bud--

Of course grimmreapersound did post specs. Thousands of volts are noise? Nonsense Repeating what the NIST surge guide really says about plug-in suppressors: They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. The IEEE surge guide also says they are effective. The only 2 detailed examples of protection both use plug-in protectors. Westom forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge protector]." Multiport protectors allow you to wire phone and cable wires through the protector. They protect from high voltage between power and signal wires. At the time of the paper, 1994, multiport surge protectors were just a concept or very new. The point of the paper was that multiport plug-in protectors are effective for protecting equipment with phone and cable connections in addition to power. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective. It is another of westom's hallucinations. A "single point ground", with short ground wires from cable and entry protectors to a common connection point, is actually an important piece of surge protection. It is covered in the IEEE surge guide. No protector needed for cable? The IEEE guide says “there is no requirement to limit the voltage developed between the core and the sheath. .... The only voltage limit is the breakdown of the F connectors, typically ~2–4 kV.” And "there is obviously the possibility of damage to TV tuners and cable modems from the very high voltages that can be developed, especially from nearby lightning." For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information on protection from surges. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

Francois Martzloff was the surge expert at the NIST and has written many technical papers on surges and surge protection. One of them (mentioned in my first post) looked at a 100,000A lightning strike to a utility pole next to a house in typical urban overhead distribution. Only 5% of lightning strikes are stronger, and you can't get much closer, so this is for practical purposes a worst case event. He found there was 10,000A heading for the house on each of the neutral and the 2 hot wires. The neutral is bonded to the system ground at the service and both are connected to the earthing system which dumps the neutral surge to earth. Service panel protectors with far higher ratings than 10,000A are readily available. A service panel protector results in a manageable surge voltage on inside power wiring. (There are some exceptions, such as a pad mounded A/C compressor/condenser - see the IEEE surge guide.) The result is 30,000A going to the earthing system. Even if you has an extremely good 5 ohms to earth resistance, the house 'ground' will rise to 150,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the protection is that all wiring in the house (phone, cable, ...) rises together. That requires a good "single point ground", discussed in the IEEE surge guide. A direct strike to the building requires lightning rods (now called air terminals). Another Martzloff paper (also mentioned in my first post) looked at the energy that can be absorbed in the MOVs in a plug-in protector. He used branch circuits 10m and longer and a surge on the incoming power wire of 10,000A - as above the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring. The maximum energy dissipated in the plug-in suppressor was a surprisingly small 35 Joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 Joule or less. There are 2 reasons the energy is so small. One is that at about 6,000V there is arc-over from the service panel busbars to the enclosure. After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of volts. Since the enclosure/ground/neutral are connected to the earthing system that dumps most of the incoming surge energy to earth. The second reason is the impedance of the branch circuit wiring. A surge is a very short event. That means the current elements are relatively high frequency. That means the wire inductance (which we usually ignore) is more important than the resistance. The branch circuit impedance greatly limits the current to the MOVs, which greatly limits the energy that can make it to the MOVs. Plug-in protectors with ratings much higher than 35 joules are readily available. A plug-in protector with high ratings wired correctly is very likely to protect against a very near very strong lightning strike. Plug-in protectors do not protect by earthing a surge. Read the IEEE surge guide starting page 30. The work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. Arc-over at the panel would certainly also benefit a Brickwall (and every other device in the house). Branch circuit impedance may also benefit a Brickwall - I haven't looked closely at how they are supposed to operate. Get a protector with high enough ratings by itself. They are available with rating well over a thousand joules. Manufacturers, and UL, will tell you not to daisy chain protectors. (UL also does not want you to daisy chain ordinary plug- strips.) Martzloff has written "In fact, the major cause of [surge protector] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." A surge is, by definition, a very short event. Temporary overvoltage is much longer, and could be your hitting a power pole, or a distribution wire dropping onto the wires that feed your house. The MOVs that are in almost all surge protectors can handle thousands of amps for the very short duration of a surge. They will very rapidly burnout with the much longer temporary overvoltage. A UPS may disconnect successfully.

My "nasty replies" and "outright lies" come from the IEEE and NIST. Almost everything I post is in the surge guides I linked to. Some is in technical papers from the NIST surge guide author (which are probably still online if anyone wants to read them). Westom googles for "surge" to spread his beliefs about surge protection. One of his goals is to save the universe from the scourge of plug-in protectors. Googling for ["westom" surge] returns over 16,000 hits. There are more under some of his other names like w_tom. Some of what westom writes is good, some not so good, and some is complete nonsense. Everything he writes about plug-in protectors is complete nonsense. If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie about other people. The only association I have with surge protection is I use some protectors. Anyone can read my sources and find the same "half truths and outright lies". Then read westom's sources that agree with him that plug-in protectors do NOT work. There are none. To pass UL1449 a protector must survive a series of surges and remain fully functional. (Later in the test a protector may fail safely on some more severe tests that are intended to result in failure.) And since 1998 UL1449 has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs. Westom hallucinates a lot. I said almost nothing about Brickwall and the most critical comment was it does not appear to be UL listed. By the way westom does not think series filters work. Not answered: What "international design standards" are there for audio/TV equipment? Who says equipment must meet a standard? Anyone (except westom) can read the example of how plug-in protectors work in the IEEE surge guide and find out that: - A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it. - "Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors..." - The point of the example is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." - In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector." - westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO protection. It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector in the IEEE example damages the second TV. Everyone is in favor of earthing electrical systems. The question is whether plug-in protectors work. What does the NIST surge guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. The IEEE surge guide explains (starting page 30) that plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing a surge. Repeating: They work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. Westom has an apparently religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must directly use earthing. He is alone in that belief. Repeating from the NIST surge guide: "Q – Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A – There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO – but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." A service panel protector is very likely to protect anything connected only to power wires. It does not, by itself, limit the voltage between power and signal wires. Still missing - a link to the protector that meets westom's 50,000 surge amp requirement. For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

What "international design standards" are there for audio/TV equipment? Who says equipment must meet a standard? The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at: http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is a major organization of electrical and electronic engineers). And also: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2001 The IEEE surge guide is aimed at people with some technical background. The type of UPS that is commonly used does not intrinsically provide surge protection. The same protection that is in plug-in protectors is probably always added. Myths westom tries to create claim plug-in protectors do not provide protection. For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Both say plug-in protectors are effective. A 10 year old could find specs. An honest westom would not claim plug-in protectors must handle "hundreds of thousands of joules." The author of the NIST surge guide investigated how much energy can reach the MOVs (voltage protective elements in almost all protectors) in a plug-in protector with US wiring. Branch circuits were 10m and longer, and surges coming in on power wires were up to 10,000A (which is the maximum probable surge, as below). The maximum energy was a surprisingly small 35 joules. In 13 of 15 cases it was 1 joule or less. Plug-in protectors with much higher ratings are readily available. For a couple reasons, the current that can reach a plug-in protector is quite limited, so the energy that is absorbed in a plug-in protector is very limited. Neither plug-in or service panel protectors work by absorbing a surge. They do absorb some energy in the process of protecting. Plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing a surge. They work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment. (See the IEEE surge guide starting page 30.) When using a plug-in protector all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same protector. External connections, like cable, also must go through the protector. Connecting all wiring through the protector prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. The NIST surge guide suggests most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and cable/phone/... wires. A plug-in protector with high ratings and connected correctly is likely to protect from even a very near very strong lightning strike. Numbers - like Lowes and Home Depot do not have $50 dollar service panel protectors that are rated 50,000A. Anther investigation by the author of the NIST surge guide found the maximum surge on incoming power wires that had any real probability of occurring was 10,000A per wire. There is a reference to that in the IEEE surge guide. It is based on a 100,000A lightning strike to the utility pole adjacent to the building in typical overhead power distribution. For a service panel protector, the IEEE surge guide recommends a minimum rating of 20,000 to 70,000A, or for high lightning areas 40,000 to 120,000A (per hot wire). The protector will not be hit with those surge amps, they just mean the protector will have a long life. A service panel protector is a real good idea. But from the NIST surge guide: "Q – Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? A – There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO – but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless." A service panel protector is very likely to protect anything connected only to power wires. The NIST surge guide suggests that most damage is from high voltage between power and phone/cable/... wires. A service panel protector does not, by itself, provide that protection. ================================= I am not convinced that a line conditioner does anything useful. Brickwall is a different principle than devices discussed above. I have not seen an independent evaluation of their effectiveness. I would not buy a protector that was not listed under UL1449 (surge protection). In my limited look at Brickwall I did not see UL1499, or any other UL listing.