Surge Protectors Series (overrated) vs Parallel

[brother]

I was having discussion with an associated of mine. They claim the adoption of the surge protectors in the NEC 2020 is overrated and just a money maker for manufacturers.
I don't claim to be an expert on the efficiency of surge protectors, but I do have some for my computers in my house, so i cant really dispute much what he says, but it appears to make sense.

He claims that since most of the surge protectors that are installed in whole house applications are 'parallel' surge protectors, they do not protect as well as 'series' protectors. He says that most surges are due to the spike in the voltages and since voltage is constant in parallel circuits , you can still get alot of transient high voltages whether from the utility company or lighting. If a person really want to protect their equipment the best way, then series protection is best. This requirement in the NEC is a design issue, not a life safety issue

What's your opinion on the whole house surge protection requirement? is it really worth it since they are mostly paralleled?

 

[petersonra]

I think he is partially correct. Modern electronics tend to be far less susceptible to transients than older electronics used to be. They are not immune but for the most part they will ride through transients without too much trouble. There is a lot of voodoo associated with surge protectors because there is so much money to be made selling them to people who don't know any better.

They do work. I don't know what kind of series protector he wants to use but I don't think there are any series surge protectors available. There are filters that are series but I don't think any surge protectors are.

One of the things you need to keep in mind when applying a surge protector is that type 1 surge protectors reduce the incoming transient voltages to a higher level than a type 2 or 3 surge protector. whether this is meaningful in real life is questionable.

personally I would suggest a type 1 surge protector on the main panel board for residences. There aren't a whole lot of surges generated internally in most residences so most of the transients will be coming in from the outside and a surge protection device at the main panel board will probably provide the best overall protection.

You can purchase search protecting outlet strips that you can plug your equipment into. I've always found it curious that electricians recommend these while to protect electronics from surges, while at the same time claiming that they violate the code by being a permanent cord that is always plugged in.

 

[ron]

I've seen some UL 1449 testing of SPD's and the proof is in the pudding.

This video is of one of the Eaton little BS ones, but the real panel connected ones can do 10's of thousands of volts

Surge Protection - Power Quality - Experience centers showcase

The Eaton Power Systems Experience Center (PSEC) discusses all topics surrounding surge protection! Learn about UL 1449, transients, impulses, TVSS, surge protection devices, lightning arresters, high frequency and metal oxide varistor.

videos.eaton.com

 

[WasGSOHM]

Some electronics have built-in simple protection, like a neon bulb or Zeners.
Other makers leave that to the buyer.

Switching power supplies are probably inherently hardy as to power line spikes.

Given that you have zapped electronics from a strike, could any protector have helped you? How would you know?

 

[electrofelon]

I am strongly opposed to this requirement. In my opinion and experience, surges are very rare, and for them to result in fire or injury is even more rare. If you look at the proposals, (IIRC) Schneider has been trying to get a SPD requirement in the code for a decade or two every cycle.

Also if you look at the testing/listing/product standards (not sure exactly which is correct), most things are required to past a rather high over voltage so widgets are already designed with surges in mind, to a certain degree of course.

 

[ramsy]

An apparent byproduct of Eaton 1P AFCI breakers is being advertised as surge protection by design, which may have commercial application @ 22kAIC and not required by NEC 210.12.

Overvoltage
breaker will trip if it experiences voltage of 160V RMS or greater. The breaker can be reset and the “TEST” button can be pushed to verify the breaker is working properly

https://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&allowInterrupt=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=Primary&dDocName=TD003001EN

 

[ramsy]

Unlike GE or Eaton CH, Eaton BR AFCI's wont work with bonded or shared neutrals.

One of the most common problems that cause the AFCI to trip is grounded and shared neutrals. The Eaton Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter has 30ma of ground fault protection built directly into the breaker itself. If there is a bare ground wire making contact with the neutral conductor, the breaker will trip instantly as soon as a load exceeding 40 watts is applied to the circuit.
The best way to test for a grounded neutral is to use an ohm/continuity tester by turning the breaker to the off position and remove the load neutral from the breaker. Next, take one lead of your tester to the load neutral and the other lead to the neutral/ground bar in the panel. You should read no continuity. If you are getting continuity, go through entire circuit looking for the location where the bare ground is making contact to the neutral conductor. If you are using shared neutral homeruns, you must use a two pole arc fault breaker. You can not use single pole arc faults breakers with shared neutrals.

https://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&allowInterrupt=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=Primary&dDocName=CT_206788

 

[Little Bill]

Unlike GE or Eaton CH, Eaton BR AFCI's wont work with bonded or shared neutrals.

https://www.eaton.com/ecm/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&allowInterrupt=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&noSaveAs=0&Rendition=Primary&dDocName=CT_206788

Your info is outdated. The Eaton BR AFCI now doesn't have the GFI portion in them. I use them and tested one just the other day.

 

[ramsy]

Your info is outdated. The Eaton BR AFCI now doesn't have the GFI portion in them. I use them and tested one just the other day.

Ok, then we must get model numbers right at supply houses that may be trying to unload old stock.

 

[ramsy]

Your info is outdated. The Eaton BR AFCI now doesn't have the GFI portion in them. I use them and tested one just the other day.

3-weeks ago, could not source any Eaton AFCI breakers at Lowes, Home Depot, or Grainger, until good supply house directed me elsewhere.

Newest model Eaton AFCI found was BRN115AF version 5.2 from Westport Apparatus in Orange, CA

 

[synchro]

... He claims that since most of the surge protectors that are installed in whole house applications are 'parallel' surge protectors, they do not protect as well as 'series' protectors. He says that most surges are due to the spike in the voltages and since voltage is constant in parallel circuits , you can still get alot of transient high voltages whether from the utility company or lighting. If a person really want to protect their equipment the best way, then series protection is best. This requirement in the NEC is a design issue, not a life safety issue

What's your opinion on the whole house surge protection requirement? is it really worth it since they are mostly paralleled?

... They do work. I don't know what kind of series protector he wants to use but I don't think there are any series surge protectors available. There are filters that are series but I don't think any surge protectors are.

I'm with petersonra in that I'm not aware of any surge protectors that are placed in series instead of shunting protected circuit conductors.

But series impedance does play an important role in this area. The video link that Ron provided shows how impedance in series with the surge protector is a bad thing because it results in a voltage drop that increases the let-through voltage at the point where the surge protector is shunting protected circuit conductors.
The series impedance of these circuit conductors can be a good thing, however, because it can limit the surge current and therefore also the peak voltage that's developed across the SPD. And so I think the most effective approach would be to have an SPD at the panel and then SPDs local to any sensitive loads. Then the one at the panel would clamp most of the surge energy, and the local SPDs (which can have more modest surge current ratings because of the impedance of branch circuit conductors) would provide additional protection.

 

[paulengr]

I was having discussion with an associated of mine. They claim the adoption of the surge protectors in the NEC 2020 is overrated and just a money maker for manufacturers.
I don't claim to be an expert on the efficiency of surge protectors, but I do have some for my computers in my house, so i cant really dispute much what he says, but it appears to make sense.

He claims that since most of the surge protectors that are installed in whole house applications are 'parallel' surge protectors, they do not protect as well as 'series' protectors. He says that most surges are due to the spike in the voltages and since voltage is constant in parallel circuits , you can still get alot of transient high voltages whether from the utility company or lighting. If a person really want to protect their equipment the best way, then series protection is best. This requirement in the NEC is a design issue, not a life safety issue

What's your opinion on the whole house surge protection requirement? is it really worth it since they are mostly paralleled?

He is partly correct but also full of it. ALL surge arresters are parallel.

The way that a surge arresters works is that under normal operation it is a very high resistance, effectively an open circuit. But it varies with the voltage. When voltage (a surge) is above a certain point it changes into a very low resistance, almost a dead short.

The thing is that we have two parallel paths. The voltage is controlled at the surge arrester. A computer is in series with the line and ground connected to it some distance away from the surge arrester. It sees the surge too but the series paths increase the voltage seen by it. The surge resistance depends on how the cables are built but in residential wiring the voltage increase is about 20 V per inch. So say the surge arrester triggers at 300 V which is pretty reasonable. But a computer located a couple rooms away say 20 feet will see 20x12x20+300 = 5100 maximum. The power supply is tested at typically 2xRated voltage (typically 300 or 600)+1000 or 1600 or 2200 V, so I think you can see where this is going. That is very different from a surge power strip feeding a six foot cord to the power supply so we have 6x12x20+300=1740 V, which is generally survivable.

The fallacy many people have with surge arresters is that they see them like another version of a fuse or a circuit breaker which are as you state SERIES devices that protect equipment in series with them as long as the wiring is not excessively long (a problem for utilities). But since surge arresters are parallel devices the usual rules do not apply. NEC introduced the surge arrester rule because the newer AFCI breakers can’t survive surges, but the AFCIs themselves are basically a solution chasing a problem that has been proven to not exist in practice. The incident rates of fires in states that waive the AFCI requirement is not higher than states that don’t. Plus there is a large scale project where the electrical systems in houses that were being demolished were inspected to determine what the long term issues are in older houses. AFCIs and whole house surge arresters would not address any of the issues documented. So it is no surprise that AFCIs don’t do anything at all except cost money and reliability,

The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing is a scam by the manufacturers of this equipment since they have dramatically increased the prices of circuit breakers, increased the incidents of nuisance tripping, and added credibility to the whole house surge arresters which don’t deserve it, without any improvement to safety. They know it and we know it.

This whole thing was touched off when the CPSC threw out a theory that drywall screws penetrated the wiring because of poor installation practices and caused issues that eventually lead to starting a fire. The claim has been completely discredited. Demonstrations and experiments have proven it just doesn’t happen. But despite the myth the NEC accepted the bogus claims.

 

[WasGSOHM]

This whole thing was touched off when the CPSC threw out a theory that drywall screws penetrated the wiring because of poor installation practices and caused issues that eventually lead to starting a fire. The claim has been completely discredited.

Stigler won a Nobel Prize in economics for his "theory of capture."
OMG, the CPSC, a captive regulatory agency? Here in America??

It's worse than that.
IIRC, there was a hole in a nuclear reactor.
The industry said nothing, but the NRC said something like, "C'mon, guys, it's only a small hole and what's a little radiation among friends?"

If you go to a government oversight group, they will tell you that 5000 deaths per year due to food poisoning is not even a blip.

And don't ask the FDA how many pellets of rat droppings are permissible in our food.

Stigler felt capture was inevitable.

Even without it, almost any employee can be bribed, or threatened, or both, or his/her family can be threatened.

 

[paulengr]

Stigler won a Nobel Prize in economics for his "theory of capture."
OMG, the CPSC, a captive regulatory agency? Here in America??

It's worse than that.
IIRC, there was a hole in a nuclear reactor.
The industry said nothing, but the NRC said something like, "C'mon, guys, it's only a small hole and what's a little radiation among friends?"

If you go to a government oversight group, they will tell you that 5000 deaths per year due to food poisoning is not even a blip.

And don't ask the FDA how many pellets of rat droppings are permissible in our food.

Stigler felt capture was inevitable.

Even without it, almost any employee can be bribed, or threatened, or both, or his/her family can be threatened.

The point isn’t the ridiculous claim by the CPSC but the fact that the purported purpose of the NFPA process should by its nature drive to consensus and reject capture by partisans. But it has failed. It is setting states up for lawsuits and for NFPA to lose credibility as a process which threatens it fundamentally. It is like the problem of having a perception that elections are rigged...it destroys the legitimacy of the government as an institution.

 

[ramsy]

NEC introduced the surge arrester rule because the newer AFCI breakers can’t survive surges

Thanks for lesson on surge-voltage rise.

However, I hope surge damage disables test-buttons so hacks can't bypass AFCI's with 240v across L-N terminals.

The more impossible for unqualified persons to get circuit breakers working the better barrier to entry, regardless of avoiding inspections.

 

[WasGSOHM]

I don't know enough about Game Theory to analyze this through that lens.

It might be the tragedy of the commons or it might be the prisoner's dilemma.

But, there is probably no solution, just an eternal back-and-forth for what is a stable equilibrium.

You can push against it, but enormous forces will be mobilized to stop you. Once the threat is over, these forces disappear back into the woodwork.

 

[ramsy]

Stigler won a Nobel Prize in economics for his "theory of capture."

Had to look this up, missed this in undergraduate business school.

capture is inevitable, because vested interests have a concentrated financial stake in the outcomes of political decisions, thus ensuring that they will find means—direct or indirect—to capture decision makers.

Yes, and the immunity of public-campaign finance may not help with regulators or code-panel members not publicly elected.

 

[WasGSOHM]

Had to look this up, missed this in undergraduate business school.



Yes, and the immunity of public-campaign finance may not help with regulators or code-panel members not publicly elected.

Wiki keeps asking me for money (the "Free Rider" problem) so I stopped going there. But, thanks.

 

[paulengr]

Thanks for lesson on surge-voltage rise.

However, I hope surge damage disables test-buttons so hacks can't bypass AFCI's with 240v across L-N terminals.

The more impossible for unqualified persons to get circuit breakers working the better barrier to entry, regardless of avoiding inspections.

Hacks being the manufacturers who claim that this is all some deep dark proprietary secret and won't even divulge the details of how any of these things work so there is no way to validate anything? Pure black box stuff here. We can't even validate what the effect of a surge are.

 

[ramsy]

Hacks being the manufacturers who claim ..proprietary secret ..so there is no way to validate anything?

Yes, but UL 1699 is in public domains, which specify type of arcs to extinguish. If arcs defined here are found useless, the test standard is useless, rather than manufacturers.

If intellectual property was in public domains R&D would have no budgets, and GE would tell everybody how to pass UL 1699 without ground fault functions.