Surge Protectors or not??

[raid3r2011]

Hey, Y'all. I downloaded a list from someone on the internet & one of the things it recommended was to get a Surge Protector. It went on to say that some of the sites hook up devices are not in good shape & it would be safer to have one. Anyone have any comments?

[BarneyS]

I think after 6 pages the op's question has been answered and then some.
Time to close this one.
Barney

[Wood_chip]

raid3r2011 wrote:
Hey, Y'all. I downloaded a list from someone on the internet & one of the things it recommended was to get a Surge Protector. It went on to say that some of the sites hook up devices are not in good shape & it would be safer to have one. Anyone have any comments?

I use the Progressive Industries PT30C 30 Amp model.I have been happy with it.

[paddywanpeep]

I use one as cheap insurance, or at least it makes me feel better that I am using one.

[Me_Again]

SanMarMor wrote:
This post has gotten way off topic.

What all you arguing about seems to have missed, the lightening strike came into the trailer through a circuit not protected by the surge protector. It came in through the cable coax, not the protected electrical circuit.

Mark

My brothers home in Atlantic had lighting damage a month of so ago. It came in the cable TV path as far as he can tell. Every A/V HDMI interface was toast. Chris

[trustymopars]

But it did jump and take out the converter, led lights in the entertainment slide, and the EMS. It also knocked off the main breaker in a he camper, and the breaker on the pedestal. So, it may have come through the 110 circuit also. The EMS may not have done diddly-squat, but to me having it is just like having insurance.

[SanMarMor]

This post has gotten way off topic.

What all you arguing about seems to have missed, the lightening strike came into the trailer through a circuit not protected by the surge protector. It came in through the cable coax, not the protected electrical circuit.

Mark

[azrving]

So when an overload happens, the component fries, the fuse pops and I am now safe from electrocution. I have had it backwards. I thought the overload occured, the fuse popped and fire and melting wires, relays, terminals etc were avoided. Dang, see, now that right there is why I absolutely love this site. I learn new stuff every day. Thanks, keep em coming.

[trustymopars]

Geez, didn't want to start WW3, just happy my Montana didn't burn down! The Progresive is advertised to handle up to a lightning strike, and we got one. I don't know if it did or did not help, but it has also cut power before in low voltage, and a new one has already been installed. I don't think the guys in the shop are 'lectric engineers, but I do trust their work.

[boshog]

westom wrote:

momentum rv wrote:
I guess we better quit using all our fuses, they are ineffective!

Again, first learn how things work before making a conclusion. Fuses do not avert hardware damage. That was not even a function of Thomas Edison's original fuse. A fuse disconnects power AFTER damage has happened - to protect human life. So that threats to human life (ie electrocution, fire) do not exist.

You have zero reason to believe a fuse protects hardware. Especially not from surges. But many see a fuse blow (observation), never learn what a fuse does and its relevant numbers, then make conclusions. A perfect example of why a junk science conclusions are alive, well, and unfortunately popular.

A fuse protects wiring from over-burden resulting in a possible fire.

[westom]

momentum rv wrote:
I guess we better quit using all our fuses, they are ineffective!

Again, first learn how things work before making a conclusion. Fuses do not avert hardware damage. That was not even a function of Thomas Edison's original fuse. A fuse disconnects power AFTER damage has happened - to protect human life. So that threats to human life (ie electrocution, fire) do not exist.

You have zero reason to believe a fuse protects hardware. Especially not from surges. But many see a fuse blow (observation), never learn what a fuse does and its relevant numbers, then make conclusions. A perfect example of why a junk science conclusions are alive, well, and unfortunately popular.

[momentum_rv]

westom wrote:


Any protector that works by failing is ineffective; best considered a scam. No effective protector works that way.

I guess we better quit using all our fuses, they are ineffective!

[westom]

otrfun wrote:
Sounds like trustymopar's lightning hit was pretty substantial. When confronted with a massive surge, the circuitry in some surge protectors are designed to self-destruct, "open", stopping all current flow.

Never happens. An example of a conclusion based in speculation; not in well proven science and how electricity works.

First, a surge is a current source. That means voltage increases as necessary to blow through anything that might foolishly try to block it. Do you really believe its 2 cm protector part would stop what three miles of sky could not? A first example of how conclusions must include science and numbers.

Second, every part that would 'block' a current (ie switch, fuse, circuit breaker) has a voltage number. If voltage exceeds that number, then an open switch, fuse, etc will not stop that current flow. For the same reason that lightning can flow through a best electrical insulator (air).

Third, that current is everywhere, simultaneously, in a path from cloud to earthborne charges. How does a protector part stop a current after that current is already in all parts and doing damage? Worse, that 'opening' takes milliseconds or longer. Surges are done in microseconds. Long after a surge is done damage, then that protector part opens. In this example, how electricity works is also defined by the number 'time'.

Three layman examples of what must be known before any observation contributes to an informed conclusion.

Any protector that works by failing is ineffective; best considered a scam. No effective protector works that way.

Meanwhile, does that protector model address that type of surge? If not, it could suffer internal damage; and still do nothing to protect other appliances.

Some protectors can even make damage easier (contradicting another popular urban myth that something is better than nothing) while also suffering internal damage.

Useful answers start with which 'surge' that protector model is designed and installed to protect from. Observation without facts and numbers creates classic junk science conclusions.

[DutchmenSport]

avvidclif1 wrote:

westom wrote:

trustymopars wrote:
The mechanics in the shop think that the Progressive unit probably saved the camper.

Nothing there says a Progressive did something. ...

What was that all about??? ...

No, I think the REAL point is, avvidclif1 is very happy he had a protector and believes it helped save his camper from even more extensive damage. Whether it actually DID or NOT, HE is convinced it did help and passing along his experience and what the folks in the shop shared with him. Nothing wrong with that. So??? why bust his bubble? We have an extremely grateful camper that more damage was not done. He attributes that to the protector. Let's just let it go at that and be happy with him.

Any kind of protection is still better than none!

[otrfun]

avvidclif1 wrote:

westom wrote:

trustymopars wrote:
The mechanics in the shop think that the Progressive unit probably saved the camper.

Nothing there says a Progressive did something. A conclusion starts by defining which anomalies (surges) are addressed by that Progressive model. And by tracing an incoming and outgoing path for that surge.

It is electricity. To have damage means both an incoming and a completely different outgoing path must exist. For example, an AC mains surge would be incoming to everything. But only one item also has an outgoing path. Only that item is damaged.

What was the incoming and outgoing path? Obviously cable was either an incoming or an outgoing. So, what path connected to an earth ground electrode? If a mechanic cannot say, then he has nothing to justify a conclusion.

Unfortunately that is what most do. Most forget how electricity works (an always required incoming and outgoing path). Then assume it protects from all kinds of surges only because surge protector sounds like surge protection.

If a Progressive provided that protection, then that mechanic defined a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) connection from that incoming surge wire and outgoing to earth.

A surge could have been incoming to everything. Since it found a best path to earth via something, then everything else was protected.

Where was a short as possible (ie single digit feet)connection from a Progressive to earth? Progressive has a high reputation because it addresses completely different anomalies (also called surges) often found in campgrounds. What fact justified that mechanic's solution?

Same answer also says how to avoid future damage.

What was that all about??? The mechanics made a statement that no-one knows what they based it on. If there were numerous other campers that suffered damage thru the campground connectionss then I would say they made a valid point.

Ditto. Sounds like trustymopar's lightning hit was pretty substantial. When confronted with a massive surge, the circuitry in some surge protectors are designed to self-destruct, "open", stopping all current flow.

It's very possible the "mechanic" may have looked inside the EMS, noticed the damage, and concluded the EMS probably played a part in protecting some of the electronics in trustymopar's rig. IMO, a reasonable assumption to make.