Are mains surge protectors needed in the UK?

David Maynard wrote:
VWWall wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Hehe. true. But 'neutral' and 'ground' are separate wires in 3 prong
plugs even though 'neutral' is earthed at the entry, as is the
'ground' wire. The 'ground' is really 'protective (as in human
safety) ground'. Aside from the voltage and U.S. wall outlets being
one phase of 230/240 (for 115/120), the U.S. and U.K grounding scheme
is essentially the same. FUSING and ring vs star wiring is another
matter.

Just a small correction. U.S. wall outlets are on opposite "sides" of
a 230/115 volt circuit, with respect to their neutral. They are both
on the same phase. There are very few U. S. domestic units supplied
with more than single phase power. Two different sets of outlets can,
and often do, share the same neutral wire.

If it's not wired according to code I suppose they could. But code has
separate runs back to the entry panel.

Since you don't understand that both sides of a 230/115 V branch circuit
are on the same phase, you may not understand how such circuits are
wired. They are completely in accord with any current electrical codes.
A "multiwire branch circuit" is defined in the codes. It can supply two
115V circuits with two "hot" wires and a common neutral wire. Any U.S.
home with 230 V entry service has at least one.

For a good summary on present electric wiring see:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/electrical-wiring/part1/

It's fairly long but gives a lot of good information in simple terms.
It has information on grounding (earthing) and even a note on K&T wiring.

Toward the end there are some notes on surge suppressors.

Read your local electrical code!

Virg Wall
--
A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds,........
Ralph Waldo Emerson
(Microsoft programmer's manual.)

"w_tom" wrote in message
...
Long before computers existed in homes, why were LED clocks
and radios replaced daily?

Well mine were not replaced daily, or ever for that matter.

The only electrical devices I can ever recall failing are light bulbs.

Actually that is a lie, some electrical devices do fail and the ones
which fail are the supposedly robust 'older' electronics such
as vacuum cleaners, electric drills, TV's etc..which "don't need"
surge protectors. Of course they probably all failed because of
other reasons unrealted to power surges, not the 'probably' as
I have no idea why they failed.

If your clocks were failing daily I suggest you get a competant
electriction to look at the wiring in you house, some 'cowboy' amateur
may have been 'fiddling with it.

The only failures in such devices I can recall is wearing out of the
on/off and other switch contacts (and variable resistors).

"David Maynard" wrote in message
...
w_tom wrote:

Long before computers existed in homes, why were LED clocks
and radios replaced daily?

Must be some odd problem of yours as I've never had one fail.


Same here.

VWWall wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

VWWall wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Hehe. true. But 'neutral' and 'ground' are separate wires in 3 prong
plugs even though 'neutral' is earthed at the entry, as is the
'ground' wire. The 'ground' is really 'protective (as in human
safety) ground'. Aside from the voltage and U.S. wall outlets being
one phase of 230/240 (for 115/120), the U.S. and U.K grounding
scheme is essentially the same. FUSING and ring vs star wiring is
another matter.

Just a small correction. U.S. wall outlets are on opposite "sides"
of a 230/115 volt circuit, with respect to their neutral. They are
both on the same phase. There are very few U. S. domestic units
supplied with more than single phase power. Two different sets of
outlets can, and often do, share the same neutral wire.


If it's not wired according to code I suppose they could. But code has
separate runs back to the entry panel.


Since you don't understand that both sides of a 230/115 V branch circuit
are on the same phase, you may not understand how such circuits are
wired.

No, I understand they're on the same phase but it is sometimes useful in
the electronics realm to note they're 180 degrees out from each other and I
misspoke. So sue me.

They are completely in accord with any current electrical codes.
A "multiwire branch circuit" is defined in the codes. It can supply two
115V circuits with two "hot" wires and a common neutral wire. Any U.S.
home with 230 V entry service has at least one.

Of course, the mains connection.

The branch circuit you refer to is the type 3, but that's not the circuit
for lighting and receptacles, type 1, that I was referring to.


For a good summary on present electric wiring see:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/electrical-wiring/part1/

It's fairly long but gives a lot of good information in simple terms.
It has information on grounding (earthing) and even a note on K&T wiring.

Toward the end there are some notes on surge suppressors.

Read your local electrical code!

Virg Wall

All this from the same Jonathan Buzzard who claimed that
wire inductance in a British ring main was sufficient to
create destructive surges. This is the same physic major who
could not even say what that wire inductance was or put
numbers to the resulting surge. Wondered how long you would
take to arrive. Instead, why don't you please explain to the
group how power wires inside British walls can create
destructive transients when power is switched? I am still
waiting for that scientific marvel. Still waiting even for
your numbers for massive wire inductance created by those
British rings.

Good to see you still invent science, misrepresent what I
post, and have some religious belief that underground
wires cannot carry destructive surges. The world has not
changed.

Previously, when Jonathan posted some myth about surges not
existing on underground wires, he was confronted with this
application note from Polyphaser - an industry benchmark:
http://www.polyphaser.com/datasheets/PTD1028.pdf
Lightning strikes somewhere across the street close to
the below grade West cable vault. ... The first line
of defense is the telco protection panel, but the panel
must be connected to a low resistance / inductance
ground. There was no adequate ground available in the
telephone room.

And so surge damage created; incoming on the buried wire
from the west cable vault. "How can this be", declares
Jonathan Buzzard. "I said buried wires need not be surge
protected." Again, we have this small problem called reality.

So please, Jonathan. Fill us with your wisdom. Tell us how
inductance in those wires of a British ring main create
destructive surges? I am still waiting for those numbers and
your peer reviewed paper.


Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
I wondered how long it would be before you spouted rubbish
again.

You point blank refuse to accept that when a kettle lead
shorted out at work, the HD15 input of a very expensive 21"
monitor stopped working. It was working fine right until
the MCB and RCD tripped. When turned back on it was not
working. The building had whole earth grounding as you
claim gives all the protection you need. In reality
internally generated transients can prove fatal to equipment.

You have also failed to answer why the British Standard
says that whole building grounding is insufficient for
full protection, and that sensitive

You also claim that lightning strikes are not physically
destructive. Despite many reported incidents in the press
to the contrary.

The reality remains that the utility companies in the U.K.
(that is electric and telephone) do a very good job of
doing proper earth grounding of there facilities. The
upshot of this is you only need to provide sufficient extra
impedance to encourage any earth seeking surge to use the
earth grounding provided by the utility companies. As such
plug in surge protectors do a sufficiently good job in the
U.K.

In fact as the *vast* majority of people in the U.K. have
their electricity supply delivered underground from the
substation any surge protection on the electricity supply
is entirely pointless in most cases.

Even telegraph poles are earthed, if you want I can take a
photograph of one erected recently near me, and you can
clearly see the shinny copper wire running down the side
and into the ground. Even then a large percentage of people
have their telephone come in entirely underground
from the exchange so again in those cases any grounding
is entirely pointless.

In article , w_tom
writes

misrepresent what I
post,

That's rich coming from you, who twisted a comment from me about the
earthing system at our Canary Islands site into saying that I was
willing to accept lightning damage. I am still waiting for your
apology.

I am still waiting for those numbers and
your peer reviewed paper.

Where is /your/ peer reviewed paper? (Don't bother: we all know you
don't have one.)

Where is your answer to my questions about the surge protector circuit
diagram I posted?

Where is your answer to my question about whether you are employed by,
or have a financial interest in, the makers of whole house surge
protection devices? Time to come clean and declare your interest.

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Why would I apologize to someone whose very first post to me
was to call me a ****? Why would I apologize to someone who
posts insults every time he is exposed as technically naive?
Why would I apologize to someone who cannot even admit to the
problem of high impedance down 18 meters of safety ground wire
- who instead ignores numbers he cannot contest (because he
does not understand wire impedance)? Why would I apologize to
someone so foolish as to claim a "degraded" MOV causes thermal
links to blow? I never apologize to those who are so superior
and so technically naive as to insult what they cannot
challenge. But Mike Tomlinson owes the newsgroups an apology
for insulting others rather than posting technical facts.

You have lightning damage on your Canary Island site
typically because the protection system is defective. What
did AT&T do in the early days of ESS-1 - the first electronic
switching stations - when lightning caused damage to those
first electronics switches? They found and fixed defects in
the earth ground system. They did as others in this
discussion did to solve repeated surge damage. They fixed the
ground.

You are suffering damage in the Canary Islands and know so
much as to claim you don't have an earthing problem? We even
have testimony from others who fixed electronic damage by
correcting the earth ground system. We have numerous quotes
from industry professionals who tell you, up front, that the
solution to such surge damage begins with the earthing
system. However you had a contractor install an earthing
system and still had damage? Therefore earthing is not a
solution? No wonder you need someone to insult. It does not
work when you insult your Canary Island station. It does not
cure the problem when others also tried to tell you same.

How pathetic are you? So intolerant as to even complain
about top posting. And now you want an apology? Apologize to
yourself. You are the one insulting others. Your latest
insult:
You're a gormless ****wit
Can we assume you have an emotional instability - or that you
are again providing technical facts to support your myths.
You want me to apologize for your brain and how it posts?
Please return to the real world.

Mike Tomlinson is even willing to accept surge damage on the
Canary Islands. Only a defeatist would accept such damage.
Protection from CG strikes is that well proven as to be
routine even where lightning strikes 40 times per year. Mike
Tomlinson would rather insult than fix his defective earthing
system. These are the same people who claim a plug-in
protectors will protect electronics? He must be right. His
vocabulary of insults is clearly much larger than mine. And
his ability to misrepresent is superb.

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , w_tom
writes

misrepresent what I post,

That's rich coming from you, who twisted a comment from me
about the earthing system at our Canary Islands site into
saying that I was willing to accept lightning damage. I am
still waiting for your apology.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:21:50 -0400, w_tom wrote:

All this from the same Jonathan Buzzard who claimed that
wire inductance in a British ring main was sufficient to
create destructive surges.

It is, and I still maintain that it is. However if you want I can run
through the surge created as the magnetic field collapses in a 100W light
bulb as it is turned on. Lots and lots of precise measurements including
the coil dimensions of the bulb filament. We can then look at the discharge
required to destroy a CMOS junction. The first is at least an order of
magnitude greater than the second. I have not turned it into an HTML page
yet, but the calculations have been done just to rub your stupid nose in
the fact that you are wrong wrong wrong.


This is the same physic major who
could not even say what that wire inductance was or put
numbers to the resulting surge.

I did indeed put numbers to the resultant surge, anyone is welcome to
Google for them.

Wondered how long you would
take to arrive. Instead, why don't you please explain to the
group how power wires inside British walls can create
destructive transients when power is switched? I am still
waiting for that scientific marvel. Still waiting even for
your numbers for massive wire inductance created by those
British rings.

Got a better one in bulb filaments Think about it for a bit w_tom. A
nice air coil that has an instantaneous current flowing when it blows of
hundreds of amps (remember the filament is cold). Happens all the time,
and perhaps you can explain why when a bulb blows it usually trips the MCB?
Then again you don't believe in back EMF.

Good to see you still invent science, misrepresent what I
post, and have some religious belief that underground
wires cannot carry destructive surges. The world has not
changed.

Previously, when Jonathan posted some myth about surges not
existing on underground wires, he was confronted with this
application note from Polyphaser - an industry benchmark:
http://www.polyphaser.com/datasheets/PTD1028.pdf
Lightning strikes somewhere across the street close to
the below grade West cable vault. ... The first line
of defense is the telco protection panel, but the panel
must be connected to a low resistance / inductance
ground. There was no adequate ground available in the
telephone room.

And so surge damage created; incoming on the buried wire
from the west cable vault. "How can this be", declares
Jonathan Buzzard. "I said buried wires need not be surge
protected." Again, we have this small problem called reality.

It is all to do with raised ground potentials and there is a good chance
that no amount of surge protection is going to help with that sort of
local strike.

So please, Jonathan. Fill us with your wisdom. Tell us how
inductance in those wires of a British ring main create
destructive surges? I am still waiting for those numbers and
your peer reviewed paper.


I am working on it, taking a standard 100W bulb, because then my figures
will be beyond question.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

In article , w_tom
writes
Why would I apologize to someone whose very first post to me
was to call me a ****?

Because you are?

Why would I apologize to
someone so foolish as to claim a "degraded" MOV causes thermal
links to blow?

Your reading comprehension is still astonishingly poor. I did not make
that claim; the manufacturer of the surge protection device I use states
this in their circuit description.

The thermal links are thermal fuses (another cheap, commonly used
component) sandwiched between VDR1 and VDR2. When (if) the MOVs begin
to degrade, they heat up. Eventually, they will heat up to the point
that thermal fuses open, removing the MOVs from the circuit and lighting
the warning lamp LP1. It's simple, basic electronics - beyond you of
course.

You have lightning damage on your Canary Island site
typically because the protection system is defective.

Stop twisting my words. We don't have damage on our CI site.

You are suffering damage in the Canary Islands

No we're not, and I at no point said we were. Stop lying.

However you had a contractor install an earthing
system and still had damage?

We didn't have damage. For heaven's sake, go back and read my original
post. I said only that advice was to abandon site in the event of a
thunderstorm. That's because the building fabric is metal, and it's in
an exposed position on top of a mountain. The advice is for safety of
personnel within, not because of the fear of damage.

Your desperation to prove your point leads to you lying.

[snip hysterical rant]

I can see why you top-post now. It enables you to avoid answering
questions put to you, a profoundly dishonest thing to do. Instead of
answering people's questions in context and thus having a meaningful
discussion, you rant on and on in a top-posted ramble.

I note that his time you carefully snipped my other questions off the
bottom of your quote. Do you work for, or otherwise, have an interest
in, the manufacturer of the whole-house surge protection devices that
you constantly advocate?

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article , w_tom
writes

Why would I apologize to
someone so foolish as to claim a "degraded" MOV causes thermal
links to blow?

You'd better tell these people that they're fools, then:

http://powerelectronics.com/mag/powe...rotected_movs/

"If an MOV is subjected to a sustained abnormal overvoltage, limited
current condition (as required in UL1449), the MOV may go into thermal
runaway, resulting in overheating, smoke, and potentially fire. For end
products to comply with UL1449, the MOV must have some level of
protection to prevent this failure mode. That protection has
traditionally been a thermal fuse or thermal cutoff (TCO) device."

--
A. Top posters.
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?