number from the IEEE). And then add plug-in protectors for maybe another 0.2% protection. That is the layered approach. And then we add the perspective only possible with numbers. 99.5% and 0.2% protection.

For typically destructive surges, a protector either connects to earth ground. Or does not claim to protect from that type of surge. If that was incorrect, then you posted the manufacturer spec number that says otherwise. No spec numbers posted because those type protectors do not such protection.

IEEE says what is necessary to avert damage from typically destructive surges. Proper earthing. For all types of surges.

From "Planning guide for Sun Server room":

These should divert the power of the surge by providing a path to ground for the surge energy.

From QST Magazine (the voice of the ARRL) describes what effective surge protection does:

The purpose of the ground connection is to take the energy arriving on the antenna feed line cables and control lines (and to a lesser extent on the power and telephone lines) and give it a path back to the earth, our energy sink. The impedance of the ground connection should be low so the energy prefers this path and is dispersed harmlessly. To achieve a low impedance the ground connection needs to be short (distance), straight, and wide.
...
The goal is to make the ground path leading away from the SPGP more desirable than any other path.

QST only repeats what has been known for over 100 years. And what is little known by so many educated by advertising. Where is that low impedance connection from the plug-in protector to earth ground? Missing.

NIST Page 42 figure 8 clearly demonstrates what happens when the protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. A nearby TV is damaged by 8000 volts (their number). Because the best connection from protector to earth was destructively via that TV - 8000 volts. Where is effective protection? Missing because a 'whole house' protector was not properly earthed. Because the destructive surge was not earthed BEFORE entering a building.

Every responsible or professional organization describes protectors that protect from ALL types of surges. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are necessary. Because a protector is only as effective as .... what does the protection .... its earth ground. As the IEEE, NIST, and professional organizations state.

However if you want protection from typically non-destructive surges, then spend tens or 100 times more money for plug-in strips. That statement is repeated and is what you don’t read (or grasp). But then most only know what advertising says; not the science proven repeatedly for the past 100 years.

 

[westom]

Depends on the specific UPS. One of the CyberPower UPS's that I have has built-in surge suppression of a bit over 1000 joules and the other has a capacity of 1500 joules.

1000 joules means it only protects using 333 joules and never more than 667 joules. And does nothing to protect from destructive surges - typically hundreds of thousands of joules.

The effective protector is typically 50,000 amps. That Square D protector I believe is only 22,000 amps. Two are recommended to earth and remain functional. So that even a direct strike to the telephone pole causes no household damage.

Where is a picture of what was far more important. What defines protection: connection to and quality of the earthing electrode. A protector is only a connecting device. Protection is provided by earthing. Hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate where? In a 1500 joules protector? Advertising is about ignoring damning numbers.

By does every telco CO earth 'whole house' protectors? Why does it suffer about 100 surges with each storm? And the CO computer remains functional? Protection is not 100%. So we do the next best thing. Spend much less money for the well proven and superior solution: properly earthing of 'whole house' protector. So that protection from ALL types of surges exist. Not just from surges that typically do no damage.

 

[Macsonic]

Depends on the specific UPS. One of the CyberPower UPS's that I have has built-in surge suppression of a bit over 1000 joules and the other has a capacity of 1500 joules. A previous APC that I used had no surge suppression, although it was 1/2 the price of either CyberPower UPS.

Thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind. I am currently using APC Back-UPS RS-1500VA and the sales staff told me this model does not have a surge protection.

 

[Bear]

Thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind. I am currently using APC Back-UPS RS-1500VA and the sales staff told me this model does not have a surge protection.

Funny the APC website says it has surge protection. It might not be as much protection as one would like, but it has it. 2 outlets are surge protection only and the rest are battery backup w/surge protection.

 

[Macsonic]

Funny the APC website says it has surge protection. It might not be as much protection as one would like, but it has it. 2 outlets are surge protection only and the rest are battery backup w/surge protection.

Thanks Bear for this info and glad to know this. Though the protection is only 340 joules the sales staff should be more familiar with the products they're selling.

 

[bud--]

Which type of surges does a plug-in protector address? A type surge that typically does no damage.

Complete nonsense.

A type that is typically made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.

Also complete nonsense.

Earth a 'whole house' protector for over 99.5% of protection (a number from the IEEE). And then add plug-in protectors for maybe another 0.2% protection.

Repeating:
The 99+% figures are from the IEEE "Green" book. They are for lighting rods. The have nothing to do with surge protectors.

For typically destructive surges, a protector either connects to earth ground. Or does not claim to protect from that type of surge.

Repeating:
Complete nonsense. Some even have protected equipment warranties.

If that was incorrect, then you posted the manufacturer spec number that says otherwise. No spec numbers posted because those type protectors do not such protection.

Complete nonsense.

Spec numbers were provided including by Nuke61 (and then referenced by westom).

NIST Page 42 figure 8 clearly demonstrates what happens when the protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground. A nearby TV is damaged by 8000 volts (their number). Because the best connection from protector to earth was destructively via that TV - 8000 volts.

Anyone with minimal mental abilities can discover what the IEEE surge guide says in this example:
- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- The illustration "shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors"
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the earthing system at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE surge guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO protection.

Where is effective protection? Missing because a 'whole house' protector was not properly earthed.

In the example above a 'whole house' protector would have provided no protection. The surge was not coming in on power service wires.

Repeating:
Service panel protectors are a real good idea.
But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."

This is an example of a "two-link appliance."

Every responsible or professional organization describes protectors that protect from ALL types of surges.

They certainly do.

Both the IEEE and NIST include plug-in protectors as effective surge protectors.

A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are necessary.

A 'whole house' protector would have provided NO protection in the example westom cited above.

In that example the IEEE says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

And repeating:
SquareD says for their "best" service panel protector "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use."

1000 joules means it only protects using 333 joules and never more than 667 joules. And does nothing to protect from destructive surges - typically hundreds of thousands of joules.

Repeating:
As I wrote in my first post, the author of the NIST surge guide looked at the amount of energy that could make it to a plug-in protector. Branch circuits were 10m and longer. The surges coming in on power wires were up to 10,000A. That is the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring, and is referenced in the IEEE surge guide. The maximum energy at a plug-in protector was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less.

I then explained why the energies at a plug-in protector are so low. All ignored by westom.

1000J, or 333J, are far higher than the 35J that is the maximum that has any reasonable probability of reaching a plug-in protector. A plug-in protector with high ratings (like 1000J), properly connected (as in my first post) is very likely to protect from a very near very strong lighting strike. That is one of the reasons manufacturers can have protected equipment warrantees.

The effective protector is typically 50,000 amps. That Square D protector I believe is only 22,000 amps. Two are recommended to earth and remain functional. So that even a direct strike to the telephone pole causes no household damage.

The author of the NIST surge guide also looked at the surge current that might come in on power wires. The maximum with any reasonable probability was 10,000A per wire (as stated above). That is based on a 100,000A lightning strike to a utility pole adjacent to the house in typical urban overhead distribution. Only 5% of strikes are stronger, and the strike is extremely close.

A properly sized protector at the service panel is very likely to protect from very near very strong lightning strikes. Recommended ratings are in the IEEE surge guide on page 18.

Still missing - any source that agrees with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

 

[westom]

Both the IEEE and NIST include plug-in protectors as effective surge protectors.

And then define how they can even make damage easier if one does not properly earth a 'whole house' protector. An IEEE paper discusses plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Dr Martzloff describes potential damage due to such protectors especially in his conclusion:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances.

bud also ignores page 42 figure 8 where the NIST shows how an adjacent protector earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage created because that protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

To increase protection, telcos want the protector within feet of earth ground. And want up to 50 meter separation between electronics and the protector. Page 42 figure 8 shows why telco COs suffer about 100 surges without storm. And no computer damage.

Of course, bud insists damage is due to a protector not at every appliance including the GFCI, dishwasher, smoke detectors, TV, clocks, oven, etc. IOW his purpose is to increase profits. To have effective protection (his reasoning) you must spend $thousands on plug-in protectors.

One 'whole house' protector does what is defined by the IEEE and further proven by this engineer's decades of experience: 99.5% protection. Or as the IEEE says,

Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ...

Nobody said it was perfect. But it's much better than a maybe 0.2% protection provides by high profit plug-in protectors promoted by bud.

In some facilities that cannot have damage, an employee can be fired for installing protectors promoted by bud. But in every facility that cannot have damage, earthing by wire or a 'whole house' protector always exists. Because that is always both a best and less expensive solution. And how it was done even 100 years ago before marketing replaced science as information.

340 joules in a UPS is near zero protection. Just enough to claim "Surge Protection" in sales brochures. That UPS spec does not discuss the other and typically destructive surge. For one reason. It does not claim to protect from that typically destructive surge.

 

[bud--]

An IEEE paper discusses plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Dr Martzloff describes potential damage due to such protectors especially in his conclusion:

Westom forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge protector]."

At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport protectors (where phone and cable also wire through the protector) were just a concept or very new. The point of the paper was that multiport protectors were effective.

bud also ignores page 42 figure 8 where the NIST shows how an adjacent protector earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively via any nearby appliance. Damage created because that protector is too close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

Westom ignores my response.

It is simply a lie that the protector in the IEEE (not NIST) surge guide example damages anything. Westom tries to twist an example of how plug-in protectors work.

And westom ignores that a 'whole house' protector would provide no protection in this example.

One 'whole house' protector does what is defined by the IEEE and further proven by this engineer's decades of experience:

Westom ignores that the 99% figures are for lightning rods, and have nothing to do with surge protection, as has been pointed out 2 times.

Maybe if he repeats his lies often enough they will become true.

340 joules in a UPS is near zero protection. Just enough to claim "Surge Protection" in sales brochures.

Westom ignores that the worst energy at a plug-in protector that has any reasonable probability is 35 joules, as determined by the author of the NIST surge guide.

It does not claim to protect from that typically destructive surge.

And another piece of nonsense repeated.

Maybe westom could answer some simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge protector]"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information on surge protection. And they both say plug-in protectors are effective.

Then read the sources that agree with westom that plug-in protectors do NOT work. There are none.

 

[Nuke61]

I never said that. We constantly argue the same thing because you read what you want to hear rather than what is posted.

Sure you did, and you said it again, right here:

Which type of surges does a plug-in protector address? A type surge that typically does no damage. A type that is typically made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances.

That's your quoted assertion, and it's an assertion that is REFUTED not only by the NIST paper, but also by the IEEE paper.

Every responsible or professional organization describes protectors that protect from ALL types of surges. properly earthed 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are necessary. Because a protector is only as effective as .... what does the protection .... its earth ground. As the IEEE, NIST, and professional organizations state.

The red text is the point of contention, nothing more. From the IEEE Guide, page 45:

The previous sections have shown, in general, how to protect electronic systems in houses:
1) Proper grounding and bonding, especially at the service entrance.
2) AC panel and primary signal surge protection at or near the service entrance.
3) Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected.

That, in a nutshell, is the source of our disagreement. Westom claims that a plug-in surge protector is not necessary if one has a properly earthed whole house protector. The IEEE recommends not only AC panel and primary surge protection at or near the service panel, but also "Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected."

Your recommendation that one ONLY needs a properly grounded surge protector at the service entrance is in conflict with NIST and IEEE documents, not mine.

BTW, do you still also believe your claim of that you made in a different thread discussing UPS protection that:

BTW, all UPS (in battery backup mode) output simulated sine waves. This 120 volt 'pure sine wave' UPS is 200 volt square waves with a spike of up to 270 volts.

???

 

[cynics]

The square d breaker protector I post above came with a warranty for equipment that's on it but it doesn't actually cover anything. If you read the fine print basically anything with a control type board in it isn't cover (sensitive electronics). Basically anything that would be damaged by lightning.

 

[westom]

The square d breaker protector I post above came with a warranty for equipment that's on it but it doesn't actually cover anything.

Best warranty on cars is found on GM products. Does that prove GM products are superior to Honda, Toyota, or Hyundai? Of course not. Warranties are often hyped as sales gimmicks to the naive who ignore technical facts - especially the spec numbers.

Return to what defines protection. A protector is only doing what a wire does better. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. They did not sell you what defines protection. Does a warranty on a wire also define product quality?

A protector is simple dumb science. Its most important numbers (ie 50,000 amps or higher) defines it life expectancy over many surges. Protection is defined by a 'system component' that actually absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules during each potentially destructive surge. Earth ground is the "art".

Now, where is that warranty for what actually does protection? Warranties say little to nothing about product quality. A protection 'system' is only as effective as the one most important component - "single point earth ground". What absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules? Does a warranty say? That dissipated energy defines protection.

OP asked for protection for various plug-in devices. By far, best protection and a least expensive solution is earthing a 'whole house' protector. Anything that might work adjacent to that protector is already accomplished inside each appliance. Your concern is a rare transient that can overwhelm that protection. Nothing adjacent to an appliance protects (or claims to protect) from a potentially destructive transient. Only earthing (either a wire direct to earth or via a 'whole house' protector) does protection from that other and typically destructive transient.

 

[bud--]

Warranties say little to nothing about product quality.

Yes, it is best to change the subject.

If I remember right one of the SquareD 'whole house' protectors does have a warranty on electronics, and the warranty is doubled if "point of use" protectors are also used.

By far, best protection and a least expensive solution is earthing a 'whole house' protector.

For westom it is a magic fix for every surge problem. The real world is more complicated than westom's simple opinions. Like the example he cited from the IEEE surge guide where a service panel protector would have not provided protection.

Nothing adjacent to an appliance protects (or claims to protect) from a potentially destructive transient.

It is like a broken record. Westom just keeps repeating his belief not only that plug-in protectors aren't necessary, but that they don't work. It is a belief he spreads all over the internet.

Still missing - answers to simple questions:
- Why does the IEEE surge guide list as a protection device "multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected"?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge protector]"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information on surge protection. And they both say plug-in protectors are effective.

 

[Nuke61]

Anything that might work adjacent to that protector is already accomplished inside each appliance.

So says westom. However, NIST and IEEE both say to use point-of-use surge protectors IN ADDITION to whole house protection. I think I'll listen to the advice of NIST and IEEE over a guy who confuses stepped sine wave UPS and sine wave UPS outputs, and then ignores what NIST and IEEE have to say when giving out his own advice.

 

[westom]

So says westom. However, NIST and IEEE both say to use point-of-use surge protectors IN ADDITION to whole house protection.

Put numbers to it. 99.5% to 99.9% of protection is performed by earthing and 'whole house' protector (for protection from all types of surges). Because it is properly earthed. And maybe another 0.2% (for protection of one type of surge) done by a power strip.

The plug-in (point of connection) protector is ineffective from a destructive type of surge (as even demonstrated by manufacturer specs you forget to provide). Page 42 figure 8 is quite blunt. 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance because the plug-in protector was too far from earth ground and too close to appliances.

The plug-in (point of connection) protector must be used WITH a 'whole house' protector. Both you and I are saying that. With or without a plug-in protector, a properly earthed 'whole house' protector is still and always necessary.

If using a plug-in protector as recommended by the manufacturer's sales promoter, then a homeowner must spend $thousands for one on every appliance including dishwasher, door bell, clocks, washing machine and dryer, attic fan, dimmer switches, refrigerator, bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, every TV, clock radio, furnace, and smoke detector.

The plug-in protector is recommended by ignoring a damning and always required answer to, "We does energy dissipate?" The same answer for one 'whole house' protector is why that solution is tens or 100 times less money for better protection.

Why do telcos, with $multi-million computers connected to wires all over town, not use plug-in protectors? Because they use 'whole house' protectors with proper earthing. Then suffer 100 surges per storm without damage. How often is your town without phone service for four days after a storm? Why do I keep asking that question and you never answer?

Telcos suffer about 100 surges per storm. Telcos worry about what provides protection. Not a protector; the earthing. We are discussing a solution for a homeowner who suffers typically one potentially destructive surge every seven years.

If a 'whole house' protector alone is more than sufficient for every telco in the world, then why is not good enough for every homeowner?

Why do munitions dumps, that can never have surge damage, use 'whole house' protectors and better earthing; not plug-in protectors? They don't want fires. Another of many problems created by some power strip protectors.

Somehow a homeowner also needs the extra 0.2% protection for every appliance by spending $thousands more on plug-in protectors. Because nasty bud, my personal troll for almost ten years, says so. bud will not even admit that promoting power strip protectors is his job.

Protection is not about protectors. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Always. Professionals discuss what does the protection. Earthing. Where is the low impedance earthing wire from that power strip? Does not exist. Why does the plug-in protector not protect from other and typically destructive surges? That 'always required' and low impedance earth ground connection does not exist.

An earth ground wire is why the 'whole house' protector does 99.5% of the protection. And why a plug-in protector is only for a type of surge that typically does no damage - the 0.2% protection. The 'whole house' protector even protects power strip protectors. An earthed 'whole house' protector must always exist with or without point of connection (plug-in) protectors. For the 99.5% protection. Or as the IEEE says, to "reduce the incidence of direct strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per 6000 years ... Protection at 99.5% is the practical choice."

OP asked for protection of his iPhone, iPad, etc. Even you agree. He needs one properly earthed 'whole house' protector if or if not using a plug-in protector. Far more important than any protector is what actually does the protection: "single point earth ground". That was his answer long before nasty bud joined this group a year ago only because I posted engineering facts here.

 

[bud--]

Put numbers to it. 99.5% to 99.9% of protection is performed by earthing and 'whole house' protector (for protection from all types of surges).

Lie repeated for the 4th time. Along with all the other misinformation that has been debunked already.

That was his answer long before nasty bud joined this group a year ago only because I posted engineering facts here.

No source agrees with westom's "facts" about plug-in protectors (which he compulsively posts all over the internet).

"Nasty bud" posts nasty facts from nasty sources like the IEEE and NIST. Westom does not challenge what I post. He simply ignores it, just like he ignores anything that conflicts with his very limited view of surge protection.

As Nuke61 says, both the IEEE and NIST guides say point of use protectors are effective.

Simple questions about facts westom ignores:
- Why does the IEEE surge guide list as a protection device "multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected"?
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE example, page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge protector]"?
- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use"?

 

[Nuke61]

The plug-in (point of connection) protector is ineffective from a destructive type of surge (as even demonstrated by manufacturer specs you forget to provide). Page 42 figure 8 is quite blunt. 8000 volts destructively through any nearby appliance because the plug-in protector was too far from earth ground and too close to appliances.

False; figure 8 in the IEEE document describes a ~10kV potential that develops WITH A WHOLE HOUSE PROTECTOR installed because the potential develops within the house wiring. It then goes on to describe that with a SINGLE plug-in protector, the differential is lowered to 8000 volts, and ends up with TV2 being destroyed. It goes on to say that the proper way to protect both TVs is to plug BOTH of them into a plug-in protector, and if done that way, BOTH televisions would be protected.

IOW, figure 8 just shows the WRONG way to use a plug-in protector, because some assumed (incorrectly) that devices plugged in downstream of the protected outlet are also protected. The part that you've left off, either in an effort to deceive, or through incompetence (I don't know which it is) is the very last sentence of the figure 8 caption, which says, "A second multi-port protector as shown in Fig. 7 is required to protect TV2"

The plug-in (point of connection) protector must be used WITH a 'whole house' protector. Both you and I are saying that.

That's a flat out lie; you were previously claiming that with a whole house protector, no plug-in protectors were necessary. Not until this very post did you EVER suggest point-of-use surge protectors. This is YOUR quote earlier in this very thread:

Every responsible or professional organization describes protectors that protect from ALL types of surges. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means no plug-in protectors are necessary. Because a protector is only as effective as .... what does the protection .... its earth ground. As the IEEE, NIST, and professional organizations state. [as last edited on June 9th @ 12:27pm]

What does the IEEE have to say about protection against various electrical disturbances? From page 10 and 11 of "IEEE Guide for Surge Protection of Equipment" http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf when discussing:
1) Open neutral events, 2) Catastrophic overvoltages, 3) Sustained AC overvoltages, 4) AC undervoltage/brownouts, 5) Utility switching transients:

As discussed in Section 2, AC service entrance protectors alone do not provide useful equipment protection against these events. However, a combination of entrance protectors and some point-of-use (plug-in) surge protectors described in Section 5 can protect or reduce damage to equipment plugged into them.

AC building entrance protectors described Section 2 may provide some protection against these events. Again, the combination of entrance protectors with the point-of-use (plug-in) surge protectors described in Section 5.1 can offer better protection to the equipment plugged in than either one alone.

AC building entrance protectors do not provide useful protection against these events. Electronically controlled point-of-use (plug-in) surge protectors described in Section 5.1 disconnect for AC voltages outside a specified range, and offer useful protection to equipment plugged into them.

A few of the point-of-use (plug-in) surge protectors described in Section 5.1 are electronically controlled, and will disconnect at low voltage and should protect equipment plugged into them.

Switching transients large enough to damage customer equipment will normally be adequately controlled by either building entrance protectors or plug-in protectors.

Notice that an EVERY case the recommendation was to use a plug-in protector. There was NEVER a case where ONLY a Service Entrance protector alone was recommended. On the flip side, there were two cases where a plug-in protector may provide protection when a service entrace protector would have provided NO protection.

The IEEE or westom? Gee, I wonder who's right