Review numeric specs for any protector recommended by Bud (who
forgets to mention who he is promoting for and will not provide those
spec numbers). None claim to provide protection from this type of
surge. Moreso, specs for protectors without that 'less than 10 foot'
earth connection routinely forget to list any type of surge and
numbers for that protection. They hope you believe half truths
promoted by Bud. Myths routinely ignore what is required for surge
protection. Myths hope you never read that Electrical Engineering
Times article on 1 Oct and 8 Oct 2007 entitled "Protecting Electrical
Devices from Lightning Transients". Myths would have us ignore the
1500+ volt protection already in every ethernet interface (see Jeff
Liebermann's post).

Described is a solution standard even 100 years ago and that is
routine where damage is not an option (ie. in virtually every telco
CO). What don't telcos use? Solutions promoted by Bud. Why? Bud
hopes you ignore Page 42 Figure 8. and those Electrical Engineering
Times articles. Lightning seeks earth ground either harmlessly, or
destructively via electronics. Protection from lightning is about
earthing before surges from a first building can enter electronics
inside the second building.

On Page 42 Figure 8, a plug-in protector is too close to a TV and
too far from earth ground. Surge is earthed, 8000 volts destructively,
through an adjacent TV.

Protection is always about earthing before surges can enter a
building. A properly installed ethernet cable between buildings makes
a 'less than 10 foot' earth connection when entering each building. A
protector (that has no earthing) in Bud's Page 42 Figure 8 earths that
surge 8000 volts destructively through electronics.

Why does every telco switching center, with wires connected to all
other buildings, not suffer damage from maybe 100 surges during every
thunderstorm? Telcos don't use what Bud promotes. Every telco
properly earths every incoming wire in every cable either direct to
earth or via a surge protector. Protection is not a surge
protector. Proper earthing means 1500 volts protection inside
ethernet devices is not overwhelmed.

What must Bud forget to mention? A quote from his NIST citation
Page 8 defines an effective protector:
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Only one protector, properly earthed at the service entrance,
accomplishes far more than 100 separate plug-in protectors advocated
by Bud. But profits would be at risk. No wonder that solution is
installed routinely in every 911 emergency response center. Superior
protection for so little money and labor. Protection not even claimed
by a plug-in solution.

In a latest post, Stephen notes a damaged ISDN Cisco. He says it
was surge protected. Was it? Did he assume a surge protector means
protection? Or did they learn from that damage by locating a
defective earthing connection? Cisco router damaged because a surge
was permitted inside the building. Protection is not provided by a
protector. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which
is why effective inter-building protection locates a protector where
that cable enters the building AND connected short to an earthing
eletrode used by AC electric and all other incoming utilities.

On Jan 26, 4:28 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> Excellent information on surges and surge protection (including
> lightning produced) is in an IEEE guide at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
> And one from the NIST at:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
> ...
>
> If you have a 1000A surge current to earth and a very good resistance to
> earth of 10 Ohms the ground reference system will rise to 10,000V above
> absolute earth potential. Within a building the protection is largely by
> having the ground reference of all systems rise together. That means
> having a short connection from the phone and other entrance protectors
> to the earthing electrode conductor at the power service. The author of
> NIST guide has written "the impedance of the grounding system to 'true
> earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
> various parts of the grounding system."
>
> I agree with w_ that ethernet between buildings should connect to an
> entrance protector at each building with a short ground connection to
> the earthing wire at the power service. That may not be possible. An
> example of a long connection is in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.
>
> As Bill and Jeff wrote, fiber is a safer option. Depends on risk, value
> of what you are protecting, cost of outage.
>
> > But when one assumed the protector is some kind of
> > 'magic box' protection, then damage becomes acceptable.
>
> w_ refers to plug-in surge suppressors as a 'magic box' because he can't
> figure out how they work. It is explained in the IEEE guide starting pdf
> page 40. Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
>
> When using plug-in suppressors all interconnected equipment needs to be
> connected to the same plug-insuppressor, or interconnecting wires need
> to go through thesuppressor. External connections, like phone, also
> need to go through thesuppressor. Connecting all wiring through thesuppressorprevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.
> These multiport suppressors are described in both guides.
> bud--