APC's Current-Gen SurgeArrest: A Modern Tear-Down

[somebodyspecial]

IF you're saying they are no different than MOV's I think I have a problem with that.

An RCD network is obviously not exactly the same thing as a MOV and the SurgeX snubber uses SCRs to trigger its secondary snubbers that give the SurgeX its "voltage dip" characteristic in mid-surge. But they are similar enough in function for SurgeX to choose to use the MOV symbol to represent their snubbers in their simplified schematics for prior-art-vs-invention comparisons.

So are you saying they're lying? ZERO failures is impressive if true (and they are all claiming it). You are essentially saying they'll fail just like MOV's here right?

SurgeX's patent does not state what capacitor model they use; only that they are 100-200µF 450V. I do not think there are any electrolytic caps rated for 200-400A charge current. I do not think I have seen electrolytics rated over 10A RMS. It may take thousands of cycles at such a charge current but I would expect them to fail eventually.

That's a lot of guesswork on your part, and to date (Unless they're lying anyway), they haven't failed yet. So until they do, you're still wrong 😉 As shown many sources say they DO NOT FAIL like MOV. Even if they do at some point, my main point here is they are BETTER and different or they wouldn't be advertising 1000 strikes vs. 1 for mov's.

Isn't 1000 strikes of 6000v or 3000amps every 60 secs higher than your 100-200a pulses? They hit these with 1000 of them and they lived. Doesn't this kind of blow a hole in your example? Can you show me an MOV based surge that can take this much testing an live?

3000A is the current limit on the source but the actual output will not go that high unless the load has low enough impedance to allow it, which is exactly what the inductor is there to prevent: if you put a a 120µH inductor in series, current rise from a 6kV voltage difference gets limited to 50A/µs, which translates into about 400A peak at the end of a 8µs pulse. Split this between two MOVs, that becomes about 200A each, split four-ways and it becomes about 100A each. 20DnnnK and most equivalent MOVs are rated for 10 000 shots at 100A with less than 10% parameter deviation. The potential for a surge suppressor manufacturer to build high-endurance MOV-based designs is certainly there. Also keep in mind that 6kV is what UL deems to be the worst-case surge voltage that should be allowed to get indoors so the typical everyday surge would be nowhere near that bad and the MOVs' useful life would end up that much longer.

So based on a hypothetical product you're sort of claiming "they can do it too". I'm comparing what you're reviewing (and mov products in general) to what SURGEX etc is selling. Their ~$250 product is far better than your reviewed product. Which was the point of my comment. You don not get the same for $40-50 as you do at $250 (their spec sheets show this clearly). I didn't say they can't build a better MOV product and charge $200+, just that what you're reviewing (and most of these in general being sold today) are nowhere near being in the same league.

They sure sound DIFFERENT to me. Slowing the current down and EATING it are two completely different things. EATING=quick death. Slowing=longer life. I could go on, but I'm thinking you should get the point by now. The OP was correct, these are a different BEAST (thus ~5-10x more expensive up front).

As noted in my previous responses and alluded to in the article itself ("taking the edge off surges"), "slowing the current" by using inductors is every bit as applicable to MOV-based designs as it is to SurgeX's snubbers. Since you get no voltage drop across an inductor unless there is a current change through it, something has to eat that 50A/µs ramp for any surge suppression, elimination or whatever marketing wants to call it to occur. Without the shunt components sinking that current, whatever they might be, the small inductors become useless.

The SurgeX still needs to eat (snub) all the excess energy coming through that inductor like the MOV does. The difference is that a simple MOV cannot do anything more than follow its I-V curve as the inductor current rises while the SurgeX can switch in its discharged caps to soak up that energy when it detects a fast edge and momentarily drag the voltage down. Both will need to eat the same 400A ramp and both will need to dissipate about the same amount of energy.

Is SurgeX's design better? In most circumstances, yes. Is it worth paying 5-10X as much for? Not when everything you are going to plug into it already has tolerance to 500-600V peak due to universal input SMPS which can easily accommodate a good MOV-based suppressor's 340-400V peak clamping voltage.

Thanks, that's what I said 😉 RE: their value being worth it? I guess it depends on your perspective. I have thousands of dollars in devices plugged into my surge protectors in few places in the house, so for me, knowing in AZ (and previously in TX) we have a LOT of lightning, I'd rather have peace of mind in those areas. Clearly cheap devices don't need more than a good MOV product. Knowing a few situations where a unit was blown and took a PC (that I built for a customer) and some other stuff with it, and it wasn't covered (a unit I sold in one case), again I error on the side of caution especially if you have the money to do so, at least for certain situations. If in most circumstances they're better (you said it), I don't even understand why you responded. You're admitting exactly what the OP and I said and if you had the cash, surely you'd buy BETTER every time you could.

I mean, AMD APU's can get the job done (if I'm POOR), but there is ZERO cases where I'd buy AMD when I can afford Intel+NV gpu currently (Until someone makes something better than this combo, it's no contest right now). The argument made by the OP and I wasn't that MOV's don't work, just that there is something BETTER you can buy if you can afford it and for many are good choices anyway since you don't have to re-buy them. So far, unless they are lying about ZERO failures (due to strikes/surges anyway), they are a lifetime purchase for everyone. Maybe one day, 10yrs from now etc, they'll have their first failure after 1000's of strikes or something and we can put a avg lifetime on them at that point. But for now, it appears to be ZERO failure and a one time purchase is what you get for your money. I VALUE that a bit more highly than you I guess, at least in the entertainment & PC areas of my house. They have other advantages also, like not diverting energy to ground/neutral (for SurgeX latest stuff ZERO let through here).

http://www.brickwall.com/pages/no-failures
As noted here "Our surge protectors can withstand the harshest surge environment indefinitely."
Further: "Our surge protector products do not utilize MOV's and have none of their inherent limitations."
and more: "Unfortunately MOV's are sacrificial components. This means that the performance life of any surge protector utilizing this technology is finite. With every surge current diversion above a modest level an MOV comes closer to its inevitable end. Surge protector with an exploded MOV"

Other's using the tech say the same in one way or another, not that brickwall is a fav or anything, just simple to copy theirs for the intended point. It's like describing night and day here to me. You say they die eventually (we'll see), but they all say, it's FINITE vs. INDEFINITELY.

http://www.zerosurge.com/residential/surge-suppresssion-simplified/
For car lovers, zerosurge seems to sum up surge protection pretty well with a car analogy 😉 Just pointing here to show I have no real fav, just like the tech behind them all.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Note at the top of that zerosurge page, they also say 0% FAILURE RATE. So again, ZERO. Until one of these guys has a failure, I submit you're incorrect on your "I would expect them to fail eventually" suggestion. You get what you pay for here IMHO, quite clearly.

 

[mctylr]

Apologies for the confusion there, I meant the series vs. shunt comparison as part of my retort to "merikafyeah;" whom I'm not certain is also "somebodyspecial."

It's comic you see two posts that agree, and immediately think conspiracy. Surely toms could tell you our IP's are different, which cable provider we use etc etc etc 😉

Not sure who the other guy/gal is (nor do I care, unimportant), but his/her general point is correct.

Okay I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but can I ask if you are associated or affiliated with SurgeX, ZeroSuge, and related companies (manufacturers, reseller, distributor)?

 

[mctylr]

Note at the top of that zerosurge page, they also say 0% FAILURE RATE. So again, ZERO. Until one of these guys has a failure, I submit you're incorrect on your "I would expect them to fail eventually" suggestion. You get what you pay for here IMHO, quite clearly.

I like the number zero as well. But you seem to misunderstand that a zero-failure rate of a product that I estimate has sold in the hundreds, that is a tiny installation base, and too small a sample to be impressive. If these products have tens or hundreds of thousands of units sold, and still had no failures I would be impressed.

While at the price point they are sold, I assume they are every unit is tested before be sold, it does not negate the truth that no surge device will safely handle a the surge of a direct strike at building entry, nor does it negate the fact that while the explanation focuses on the in-series inductor, there are additional components; electrolytic capacitors, SCR that also have non-trivial failure rates just like MOVs that are necessary to dissapate the surge energy.

You and merikafyeah appear to both not acknowledge the existence of these shunting components in ZeroSurge / SurgeX / Brickwall products. And that these components can fail. Electrolytic capacitors are well known for their failures in a multitude of fashions, and SCR like other semiconductors still have breakdown voltage limits.

So am I impressed with the possibly much smaller <1% failure rate of SurgeX / ZeroSurge / Brickwall surge protectors compared with the approximately <1% failure of APC and other companies using traditional MOVs & other components which sell for one tenth the cost? No.

 

[Gunbuster]

Wow, I had to turn Ad Block Plus back on to get through that. That HP popup is way too aggressive.

 

[merikafyeah]

I like the number zero as well. But you seem to misunderstand that a zero-failure rate of a product that I estimate has sold in the hundreds...

So am I impressed with the possibly much smaller <1% failure rate of SurgeX / ZeroSurge / Brickwall surge protectors compared with the approximately <1% failure of APC and other companies...

From where exactly are you pulling these numbers? Only "hundreds" sold? If you are assuming low sales due to the relatively higher cost per unit, I think you'd be surprised at how enterprise budgets operate at a different scale than your average consumer. SurgeX may have a consumer line of products, but that does not mean that is their primary market. Also, SurgeX has been around for more than 20 years, and you think they've only sold "hundreds" of units during that time? Really?

Regarding failure rates, the "<1%" failure rate would apply to SurgeX products because they boldly claim "0%" failure rate, but where does this number come from for the other manufacturers? I could not find any documentation in regards to failure rate over time from APC or others. Where is the impressively large sample group from which you've derived this percentage rate? Is it "you and all the people you know who've bought APC and similar suppressors over the years"? If so that's not a very large sample group.

While at the price point they are sold, I assume they are every unit is tested before be sold, it does not negate the truth that no surge device will safely handle a the surge of a direct strike at building entry, nor does it negate the fact that while the explanation focuses on the in-series inductor, there are additional components; electrolytic capacitors, SCR that also have non-trivial failure rates just like MOVs that are necessary to dissapate the surge energy.

You and merikafyeah appear to both not acknowledge the existence of these shunting components in ZeroSurge / SurgeX / Brickwall products. And that these components can fail. Electrolytic capacitors are well known for their failures in a multitude of fashions, and SCR like other semiconductors still have breakdown voltage limits.

Make no mistake, my feet are firmly planted on the ground. No man-made construct can function for an infinite amount of time, no matter how zealous the marketing speak may be. No one is seriously expecting to receive some kind of miracle device that can withstand a direct lightning strike equaling 1,000,000s of volts that can make a large tree explode in an instant. No one is saying that. The specs themselves clearly state a max of 6000 volts which supposedly represents the typical worst-case for an industrial surge. Natural disasters excluded.

I am not ignoring the fact that there are other components in use in SurgeX devices and similar. I am very well aware that electrolytic capacitors can and do often fail and perhaps something like solid capacitors would be better, but that is beside the point. I was merely parroting Brickwall's lofty marketspeak regarding no use of components that routinely fail in conventional suppressors. I have already stated that I am not a certified technician so I cannot qualify these claims, but if you are accusing Brickwall of outright LYING even in a charitable interpretation of their advertising, then you'll have to take that up with them. I have no affiliation with Brickwall / SurgeX , etc.

But the takeaway is this:
You have an expensive setup with equipment costing hundreds or thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands or a storage array with TBs of data, and you would feel fine securing all that with a $40 suppressor? According to you the failure rate is about the same so I don't see why not, but I personally do not feel confident in this approach.

Now, would I buy a Brickwall just to secure my lamp / toaster / blender? Hell no. Let's be real here.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

In summary in the first article from the PTC non-identification to speculating in public whether the copper trace may of been designed as a fuse annoyed me, but I felt there was the gigantic missed opportunity to try and clear up much of the FUD about surge protection devices was still missed in this latest article. I do believe the latest article did benefit in clarity and quality from not having the change of intention as your first piece did.

How would you identify a component that has an unfamiliar logo and a model number that returns no search results? I can only afford to spend so much time on something that seems like a dead-end before it is no longer worth my time - they are PTCs of some description, they act as slow self-healing fuses, not much else to add regardless of who the manufacturer is. BTW, "Silk Road" was not my title for that slide - one of the editors must have changed it and I did not notice it when I reviewed the edits. My title for that slide was "E.T. Phones Home." The speculation about the trace in the first SurgeArrest story is based on the simple facts that 1) it did blow up before its built-in 15A breaker and the mains' 20A breaker tripped and 2) it had solder mask on it instead of being soldered over like the remainder of the very same trace, which means it was definitely not designed with the same thermal and electrical capacity. These changes do not occur by accident and as I found out by opening my oldest old unit, those traces did use to be soldered over like all other current-carrying traces.

As for the gigantic missed opportunity, that would not be particularly interesting without proper lab equipment to show practical results.

Is a $1-2 dollar store SPD of sufficient quality or misplaced trust?

That's actually my next story. Sort of. It will probably be out in 2-3 weeks.

Again, that wasn't intended as a specific criticism towards yourself or this article or series, but a general observation, and a general response to rdc85's comments on reviewing manufacturer supplied samples.

Regardless of who your criticism was aimed at, the reality still is that most reviewers cannot afford to get review units at their own expense unless it was stuff they were planning to buy anyway - and presumably not review in a potentially destructive and warranty-voiding way.

If manufacturers stopped sending review units out, half the hardware and other sites that are in the business of giving their own (counter-)spin to the manufacturer's own would probably close because they cannot afford to buy enough review samples at full retail prices to keep their sites going.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

They have other advantages also, like not diverting energy to ground/neutral (for SurgeX latest stuff ZERO let through here).

You were asking where I was disagreeing, that would be it: "not diverting energy to neutral" since all of SurgeX's patents clearly show a shunt capacitor across live and neutral. In my circuit simulations, the surge current through that capacitor and the others in parallel that are SCR-triggered can conduct over 600A during a surge based on the older patents' 80µH inductor.

The newer patent from 2004 trades the lossy inductor for an auto-transformer which reduces surge current in my simulations to 60-80A from live to neutral - I missed the relatively subtle change when I wrote my initial reply. An order of magnitude better than their former designs' plain 80µH inductor but still nowhere near zero. BTW, this simple auto-transformer trick would also enhance MOVs' performance and lifespan by a similar amount.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Apologies for the confusion there, I meant the series vs. shunt comparison as part of my retort to "merikafyeah;" whom I'm not certain is also "somebodyspecial."

It's comic you see two posts that agree, and immediately think conspiracy. Surely toms could tell you our IP's are different, which cable provider we use etc etc etc 😉

Not sure who the other guy/gal is (nor do I care, unimportant), but his/her general point is correct.

Okay I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but can I ask if you are associated or affiliated with SurgeX, ZeroSuge, and related companies (manufacturers, reseller, distributor)?

I'm in IT. I have nothing to do with any company discussed here. I used to sell tripplite/apc etc a decade ago now, as a PC business owner. No relation to any of this crap, nor anyone who works for them (no family, no friends etc). Is there some reason I'd have to prove myself for defending a VASTLY superior product anyway? I like Intel too, but have no relation to them whatsoever. I think EVERY IT person has at least a good dozen or so companies they believe in regardless of who they work for just due to life experience with many products on the job (and I had a lot more as a PC business for 8yrs). I don't recommend (for purchase in my job I mean) any surge related stuff (that's the electrical dept's job usually) aside from personal usage in response to internal customer questions. Do you do this in every product discussion?

 

[somebodyspecial]

Note at the top of that zerosurge page, they also say 0% FAILURE RATE. So again, ZERO. Until one of these guys has a failure, I submit you're incorrect on your "I would expect them to fail eventually" suggestion. You get what you pay for here IMHO, quite clearly.

I like the number zero as well. But you seem to misunderstand that a zero-failure rate of a product that I estimate has sold in the hundreds, that is a tiny installation base, and too small a sample to be impressive. If these products have tens or hundreds of thousands of units sold, and still had no failures I would be impressed.

While at the price point they are sold, I assume they are every unit is tested before be sold, it does not negate the truth that no surge device will safely handle a the surge of a direct strike at building entry, nor does it negate the fact that while the explanation focuses on the in-series inductor, there are additional components; electrolytic capacitors, SCR that also have non-trivial failure rates just like MOVs that are necessary to dissapate the surge energy.

You and merikafyeah appear to both not acknowledge the existence of these shunting components in ZeroSurge / SurgeX / Brickwall products. And that these components can fail. Electrolytic capacitors are well known for their failures in a multitude of fashions, and SCR like other semiconductors still have breakdown voltage limits.

So am I impressed with the possibly much smaller <1% failure rate of SurgeX / ZeroSurge / Brickwall surge protectors compared with the approximately <1% failure of APC and other companies using traditional MOVs & other components which sell for one tenth the cost? No.

You estimate they're sold in the hundreds? None of these 3 companies would be in business then...LOL. They sell devices all over the place (amazon, staples, newegg etc not to mention pro audio/video etc type places).

You misunderstand the failure point. It's not that some have manufacturer defects or not etc, it's ZERO failures due to a surge. I have been witness to equipment lost on MOV protection (and then not covered by the company warranty also). Not much point in arguing with someone who makes up numbers etc and ignores the data. I should have just ignored the post after reading the first comment about imaginary sales numbers and the previous post that attacked the person not the data (my integrity...jeez).

You're not impressed by a better product and don't mind saving some money at the risk of your equipment. I get it, move along. Even the article writer here admits they're better in "MOST CASES". Nuff said.

 

[westom]

You're not impressed by a better product and don't mind saving some money at the risk of your equipment. I get it, move along. Even the article writer here admits they're better in "MOST CASES". Nuff said.

Discussion uses numbers that do not say what is being claimed. For example, it does not matter if a Zerosurge, Brickwall, etc (shunt mode filters) does not fail. If it does not protect attached appliances, then it can still claim 0 protector failures.

MOV protectors also do not fail. But only if properly sized. Many MOV based protectors do not claim to protect from destructive surges. Only claim to protect from a type of surge typically made irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. Undersizing them to fail on surges too tiny to overwhelm protection already inside appliances gets many to recommend that undersized (and extremely profitable) protector.

Any protector adjacent to an appliance either absorbs that energy or blocks it. Provided numbers say these shunt mode filters.will absorb maybe 3000 joules. Destructive surges can be hundreds of thousands of joules. Where is the protection?

Surges are a current source. That means if a current is incoming to the shunt mode filter, then a same current is simultaneously outgoing from that filter into attached appliances. That current may dissipate 3000 joules inside that filter. Additional energy may dissipate destructively inside attached appliances. Sincde the same current is everywhere in that path from cloud to earth. A shunt mode filter does not fail as they claim. But the attached appliance is still damaged.

An IEEE number said interior voltages will not exceed 6000 volts. 6000 between what and what? A common mistake by IT and other layman not educated in electric principles and how hardware works. For example, one AC wire could be at 16,000 volts and another at 10,000 volts. Voltage between those two wires is only 6000 volts. And 10,000 or 16,000 volts is created by a current passing through an adjacent appliance. Again, background knowledge is essential to understand, for example, how these series mode filters are promoted to only provide limited protection.

Another problem is its safety ground wire. A path that completely bypasses this series mode filter and connects a destructive transient into adjacent appliances.

Nothing will block a destructive surge.Nothing. Series mode filters to block transients are for tiny surges often made irrelevant by what is already inside electronics. Surges that do damage will blow through that series mode filter. Protection from this other type of transient must connect to earth BEFORE entering a building. If permitted inside, then that transient will go hunting for earth ground destructively via appliances. Nothing can stop that destructive hunt.

A well proven protection often uses MOVs. Not grossly undersized protection circuits often found in power strips. When MOV protectors are properly sized, then even direct lighting strikes do not damage these protectors. Spec numbers provided by those manufactuers say why no damage. But again, protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Protection means the homeowner can say where that energy is harmlessly absorbed. That can only happen when a surge current connects low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to earth BEFORE entering the building. Only then will a series mode protector add additional protection.

Again, if protection is effective, then a recommendation will say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A solution proven by over 100 years of science and experience does just that. Consumers can spend about $1 per protected appliance for this well proven solution mostly sold by companies with better reputations; companies well known to any 'guy'. Protectors inside the building cannot block or absorb destructive surges. So they forget to discuss the other and typically destructive transient.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

A well proven protection often uses MOVs. Not grossly undersized protection circuits often found in power strips. When MOV protectors are properly sized, then even direct lighting strikes do not damage these protectors.

All MOVs get damaged by surges and fail eventually. The difference lies in how much over-engineering goes into the surge suppressor: if you have enough source impedance to limit current rise and then put enough MOVs in parallel to limit peak current per MOV to about 100A, you get over 10 000 nominal-current surges worth of useful life. Since the typical surge will be orders of magnitude less than nominal-current design, that would translate into negligible SPD aging from everyday surges. Feed one or two 200kA surges through a 20kA nominal / 200kA peak panel-mount surge suppressor though and you are very likely to fry it.

As for the "IEEE numbers," I would bet it is 6kV from any live wire to true ground since that is what UL uses. If the site expects to see surges beyond 6kV L-G/L-N, UL compliance (if you want all those UL stickers/numbers on your downstream equipment to remain valid) requires the installation of meter-mount or panel-mount surge suppression and possibly chokes/filters to deal with those. On split-phase 240V circuits, you could still end up with surges where one line is at +6kV and the other at -6kV though.

BTW, current that gets shunted through the SPD does not reach the load: it gets shunted to neutral and/or ground (returned to the source) to reduce the surge voltage seen by downstream devices and whatever surge currents this may cause. If the MOVs clamp the power bar's let-through at 400V L-N, the loads only see 400V and react accordingly.

 

[westom]

All MOVs get damaged by surges and fail eventually. The difference lies in how much over-engineering goes into the surge suppressor:

Yes all MOVs fail eventually. A statement that says nothing useful without perspective - the numbers. An MOV manufacturer provides numbers in MOV testing:

The change of Vb shall be measured after the impulse listed below is applied 10,000 times continuously with the interval of ten seconds at room temperature.

That failure after 10,000 surges is not catastrophic (sacrificial) as occurs in grossly undersized protectors. MOVs must never fail sacrifically (catastrophically). MOV threshold voltage Vb changes by 10% after many surges as defined by numbers.

So yes, MOVs fail eventually. A properly sized protector for household appliance protection may degrade (not fail catastrophically) after many decades. Unfortunately, grossly undersizing a protector gets naive consumers to recommend it. Effective protection means nobody even knew a surge existed; no catastrophic failure.

Lightning is typically 20,000 amps. So a minimal protector that remains functional after many lightning strikes is rated at 50,000 amps. A solution that costs about $1 per protected appliance. Minimal is clearly not "over engineered". 50,000 amps is minimally acceptable to protect from typically destructive surges such as lightning. At about $1 per protected appliance, it clearly is not over engineered.

Nothing inside a building can stop or absorb typically destructive surges. Plug-in solutions are for transients that typically do no damage. An effective solution means hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside the building. How many protection claims without mentioning that or any other number? An effective solution, for about $1 per protected appliance, means a surge current does not go hunting for earth ground destructively via household appliances. Protector must even remain functional - is not sacrificial.

Effective protectors must make a low impedance connection. Another number demonstated what provides a low impedance connection (ie 'less than 10 feet'). A plug-in protector does not make a low impedance connection (as assumed for that neutral wire). Protectors inside a building do almost nothing (other than fail catastrohically) if a surge is not earthed (low impedance - ie 'less than 10 feet') BEFORE entering that building.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Effective protectors must make a low impedance connection. Another number demonstated what provides a low impedance connection (ie 'less than 10 feet'). A plug-in protector does not make a low impedance connection (as assumed for that neutral wire). Protectors inside a building do almost nothing (other than fail catastrohically) if a surge is not earthed (low impedance - ie 'less than 10 feet') BEFORE entering that building.

This is so horribly wrong. Adding impedance between the source and load does considerably reduce surge let-through and reduce the amount of energy that actually needs to get dissipated: if you put MOVs directly across live an neutral, they may need to shunt over 4kA, still let over 2kV through and dissipate around 300J but if you put a 80µH inductor in series with the source (before the shunts), peak surge current drops around 800A, the let-through drops to around 650V and the shunts only need to absorb about 30 joules. Same shunt/MOV, same 6kV surge applied from the electrical panel but the shunt and load see 10X less surge energy because everything else got blocked by the inductor.

The only reason you need a low impedance shunt protection at the panel is because inductive blocking is usually not practical at that scale.

A plug-in protector does not need to provide low impedance from surge to neutral/ground, it only needs to prevent surges from reaching the protector's loads or at least considerably reduce them. Of course, this assumes there was no user error such as providing secondary ground paths which could become vulnerable to ground surges - different ground connections being at significantly different voltages due to surge current. That's why plug-in protectors should favor shunting to neutral instead of ground.

 

[westom]

The only reason you need a low impedance shunt protection at the panel is because inductive blocking is usually not practical at that scale.

You did not do this stuff. Therefore did not read (comprehend) what was posted. A tiny 100 amp surge puts an appliance, power strip, and wall receptacle maybe at something under 12,000 volts. Excessive impedance is created by wires inside walls – not by an inductor that you assumed. Nobody said anything about adding inductors. Excessive impedance is created by a wire that is too long. Not too thin. Too long.

Wires inside walls have excessive impedance due to sharp bends, splices, maybe inside metallic conduit, and other electrical reasons. Impedance increases mostly with wire length (not wire thickness). Due to impedance, superior protectors are located as close as possible to earth ground (ie 'less than 10 feet'). Impedance is also why protectors are best located distant from the appliance.

Visit a telephone CO to learn why their $multi-million computer suffers about 100 surges with each storm and without damage. To increase protection, protectors are connected shorter to earth AND up to 50 meters (150 feet) separated from that computer. Separation between protector and computer increases protection. Making a connection from protector to earth every centimeter shorter increases protection. Why? Wire has excessive impedance. Again, nobody said anything about inductors.

A post that does not say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipates is disingenuous. Many denials are posted because that critically important number is ignored. Protection is always about how tens of thousands of amps connect from a cloud three miles up to earthborne charges located maybe four miles away from the building. If that current is anywhere inside a building, then effective protection does not exist. Protection is always about an electrical path from cloud to earthborne charges so that current does not enter a building. Only then does a surge not find a path destructively through appliances.

Again, learn why an adjacent protector connected a surge destructively through a network of powered off computers. Adjacent protector made damage easier. We did this stuff.

NIST provides more numbers. A figure shows a house without an earthed 'whole house' protector. Current was all but invited inside to hunt for earth via appliances. Current found a plug-in protector on TV1. Best path to earth ground was through TV1’s power strip protector into TV2 in a next room. NIST demonstrates how a power strip protector earthed a direct lightning strike 8000 volts destructively through TV2 (that was not connected to that protector). Damage because a surge current was inside.

Remember that claim of interior surges less than 6000 volts? Correct. Voltage between interior AC wires remained less than 6000 volts. And that surge, from protector in one room to earth ground via TV2 in a second room, created 8000 volts across TV2.

Hundreds of thousands of joules did not dissipate harmlessly outside that building. So a plug-in protector in one room connected to earth destructively via TV2 in the second room. Protection is always about how a surge connects to earth on a path that is not inside. Facilities that cannot have damage do not use series mode protectors (ie Surgex) and do not use plug-in protectors. To have no damage, facilities use something completely different (also called a protector) that connects low impedance (ie a wire that is less than 10 feet long) to single point earth ground.

A plug-in protector has all but no earth ground - excessive impedance is created by neutral (white) and safety ground (green) wires. Protection means a protector and earth ground at the service entrance. We do not even discuss let-through voltage. Discuss how a ground wire routes separated from other wires, without splices, and every centimeter shorter. To have protection, spend little time discussing a protector. Spend most time discussing what actually does protection - single point earth ground. Protection is always about numbers such as where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate - outside. You also never discuss four most critical words. Protection is about “single point earth ground”. Protection is always about where energy dissipates – that plug-in protectors cannot and never discuss.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Excessive impedance is created by wires inside walls – not by an inductor that you assumed.

You either do not understand how inductance works or are doing a mighty horrible job of showing you do. Even a relatively small inductor will add many times more impedance to the surge path than several meters worth of romex no matter how you bend it - as long as you do not bend it to the point of metal fatigue becoming an issue.

Most electrical loads only care about the voltage they see across live and neutral. You do not need even need a ground wire to manage that. (The neutral wire is bonded to ground in the electrical panel anyway and shunting surges to ground instead of neutral means your grounded appliance could become a shock hazard during surges, not exactly desirable.)

Current does not magically appear in a circuit during a surge; it still needs to overcome circuit inductance and resistance first. That's basic electrical circuit theory and it applies even to lightning.

As for your 8kV surge between rooms, that sounds like the result of code violations and user error since each room should have its own ground and neutral wires, and the distribution panel should have sufficient grounding to prevent ground/neutral surges on one circuit from back-feeding into others. The user error part is about the best practice being to keep all interconnected equipment on a common local ground to avoid ground/neutral voltage differences between equipment.

 

[somebodyspecial]

WESTOM said: A well proven protection often uses MOVs. Not grossly undersized protection circuits often found in power strips. When MOV protectors are properly sized, then even direct lighting strikes do not damage these protectors.

All MOVs get damaged by surges and fail eventually. The difference lies in how much over-engineering goes into the surge suppressor: if you have enough source impedance to limit current rise and then put enough MOVs in parallel to limit peak current per MOV to about 100A, you get over 10 000 nominal-current surges worth of useful life. Since the typical surge will be orders of magnitude less than nominal-current design, that would translate into negligible SPD aging from everyday surges. Feed one or two 200kA surges through a 20kA nominal / 200kA peak panel-mount surge suppressor though and you are very likely to fry it.

As for the "IEEE numbers," I would bet it is 6kV from any live wire to true ground since that is what UL uses. If the site expects to see surges beyond 6kV L-G/L-N, UL compliance (if you want all those UL stickers/numbers on your downstream equipment to remain valid) requires the installation of meter-mount or panel-mount surge suppression and possibly chokes/filters to deal with those. On split-phase 240V circuits, you could still end up with surges where one line is at +6kV and the other at -6kV though.

BTW, current that gets shunted through the SPD does not reach the load: it gets shunted to neutral and/or ground (returned to the source) to reduce the surge voltage seen by downstream devices and whatever surge currents this may cause. If the MOVs clamp the power bar's let-through at 400V L-N, the loads only see 400V and react accordingly.

Why is my name at the top of this statement? I didn't say that FIXED sort of...LOL. I saw this in another thread, tomshardware must be having yet more problems with their forums/comment system. Having said that, I think you're wasting your time replying in this case 😉

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Why is my name at the top of this statement? I didn't say that FIXED sort of...LOL. I saw this in another thread, tomshardware must be having yet more problems with their forums/comment system. Having said that, I think you're wasting your time replying in this case 😉

The quote necromancy thing. I should try getting used to using that preview button. On the plus side, that confirms the bug/feature affects Chrome as well.

As for wasting my time, at least it gives me an excuse to do some more research and simulations. If I can turn that into a story worth writing, then it won't be so bad.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Why is my name at the top of this statement? I didn't say that FIXED sort of...LOL. I saw this in another thread, tomshardware must be having yet more problems with their forums/comment system. Having said that, I think you're wasting your time replying in this case 😉

The quote necromancy thing. I should try getting used to using that preview button. On the plus side, that confirms the bug/feature affects Chrome as well.

As for wasting my time, at least it gives me an excuse to do some more research and simulations. If I can turn that into a story worth writing, then it won't be so bad.

I see your point 😉 Soldier on...with the preview button too 😉

 

[ib2007]

Not ALL APC devices are created equal. My APC UPS is actually interruptable just for the heck of it. I was reading this review not long ago and about 10 minutes ago my UPS Back-UPS RS 1500 just dropped power for no reason. My system rebooted and now i am back to surfing the web. Just so you all know there are still glitches in APC hardware to this day and that they are not golden as they may show off at a glance. I have noticed after using this unit for two years that its started making buzzing sound that is abnormal. My pc runs very quiet so that is why i am hearing the buzzing sounds coming from APC backup unit. The test strip they provided from quality control read pass on all the tests however that is not what happens in reality. I just saw the lights flicker so outside power maybe fluctuating as well how that few minutes has passed. The LCD readout reads my pc as 101W at startup load evened out at roughly 86W of power now. 49 minutes run time supposedly if power goes out. However, I am guessing if the power were to actually drop the system would go black without battery power actually kicking in fast enough. Since the power is currently on and the UPS is dropping power for no reason.

 

[ib2007]

Just a quick update to my earlier post; I have conducted the test and pulled the plug while the APC UPS was active and Everything connected to the Battery backup DIED. The LCD reads Error F01 see manual... after fiddling with it powered it backup; It reads as if the battery is bad without giving you any kind of prior notice. Checked the battery and checked all the contacts all seem ok the battery itself was replaced 2 years ago from APC had them ship me a replacement the prior unit i had which was similar model became defective and would always give vague error codes at random so APC had to replace first one, this second one is unreliable when you actually need it. Anyways, right now i put all back together and the LCD reads as all good with no error code events as if nothing happened. This is still not kicking into battery power when unplugged from the wall outlet. Yet another dead unit... Expect APC to function only the warranty period and or first 1 or 2 years at most then look for a replacement.

 

[Johnpombrio]

I own six of these (2 fers at BJs). I also have a whole house surge suppressor. So far, nothing has broken on the strips, nothing has blown up or burned out while drawing power. Wall warts can be a pain with the orientation of the receptacles but I use 6 inch standoffs for them Amazon Ziotek ZT1212518 5 pack for wall warts.good to go.

 

[ib2007]

Thank you for your reply.
Igor, the symptoms that you describe indicates that the UPS has suffered an internal failure. As per the serial number the unit is pretty old. It was manufactured in the year 2009. I would suggest you to go for a new unit. We have a Trade-UPS program.

You may trade in your old UPS(s) regardless of brand, for a new 1-phase UPS(s) with a full 3 year warranty. You can receive up to a 25% discount on the purchase of a brand new model and take advantage of additional discount offers on all APC accessories with your trade-in. You can also upgrade to four times (4x) the VA of current model(s). New UPS models are more energy efficient. You can trade-in multiple units with each order. You will also get a free return shipping label to ship the old unit back to us. You can avail all this using the link below.

---- In other words, 5 years for an APC UPS product is VERY OLD and within 5 years TWO units failed. --- APC as battery backup? NO THANK YOU!