Tripp-Lite isobar Surge Protector Tear-Down

[nukemaster]

The 360 has an external power supply so any extra heat would not be seen by the system.

It is true that most modern switching power supplies work better at high voltage, I do not think a power supply should stay on at a voltage that would allow damage. I bet we are talking under 5%(2-3 would be a guess) at full load if the power does sag a bit.

I think the biggest issue with the red ring was users sticking it into an AV cabinet with closed doors. This thing made lots of heat. Add that with your other hardware and things overheat.

If a surge bar had that much loss, it would also have to generate heat. I have never seen noticeable loss with a power strip personally.

You do make a good point about voltage fluctuations.

In Canada is is 120v @ 60hz standard and you can see it has some play for sure(reports every 20 min for 24h).

 

[Kewlx25]

Extra heat may not be seen by the system, but it would be seen by the PSU that is wrapped in a zero-airflow plastic shell. My computer's PSU may support as low as 80v, but it's open with huge heatsinks, and has a fan. A small compact plastic brick may quickly become unstable.

 

[Kewlx25]

What is a good surge protector? I have found some series mode surge protectors, but they're around $200 and no reviews to be found. I am not going to drop that much money on something that has no searchable reviews.

 

[westom]

Ideally, you do want to ground all related equipment and cables to a single common point as close to everything as possible.

You have not a clue what was posted. Earth grounding equipment only makes equipment damage easier. Earth grounded equipment makes it a destructive connection to earth.

I never said anything about earthing equipment. You are only reading what insufficient technical knowledge says. Protection is never about earthing equipment. Protection is always about earthing the surge. How many times did you ignore what was posted? Your misreading comes from not learning how electricity works. You even ignored what you did not understand: "single point earth ground".

These concepts were explained repeatedly. Rather than learn (in multiple discussions), you choose to attack and deny. You even foolishly assumed earthing of equipment was recommended. Somehow a 2 centimeter part inside that protector will stop that three kilometers of sky cannot? Somehow a thousand joules inside a magic box will absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When you change you attitude - decide to learn this stuff from someone who did it even decades ago - then you will stop making this discussion nasty. And then read what is posted rather than what you have only assumed.

A technician's education is insufficient to understand wire impedance, longitudinal mode currents, and how protection has been done for over 100 years. You even ignore the AT&T paper, facts from utilities, numbers such as hundreds of thousands of joules, case studies, and underlying concepts proven by over 100 years of science and experience. You even confuse earth ground with safety ground. Obviously safety ground is not earth ground as even defined by another constantly repeated expression: low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters').

Even Microsoft support says a protector adjacent to electronics can make electronic damage easier. Why do you even ignore that?

Your tear down demonstrates why an Isobar is less likely to catastrophically fail after many surges. Nothing more. Tear down says nothing about protection during each surge. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Only then does an informed homeowner know where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate - without appliance damage.

 

[westom]

Maybe they are worried about ground loop hum or something.

Posted repeatedly is why a protector - too close to appliances and too far from earth ground - has a history of making damage easier. We even traced damage to a network of powered off computer to power strip protectors. Numbers were posted that describe why adjacent protectors make damage easier.

Again, assume a 5000 volt surge approaching on the black hot wire. That 330 volt let-through voltage means 5000 volts incoming from the receptacle is also incoming to the adjacent appliance on its hot (black) wire. And 330 volts means 4670 volts is also incoming on the green safety ground and white neutral wire. That protector has simply given a surge more paths to find earth ground destructively via the adjacent appliance.

The completely different device (unfortunately also called a surge protector) must be distant from appliances and low impedance (ie 'less than 3 meters') to single point earth ground. Otherwise power strip protectors may even make appliance damage easier.

The proven solution is obtained for about $1 per protected appliance.

Informed consumers spend tens of times less money to properly earth effective solutions from Siemens, ABB, General Electric, Keison, Intermatic, Leviton, Clipsal, Novaris, Delta, Square D, Intermatic, Ditek, Polyphaser (an industry benchmark), Syscom, or Eaton (Cutler-Hammer) ... to name but a few. Effective protectors (designed to earth direct lightning strikes without damage) have a dedicated wire for earthing.

Kewlx25 - an overloaded surge protector is a popular urban myth. That AC electricity (and surges) connect directly to appliances through a protector. No voltage drop must exist. Brownouts never damage electronics (but can be harmful to motorized appliances). If any power strip is overloaded, then its circuit breaker (that must always exist) would trip to disconnect power completely.

Which reviews should be completely ignored? Those without spec numbers. The well proven solution means a homeowner can say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Since a direct lightning strike may be 20,000 amps, then a minimal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Since effective protectors do not fail even after direct strikes. The well proven solution has a dedicated wire for that low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to what every proven protection system has: single point earth ground. Any review that does not discuss all of this is best considered advertising propaganda.

Read above on why power strip protector can cause damage to Xbox and other appliances. Please do not make assumptions. Even (wildly speculated) ground loops are irrelevant. Obviously, grounding equipment does not provide protection. Since the proven and superior protection (for about $1 per protected appliance) works same on two wire and three wire homes.

Microsoft, AT&T, and others have stated that adjacent power strip protectors can even make damage easier. Those reasons have been posted here repeatedly. Please review them. In some facilities, an employee could be fired for installing ineffective plug-in protectors.

Everyone - even in apartments - has this option. An electric company can install a superior protector behind their meter. Also inspect in your 'primary' surge protection layer. Meanwhile, protection should already be installed on every incoming telephone and cable TV wire. Please do not do what Daniel Sauvageau does. Please do not speculate only from assumption, urban myths, hearsay, ignored spec numbers, and insufficient electrical knowledge.

 

[nukemaster]

Extra heat may not be seen by the system, but it would be seen by the PSU that is wrapped in a zero-airflow plastic shell. My computer's PSU may support as low as 80v, but it's open with huge heatsinks, and has a fan. A small compact plastic brick may quickly become unstable.

The first 360 had a fan in the power supply May even still have one, but I can not be sure since I do not have one.
Most computer power supplies today have smaller heatsinks than ever because of the higher efficiency.

Check out this modern 850 watt unit.

An old 450 watt unit.

I have seen people run laptop chargers in the bag(HOT) and so far they have lived, but I would guess the unit should shut off, not damage it self or other connected equipment. I have seen laptop folders fail(again no damage to anything connected.)

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Somehow a 2 centimeter part inside that protector will stop that three kilometers of sky cannot? Somehow a thousand joules inside a magic box will absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? When you change you attitude - decide to learn this stuff from someone who did it even decades ago - then you will stop making this discussion nasty.

The role of that 2cm device is considerably different from kilometers of air. That 2cm device provides a relatively low impedance path between two conductors so surges can pass through that instead of going through the electronic device it protects. Even if you inject a 100kA lightning strike directly into the electrical system outside the building, most of it will find other paths to ground before reaching the breaker box and only about 3kA will reach power outlets assuming the surges do not arc over to some other ground elsewhere first.

MOVs are not magic. If you use V130LA20 MOVs and want to handle 100kA events, you simply put a dozen or so of them in parallel to meet their 8kA one-shot rating at 25µs, more if you want repeat capabilities. At 100kA for 25µs, the MOVs will have absorbed less than 2kJ while clamping your lightning strike to 600V across their terminals. A disappointingly small figure, right? Yes, you used tens of thousands of joules to create that 100kA lightning bolt but most of it got spent on the sound and light show. All the MOVs did is shift around 5400V from the electrical wiring arc-over that could have occurred without them back to the lightning arc.

You are talking about utility-side surge protection exposed directly to such a hypothetical direct strike and I am talking about point-of-use surge protection. Two different applications that deal with different orders of magnitude and different goals.

You are the one "making the discussion nasty" by continuously lumping plug-in surge protection with service entrance protection. Although similar, they are complementary and separate topics.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

If a surge bar had that much loss, it would also have to generate heat. I have never seen noticeable loss with a power strip personally.

If you take a power bar like the isobar with has a 12' cord and maybe another 2' worth of wire in each inductor, you have 2x(12+2)x0.0025 = ~0.075 ohms of wire resistance and at 12A, this would be a 1V drop and 12W worth of losses. You likely have a similar if not greater amount of losses between your breaker box and power outlets.

As for your earlier questions about grounding, you might want to read the section about technical grounding over here:
http://surgex.com/pdf/PowerGround.pdf

 

[westom]

Even if you inject a 100kA lightning strike directly into the electrical system outside the building, most of it will find other paths to ground before reaching the breaker box and only about 3kA will reach power outlets assuming the surges do not arc over to some other ground elsewhere first.

Please learn science before inventing numbers. Martzloff's 1979 paper "Coordination of Surge Protectors in Low-Voltage AC Power Circuits" demonstrates a rare 100Kamp surge striking AC wires down the street. 40Kamp connects to earth via a properly earthed transformer (the homeowner's 'primary' protection layer - more in next paragraph).. 30Kamps find earth ground in other direction. And 30 kamps finds earth via a nearby house. That is 30,000 amps- not your 3000 amps.

Protection is about the 'secondary' protection layer provided by a properly earthed 'whole house' protector (rated at 50,000 amps so that a 30,000 amp surge is not destructive) 'Primary' surge protection layer, that homeowners are strongly encouraged to inspect, is demonstrated in a picture:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

More numbers from science. A receptacle's safety ground wire is maybe less than 0.2 ohms resistance. That same wire is about 120 ohms impedance. A trivial 100 amp surge times 120 ohms is 12,000 volts. Putting the Isobar and attached electronics at something less than 12,000 volts. How curious. The IEEE shows same with a nearby TV destroyed by 8000 volts. By an even tinier surge. But somehow you say a receptacle can have up to a 3000 amp surge? Did you ever learn from your own numbers? A 3000 amp surge must never appear at receptacles. That is why informed homeowners earth a 'whole house' protector. Since even a tiny 100 amp surge can create 12,000 volts. Please learn this stuff rather than invent numbers to defend a near zero Isobar protector.

Others (ie Microsoft, AT&T, IEEE, Martzloff) noted damage made easier to a nearby TV, Xbox, or computer because a protector was too close and not earthed. A protector, adjacent to appliances, must somehow block or absorb that energy.

Telcos want their protectors as much as 50 meters from their $multi-million switching computer. Separation between protection and electronics INCREASES protection. Telcos suffer about 100 surges per thunderstorm - without damage. Why do they also not use the Isobar?

Martzloff also discusses plug-in (point of connection or what Daniel calls point of use) protectors in a first conclusion of his 1996 IEEE paper. We saw same (ie see previous example of protector destroying a network of powered off computers):

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.

Nothing new. Microsoft says same about their Xbox. An AT&T forum paper says same about damage to DSL equipment. Case studies in Nebraska and Florida said same. Best protectors are separated from electronics and make a low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to earth.

Simply repeating hearsay is disingenuous since you do not even know what a longitudinal mode currents is. A responsible recommendation would always say where hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly absorbs. That tear down says nothing about what is relevant - protection from each surge.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Even if you inject a 100kA lightning strike directly into the electrical system outside the building, most of it will find other paths to ground before reaching the breaker box and only about 3kA will reach power outlets assuming the surges do not arc over to some other ground elsewhere first.

Please learn science before inventing numbers. Martzloff's 1979 paper "Coordination of Surge Protectors in Low-Voltage AC Power Circuits" demonstrates a rare 100Kamp surge striking AC wires down the street. 40Kamp connects to earth via a properly earthed transformer (the homeowner's 'primary' protection layer - more in next paragraph).. 30Kamps find earth ground in other direction. And 30 kamps finds earth via a nearby house. That is 30,000 amps- not your 3000 amps.

You are making the same mistake over and over and over: that 30kA is at the service entrance, not at outlets.

Wiring inductance in branch circuits will prevent most energy from a lightning strike to phase from entering branch circuits, forcing most of its energy to arc over elsewhere. Pluggable surge protectors and their attached devices only need to deal with the energy that does make it into the branch circuits. Every paper about surges that I have read and is dated newer than about 15 years old agrees on this. Before that, the worst-case surge at outlets was believed to be around 500A, which is why UL1449-r2 only tested pluggable protectors up to 500A. That is exactly why UL decided to increase the pluggable SPD test current from 500A to 3kA when they published UL1449-r3 in 2006.

Of course, this assumes that the electrical installation is up to code in the first place.

Are you claiming to know better than UL, ANSI, IEEE and NEMA do?

 

[westom]

You are making the same mistake over and over and over: that 30kA is at the service entrance, not at outlets.

Again, wild assumptions that 30,000 amps incoming will not be outgoing to earth via only one or a few receptacles. 3000 amps on any receptacle is completely unacceptable. Let alone 15,000 or 30,000 amps. Especially when the homeowner can spend $1 per protected appliance to earth a superior and proven solution. Then no current is incoming to any receptacles.

How many responsible sources have you ignored to keep posting these advertising myths? How many manufacturers said an adjacent protector can even make appliance damage easier? You even ignore the significance of longitudinal mode currents. Numbers were even provided for a tiny *100 amp* surge on a receptacle - a destructive 12,000 volts. Why do you routinely ignore numbers that say why every proven solution is about single point earth ground. Even Duke Energy cited that as necessary - and you ignored it.

You then claim all appliances are already grounded. You still fail to grasp these electrical principles. Earthing an appliance makes appliance damage easier. Earthing a surge means surge protection. Big difference that you should have understood long before tearing down any protectors.

Only a victim of hearsay would assume 3000 amps into an Isobar and then out to earth via the attached appliance is not destructive. It is called electricity. If 3000 amps is incoming to a protector and appliance, then 3000 amps is also outgoing to earth, destructively, via those boxes. The person who did this stuff understands it. Another educated by hearsay remains in denial by even ignoring every number.

Your own number - 3000 amps on one receptacle - means no protection. The proven solution means no such current exists - for about $1 per protected appliance. How much for the Isobar? $50? $90 per? The most expensive solution does not even claim to protect from destructive transients.

Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Posted repeatedly BECAUSE you must ignore it to keep posting half truths. When will you answer that question that the informed answered over 100 years ago.

Protection means 30,000 amps is not inside the house. Protection means 3000 amps is never on any receptacle. Protection means that current need not find earth ground destructively via household appliances. Appliance protection using a 'whole house' solution is similar to structural protection using a properly earthed lightning rod. Protection is always defined by the earthing. None of this has changed in over 100 years. Every facility that cannot have damage does it. And still you think 3000 amps on one receptacle is acceptable. Please grasp your own numbers. Even numbers from your own citations contradict what you claim. Please learn why so many companies - including the cable company - say to not put plug-in (ie Isobar) protectors on their products. Even Sony's Playstation says same.

If branch circuit wiring does what you now post, then protection already inside every appliance means no Isobar is needed. Reality. Surges are a current source. Another concept not taught to electricians and technicians. Voltage rises as much as necessary so that the same current will still flow. Impedance on a branch circuit is only useful when a properly earthed 'whole house' solution already connected that current to earth. Only then does a surge not increase voltage - to get inside and blow through the Isobar and appliances. A surge need not create destructive voltages when connected low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground.

Please learn simple electrical concepts. If a branch circuit does what you have speculated, then nobody needs an Isobar. Only reason a branch circuit increases protection... because the surge was earthed BEFORE it could enter. Then an informed homeowner knows where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipated. You don't because you are promoting an Isobar to do what even Tripplite does not claim it will do.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Again, wild assumptions that 30,000 amps incoming will not be outgoing to earth via only one or a few receptacles.

If your electrical installation is up to code, none of the outlets and connected appliances should have an impedance to ground anywhere near as low as building/system ground. If a surge goes to ground through an appliance, there likely was an electrical code violation or user error.

If branch circuit wiring does what you now post, then protection already inside every appliance means no Isobar is needed.

Thank you for providing definitive proof you did not understand a single word I said.

If branch circuits have 10µH of inductance and your lightning strike has a 3kA/µs rise rate to 30kA directly at the distribution panel live or neutral, voltage at the panel would be V = L * di/dt = 10µH * 3kA / 1µs = 30kV, which is well in excess of the 6kV flash-over voltage of a perfect electrical installation. Such a surge WILL arc to breaker box chassis or elsewhere. Once it does, the arc voltage will be well under 6kV and take most of the surge energy due to being the lowest impedance path to ground. This still leaves the arc voltage present inside the electrical panel being applied to branch circuits and the branches need to do something about the 1-2kVDC arc voltage.

Using a panel-mount surge protector based on 150V/221K MOVs eliminates the 6kV arc ignition voltage and reduces the entrance surge voltage to somewhere in the neighborhood of 700V, which is still uncomfortably high for most electronics.

BTW, a perfect ground and an entrance surge suppressor do not necessarily save your equipment from surges. Here's a NIST paper from 2002 about simulated lightning strikes to service ground:
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/files/Role_of_SPDs.pdf
Their simulations do not take arc/flash-over into account and as they note in their discussion and conclusion, flash-over would drastically reduce the strain on downstream MOVs. As they point out in the second part of their conclusion, if real-world strikes were anywhere as harsh as their simulation results were, equipment failures would be far more common and most equipment's built-in protection would be ineffective.

 

[westom]

Using a panel-mount surge protector based on 150V/221K MOVs eliminates the 6kV arc ignition voltage and reduces the entrance surge voltage to somewhere in the neighborhood of 700V, which is still uncomfortably high for most electronics.

OK let's talk reality - the numbers. First 700 volts is what appears in undersized plug-in protectors (L-N or hot to neutral) that fail catastrophically - what is an unacceptable type of failure. Those protectors may suffer over 900 volts to fail catastrophically. Many have seen plug-in protectors fail in this completely unacceptable manner. Then assumed that protector sacrificed itself. Nonsense. Protection inside an appliance made that maybe 900 volts irrelevant.

Meanwhile, view figure one in Martzloff's paper. Those 'whole house' protectors are 150 volts - no where near 700 volts. Where does your 700 volt number come from? Not from your citation. It was invented.

Second, protection involves two concepts. 'Life expectancy' over many surges. And 'actual protection' during each surge. Isobar tear down demonstrates an Isobar is more robust than other near zero protectors. Tear down says nothing about 'actual protection'.

Your citation discusses why plug-in protectors can be protected by wire impedance. Same impedance that protects a protector is also why a surge (in the IEEE brochure) found a better conductive path to earth 8000 volts destructively via an adjacent TV. But again, best protection means a surge current is not inside a building. Low impedance is also why energy must dissipate harmlessly outside in earth. Via a properly sized 'whole house' protector. So that service entrance voltages are well below 700 volts. Why well below? Again, a minimal 'whole house' protector is 50,000 amps. Then hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly absorbed outside. Why do you repeatedly ignore hundreds of thousands of joules?

Third, 6Kv speculation was contradicted by the IEEE brochure showing a power strip protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. Using your reasoning, that 8000 volts should never exist. Well it doesn't if a 'whole house' solution is properly earthed. What does your Martzloff paper discuss? Reduced energy using a 'whole house' solution to protect that power bar (downstream) protector. Again, power strip protectors are implemented only AFTER a 'whole house' solution is first installed. Because even an Isobar needs that protection.

Fourth, a paper was again cited without quoting any relevant paragraph. I will. His first conclusion says

... the numerical simulations performed for a simplified system with one surge- protective device installed at the service entrance, and one or more built-in SPD in downstream equipment indicate that the downstream SPD is very likely to be overstressed and fail, most likely catastrophically.

This paper is not about 'actual protection' - as you claim. This paper is about protecting ('life expectancy') a downstream (power bar or point of connection) protector. Please stop confusing protector 'life expectancy' with 'actual protection' of appliances. You made the same mistake in the tear down.

In an earlier paper, Martzloff says adjacent protectors (ie Isobar) may even make appliance damage easier.

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.

Your citation is Martzloff discussing protector 'life expectancy' - not 'actual protection'. An Isobar may make appliance damage easier due to "objectionable difference in reference voltages".

A minimally sized 'whole house' protector is not at 700 volts. Only a grossly undersized protector (that fails on a first or second surge) would create a voltage that high. Most surges would not exceed 330 volts. Increased separation between an effective protector and appliances further reduces a voltage that, even at 330 volts, is not destructive to any properly designed appliance. And so telcos want their protectors up to 50 meters distant from their $multi-million electronics.

When citing a paper, please cite relevant paragraphs. Your every citation contradicts your assumptions. Informed consumers spend tens of times less money to earth a 'whole house' protector.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Meanwhile, view figure one in Martzloff's paper. Those 'whole house' protectors are 150 volts - no where near 700 volts. Where does your 700 volt number come from? Not from your citation. It was invented.

I think you should have read about how MOVs actually work before commenting on that: you have just mistaken the MOV's rated maximum continuous operating voltage (MCOV) for its voltage protection rating (VPR) which is the rated voltage at maximum rated one-shot surge current. That would be a fatal design mistake, the single biggest MOV-related mistake you could possibly do, since a MOV with a 150V VPR, if it even existed, would not survive normal line voltage.

If you look at this Eaton 400kA entrance surge protector for example:
http://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&allowInterrupt=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=Primary&dDocName=TD01005023E
The 240S version (240V split-phase) has a 700V L-N / L-G voltage protection rating. If it received a 400kA surge, there would be up to 700V across affected terminals.

Then hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly absorbed outside. Why do you repeatedly ignore hundreds of thousands of joules?

Because it is not relevant to plug-in surge protection: even without any surge protection anywhere in the building or outside, most of those millions of joules would still discharge in an arc somewhere long before reaching wall outlets. The primary mission of a whole-home surge protector is to protect the wiring: prevent arcs from randomly occurring across indoors wiring and appliances so they do not become fire, electrocution or other safety hazards during and after surges. Equipment protection to some degree, depending on how over-engineered the panel-mount surge protector and its integration into the electrical system might be, is only a side effect.

 

[westom]

The 240S version (240V split-phase) has a 700V L-N / L-G voltage protection rating. If it received a 400kA surge, there would be up to 700V across affected terminals.

Now read what they are actually saying. A 400Kva protector sees (in the rarest of situations) 100kA. And typically, during a worst direct strike, only 20kA. Therefore voltage never rises up anywhere near to protector harmful levels exceeding 700 volts.

Why are you discussing 400Ka protectors when your much more expensive Isobar is even destroyed by a 100 amp surge?

Meanwhile 120 volt electronics, long before the PC existed, were designed to withstand 600 volt spikes without damage. Todays electronics are even more robust. Appliances routinely withstand much tinier voltages that exist with surges .... when an informed consumer properly earths a 'whole house' solution. So that the rare and potentially destructive transient - maybe once every seven years - does not even harm the protector. Note facts with numbers.

Telcos all over the world do not use Isobar. They do not want protectors that can even make equipment damage easier. But again, you demonstrate ignorance of longitudinal mode currents. You do not even properly read your own datasheet that says 200 volts - not 700 volts - at the top of the page. And therefore have no idea what is required for a direct lightning strike without damage. You never did this stuff. Do not know basic electrical concepts. Foolishly stick to an irrelevant L-N voltage difference - that is already made irrelevant by what is inside all appliances.

Obviously you did not learn why telcos all over the world earth a 'whole house' solution so that 100 surges with each storm cause no damage to each $multi-million switching computer. Why do they know that and you do not? Why do I keep including numbers with each technical statement - and you do not. Since you do not do this stuff, then you did not even know 100 surges with each storm. But somehow, without knowing relevant electrical concepts and without having done this stuff, you are better informed? Please. You even misread your own IEEE citations. Even Martzloff says why an Isobar may make appliance damage easier. So you pretend Martzloff never said that in his first conclusion?

Or you could have read legendary Polyphaser application notes. Maybe you did. That would explain why you do not discuss what Polyphaser says. Microsoft cautions consumers to not use your plug-in (point of connection) protectors since it can cause Xbox damage. The AT&T paper also says why that damage happens and why appliance adjacent protectors can even cause damage. Cable companies tells consumers to remove that protector from their cable. Case studies demonstrate that earthing (not your protector) averts damage. Sony and others caution about damage due to plug-in protectors. You even confused receptacle safety ground with earth ground. You still do not understand why wire impedance (ie telcos want up to 50 meter separation) means a protector works best when distant from appliances. You did not even know of the 'primary' and 'secondary' protection layers. But somehow, you are better informed - apparently by advertising.

And then you confused earthing of a surge with earthing of equipment. Do you finally admit earthing equipment only makes equipment damage easier? Or do two difference grounds - earth and safety - still confuse you?

Somehow it is acceptable to have a surge inside and hunting for earth destructively via appliances. Then spend $80 per appliance to protect each. Where is an Isobar to protect a dishwasher, clocks, furnace, bathroom GFCIs, air conditioner, CFL and LED bulbs, and recharging phone? Informed consumers spend about $1 per protected appliance (tens of times less money) to make the destructive surge (a longitudinal current) irrelevant. To even protect the plug-in protectors.

Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. That does not change only because you deny it. As made so obvious in an IEEE brochure, Polyphaser application notes, ARRL publications, military standards, and even atop the Empire State Building where 23 direct lightning strikes annually cause no damage. But again, who knows these numbers. Typical consumer may suffer one potentially destructive surge every seven years. You would know that had you understood what Martzloff said.

Still you know an Isobar will magically avert damage. Well, if adjacent to an appliance, it can only do two things - either block that surge or absorb it. It does that only for tiny surges (ie 1 kilojoule) that are routinely made irrelevant by protection inside all appliances. It does not claim to protect from other surges - also called longitudinal mode currents. But you still do not understand that basic electrical concept because electricians are not taught it.

Informed consumers use concepts originally taught in elementary school science (Ben Franklin's lightning rod) to also keep surges out of their homes. That means earthing of the 'primary' protection layer and earthing of a 'whole house' protector for a 'secondary' protection layer. But again, a protector is only as effective as its earth ground - that you never discuss. Because you cannot say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. You never did this stuff. I did.

Please learn what your IEEE citations and datasheet are actually saying. Ignored are your subjective claims that, well quite frankly, sometimes make no sense due to a lack of basic electrical knowledge. Even Isobar does not claim to protect from typically destructive types of surges. Why do you?

That teardown demonstrates a more robust Isobar would have increased protector life expectancy (compared to other plug-in protectors). It says nothing about protection for each surge. Well understood over 100 years ago. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - which the Isobar does not have and will not discuss. And that you ignore apparently because you do not even know what a longitudinal mode current is. Even an AT&T forum paper made it layman simple why the Isobar is ineffective protection. So you claim they are wrong. Denials are necessary when education is from advertising.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Now read what they are actually saying. A 400Kva protector sees (in the rarest of situations) 100kA. And typically, during a worst direct strike, only 20kA. Therefore voltage never rises up anywhere near to protector harmful levels exceeding 700 volts.

You are the one blabbering repeatedly about hundreds of thousands of joules/amps and now that those numbers are no longer convenient to you, you choose to turn the tables.

MOVs have an almost logarithmic voltage-current curve. In fact, manufacturers who characterize their devices V-I curves often plot it on log-log graphs. If you only have a 20kA surge, the voltage across a bank of 20x 20D221K MOVs or equivalent would still be around 500V - you really should take a look at MOVs' current-voltage curves before writing about things you clearly do not know anything about. If you did, I guess you forgot how to look at log-log graphs and made another beginner mistake there.

If you wanted to clamp 20kA surges to 300V peak using MOVs, you would need thousands 20mm 150 MCOV devices. That's voltage across the MOVs, it does not account for resistance and inductance across the hook-up wires between the surge suppressor and the bus-bar inside the breaker box which can add an extra 200V initially if you have even 100nH of parasitic inductance in the hook-up. That is still stretching the limits of what most electronics are designed to handle. In most electronics I have opened, the first thing after the IEC socket is an X-class cap rated for 250-275V AC and similar Y-class caps. These things are not going to survive 600V surges indefinitely. Same goes for the diode bridges, primary-side capacitors, etc.

Why are you discussing 400Ka protectors when your much more expensive Isobar is even destroyed by a 100 amp surge?

You should read the datasheet of some 20mm MOVs before digging yourself into deeper holes. Most have infinite endurance at 100A as long as the MOVs have time to cool down between surges. But there are inductors between the power cord and protected loads, so current would not be allowed to rise in the first place.

 

[westom]

If you wanted to clamp 20kA surges to 300V peak using MOVs, you would need thousands 20mm 150 MCOV devices. That's voltage across the MOVs, .

Reality makes that claim bogus. If a protector requires thousands of MOVs for a 20,000 amp surge, then why do previously listed manufacturers of integrity do 50,000 amps in a tiny box? So that direct lightning strikes do not damage a protector. Why is this routinely done in telco switching centers with tiny protectors? Because we know how these things really work. We are not educated by hearsay and advertising. We learn technology behind those numbers. Technology that was demonstrated in case studies in Nebraska and Florida that you ignored. You even posted citations without referencing a relevant paragraph. Because you do not know which paragraph was relevant. And did not know that earthing was essential.

You still do not understand why a power strip, in an IEEE brochure, earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively via some nearby TV. And then claim voltages would never exceed 6000 volts (a misguided claim found in some bogus plug-in protector propaganda). You did not understand numbers in a datasheet. You selected some number and threw them on the wall - hoping something would stick.

Bottom line remains true. Protector 'life expectancy' says nothing about 'protection during each surge'. Protection is always about where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Facilities that cannot have damage (even 100+ years ago) were very careful how their protectors connected to earth. Same reason why lightning rods, properly installed, are also carefully earthed. Protection is provided by the earth ground - not by a lightning rod or protector.

Protection is always about no destructive currents inside a building. So that superior protection already inside each appliance, is not overwhelmed. That current is defined by another ignored electrical concept - current source. You also never learned conductivity and equipotential. Why do we know these concepts and you do not? Concepts were demonstrated even in a Duke Energy tech tip of good, bad, and ugly earthing.

Subjectively deny all you want. It does not change the bottom line. Your grasp is only at an electrician's level. And by ignoring relevant numbers. Only thing an Isobar can do to provide protection is block or absorb that surge energy. Protection is not about L-N voltages (another myth promoted in hearsay).

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Every layer of protection is defined by its earth ground. Protection means one can always say where hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly absorbed. Therefore informed consumers earth a 'whole house' protector, for about $1 per protected appliance. Using products from other manufacturers of integrity. Tripplite, APC, Belkin, and Monster were not in that previously posted list. Only you would call that blabbering BECAUSE you never learned above, relevant, and basic electrical concepts.

Protection means one always knows where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Reality makes that claim bogus. If a protector requires thousands of MOVs for a 20,000 amp surge, then why do previously listed manufacturers of integrity do 50,000 amps in a tiny box?

Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

The thousand of MOVs thing was about clamping a 20kA surge to a voltage below 500V using 20D221K or similar 150V MCOV MOVs. There are bigger MOVs out there than 20D and that would reduce the total. However, this does not change the fact that MOVs do not provide significant clamping until the voltage is very significantly above their MCOV.

 

[SinceCPM]

I can't decipher everything the guys are saying (though I read every post). I am posting to provide some "consumer level" information.

http://www.leviton.com/OA_HTML/SectionDisplay.jsp?section=61379

Essentially, a good protection system might have protection at the meter, panel, and outlets (and that's in order of importance). None of them are useless.

What's disappointing about the discussion is that there are two obviously very knowledgeable and intelligent guys here, but for whatever reason, the discussion devolves into attacks discrediting instead of clarification.

I do thank @Weston for pointing out whole house protection because while I do use ISOBAR's, I can now see what they do and don't do. I'm still a bit concerned about that "30 feet from panel" thing. My office (computers, etc.) is right next to my utility room (where the panel is). I'm not at all sure there's 30' of wiring from the panel to the nearest in-use outlet. Get a whole-house installed and remove the ISOBAR's?

@Daniel, thanks for writing these articles in the first place. My allegiance to ISOBAR seemingly goes back decades as it's what the big corporation I worked for to start my career used. I recently had one "blow" (I have no idea why) and started actually reading a bit about them to see if they were still considered good before buying another one, which led me here. I had to buy another one as opposed to any type of warranty coverage because I didn't still have the receipt from purchase.

As others have mentioned, I would also be curious to see what the deal is with consumer UPS's.Personally, I use the CyberPower 850PFCLCD (for the simulated since wave that works better with PFC PC power supplies) and the CyberPower CP1500AVRLCD (for the PC's that don't need sine waves). We've historically had dirty power in the area (all kinds of surges, brownouts, and blackouts) and these UPS's have been life savers for me (allowing my computers to shut down gracefully). I have no idea if they'd handle a real surge, but it sounds like that whole house thing should be the first line of defense anyway. I do at least know the UPS's handle brownouts and blackouts well.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Essentially, a good protection system might have protection at the meter, panel, and outlets (and that's in order of importance). None of them are useless.

What's disappointing about the discussion is that there are two obviously very knowledgeable and intelligent guys here, but for whatever reason, the discussion devolves into attacks discrediting instead of clarification.

Every surge protection paper I have read also recommends a tiered protection approach. A single shunt-mode (MOV or other) panel-mount surge protector cannot divert all surge energy simply due to not being ideal inductance-less devices with inductance-less wiring. Weston does not appear to want to admit that inductance exists and that MOVs do not have brick-wall responses to voltage, making surge protectors, including panel-mount ones, far less than ideal. Panel-mount surge protectors can significantly reduce strain on downstream surge protectors and appliances but they cannot eliminate them on their own. He also appears to be hung up on the notion of surges getting earthed through other equipment when there should be no ground voltage difference between properly connected equipment. I am not sure why the notion of common equipment ground eludes him and I have given up on trying to find out. Since he claims to have worked with telco switch gear, the principle should be familiar to him in the form of rack-based grounding.

As for the 30' of wiring between the outlet and breaker box, as I said earlier in the thread, in past stories, and as highlighted in the IEEE paper I linked a few posts ago, the reason for it is that the added wiring resistance and inductance drastically reduce the amount of residual surge energy MOVs in pluggable surge protectors will need to absorb to clamp surges at a reasonable voltage. The UL's 1449-r3's test specification for type-3 (pluggable) SPD includes that 10m worth of wiring to determine the SPD's protection voltage rating. If there is less than that, the protector might not meet its rating. The isobar has a 330V PVR with 10m of wire separating it from the surge's source but if you shorten that to 3m/10', it might let 400V through. It will still work but it will be less effective and the increased surge current will wear it down faster if your area frequently has significant surges.

 

[westom]

Essentially, a good protection system might have protection at the meter, panel, and outlets (and that's in order of importance). None of them are useless.

Even I recommend a plug-in protector - to do only what it claims to do. Those L-N transients. Are those L-N transients doing damage? How many times per month are your replacing clocks, CFL bulbs, bathroom GFCIs or smoke detectors? how often does the vacumm clearner blow out the TV? Surges so small as to be made irrelevant even by protection inside door bell electronics. But still I do recommend them - but only for what they claim to do. Let's put numbers to that recommendation.

IEEE makes recommendations in Standards. A 'whole house' solution does 99.5% to 99.9% of the protection. That power strip (or UPS) protector might do another 0.2% protection. If money is no object, then spend massively also on power strip protectors for that extra 0.2%. But never use them without proper earthing and the 'whole house' solution. Since even house fires have resulted. We have not yet discussed protector created house fires.

Please do not equate his knowledge with mine. He cite numbers without grasp of what those numbers mean - as I have noted repeatedly. His has an electricians grasp. Most of his claims are subjective - not quantitative - are missing numbers. He does not even know what longitudinal mode currents are - essential for understanding protection. He ignores most of the technical stuff he does not understand. Pretending, for example, that Martzloff did not say protectors like an Isobar can sometimes make appliance damage easier. No way around that damning reality as even descriibed in an IEEE brochure that show a resulting 8000 volts destructively throgh a nearby TV. Meanwhile we engineers even traced that exact same "protector created damage" through a network of powered off computers. Was that not damning enough?

One sure indication of anyone who does not know this stuff: citing professional sources without citiing the relevant paragraph or concept. He is good at posting stuff he does not even understand, that is sometimes irrelevant, and that sometimes says why the Isobar is not effective protection.. Was that not obvious?

Anyone who knows surge protection will always say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Protectors do not do protection. Read that again. Protectors do not do protection. At this point, that should be obvious. Effective protectors connect to what does protection. A power strip protector is ineffective (even makes appliance damage easier) if not part of a 'whole house' solution. Since every protection layer is only defined by the earth ground..

If considering a 'whole house' soution, well, we have not yet discussed how earthing must be installed. Many electricians do not even know this stuff. Only posted were many reasons why an Isobar does not claim to protect from the other and destructive type of surge. Not posted is how to install the superior solution.

Discussion of protection is not be limited to AC electric. Any wire entering the building (ie from a detached garage, lawn watering system, dog electric fence, remotely controlled gate) also must be integrated into the solution. Relevant concepts are equipotential and conductivity. Concepts not yet discussed because Isobar does not do those 'what are important' tasks.

Move on to concepts that actually define protection. That also say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Since protection is about the other type of surge that was only noted in terms of what the Isobar does not do. How to best do 'whole house' protection involves concepts not associate with the Isobar - including equipotential and conductivity. So every tiered layer of protection is defined by the earth ground - not by a protector.

How great is your risk? That should be part of your decision. Destructive surges occur maybe once every seven years. A number better defined by over a decade of neighborhood history. Makes little difference if incoming wires are overhead or underground (not yet discussed because it was not relevant to what an Isobar does). Even factors such as pipelines and geology can also affect the risk.

Isobar does not even claim to protect from a type of surge that can overwhelm existing protection inside all appliances. The AT&T paper was particulary blunt about that.. Made further obvious by this rule: protection means a surge dissipates harmlessly outside a building. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Earhting is the 'art'. We have not even discussed that yet since Isobar has no earthing. That critical feature of effective solutions is only discussed in terms of what Isobar does not have and will not discuss. Bottom line: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground - the "art" of protection.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Earhting is the 'art'. We have not even discussed that yet since Isobar has no earthing.

Plugging all your interconnected equipment in the same power strip provides them common equipment ground. It makes them equipotent and once you have that, no surge can travel between those pieces of equipment.

BTW, what you call "longitudinal surge" is what I called ground loops or common-mode surges. For power distribution though, most major surge events are differential by the time they reach home users: a longitudinal surge along a three phase high-voltage distribution lines becomes differential as far as the home user is concerned after it passes through the local distribution transformer which will either amplify the common-mode mismatch between the three phases if the transformer is wired phase-phase or the common-mode voltage to ground if it is wired phase-ground/neutral.

As for the TV thing you keep pointing out, let me point out I had already addressed this and called it misuse of surge protection. As I said in one of my very first few responses in this thread, all external connections entering a protected equipment cluster must be connected/bonded to local equipment ground ("referenced to the same ground") or be galvanically isolated. That extra TV connected to the same coax without its own local protection is just begging to get zapped regardless of whether the upstream splitter has some form of protection attached and whoever does that gets no sympathies from me.

 

[westom]

Plugging all your interconnected equipment in the same power strip provides them common equipment ground. It makes them equipotent and once you have that, no surge can travel between those pieces of equipment..

Protection was defined in simplest terms. Protection means one knows where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. Those so many major sources and numbers define properly earthed protection as effective and essential. Adjacent protectors do not even claim to protect from completely different and typically destructive surges. As demonstrated by your so many posted without even one manufacturer specification number. You have again denied reality without even one fact to justify your conclusions.

Why would anyone pay tens or 100 times more money for near zero protectors? In every reply, a damning question is repeatedly ignored. Where do hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate? Every professional citation posted here answers that question. Why can't you?

Ground loops are obviously irrelevant to how destructive surge currents do damage. Your ground loops are only noise. Near zero currents made irrelevant by what already exists in electronics. Again, how does a magic box block or absorb hundreds of thousands of joules? Not that I expect an answer. Over 100 years of science and experience must be wrong? - using your reasoning. And now you have assumed ground loops are same as destructive surge currents? Please stop inventing myths.

Why did a plug-in protector earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV? You have no idea. So you claim it does not happen. What kind of answer is that? You are throwing wet paper against the wall hoping something will stick. And still have no idea why a longitudinal mode current is relevant. Obviously you never heard of longitudinal mode until mentioned by someone who does surge protecton - repeatedly. But somehow you know better?

Did you finally admit a 90 joule protector is near zero? Why are you still not defending that obvious myth?

Why does every responsible source (including your citations) define earth ground as necessary? Why do you ignore earth ground in every reply? Where do hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate? Facilties that cannot have damage always answer that question. Why can't you? Basic electrical concept, necessary to understand how an Isobar works, were never learned. Even Martzloff said an Isobar may make appliance damage easier. Why do the professional say that and you keep denying it? Long ago was an AT&T forum paper that said so. Followed by tens of other sources. And somehow you know otherwise.

 

[Daniel Sauvageau]

Why did a plug-in protector earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV?

The plug-in protector in the IEEE brochure did not "earth 8000V to a nearby TV", it earthed 2000V of a 10kV surge induced between the coax grounding lug and entrance ground to local equipment ground at the first TV, leaving 8kV on the coax for the remainder of the run to the second TV. If the plug-in protector had not been there, the second TV would have seen somewhere in the neighborhood of 10kV instead.

The surge protector did not add anything that was not already there and the IEEE brochure labeled this case as "a very common improper use of multiport protectors" exactly like I did.

 

[westom]

The plug-in protector in the IEEE brochure did not "earth 8000V to a nearby TV", it earthed 2000V of a 10kV surge induced between the coax grounding lug and entrance ground to local equipment ground at the first TV, leaving 8kV on the coax for the remainder of the run to the second TV. .

Figure is clear and obvious. 8000 volts inside a TV is created by a deestructive current from the plug-in protector..
You admit 8000 volts was earthed destructively via a nearby TV. Earthed by a plug-in protector without the essential earth ground connection AND without an always required and properly earthed 'whole house' solution.

99.5-99.9% of protection is performed by a properly earthed 'whole house' solution. Meaning a 'point of connection' protector does maybe another 0.2% protection.

You assume every home resident will be carefully educated into how to power on all appliances. According to your reasoning, even every child must be taught how to carefully connect their Xbox to a TV. It will not happen. And it is unnecessary when using a proven 'whole house' solution.

Informed homeowners spend tens or 100 times less money for the 'whole house' solution. Then nobody need be carefully educated to not do what is routine: "improper use of multiport protectors". Effective protection means homeowners use all applainces normally.