Talk:Surge protector

message: I have a surge protector and it says it protects the h-n, h-g, and n-g lines.  Any idea what it is telling me? It is for 3 prong US 120 V surge protector. Jrincayc 18:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  h-n, h-g, and n-g

message: Nearly all transformers are iron core.  (Some are air core.)
The article should say iron poor, meaning that the core has less iron in it than necessary to transmit the full current.  Please don't confuse these and change it back.  --ssd 18:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  iron poor vs. iron core 

message: I would like to see other websites apart from howstuffworks for this article. Anyone taking the bait?
I would ask StuRat but I thought it would be better to post it here. -- Kushal one 17:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external links wanted 

message: The page on MOVs (metal oxide varistors) says that they degrade over time. Also, in my personal experience and from the reports of many others, they do fail after time. The way companies get around paying up is to make it really hard to claim the insurance. For example, you need to prove that the damage was done by a power surge, which can be very hard if there are no obvious burn marks. Even the, can you prove it was the surge protector that failed? They also rely on most people not bothering to claim anyway, similar to rebate coupons.
:Can you prove it? Because if so, it could be included in the article. 205.157.110.11 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gather that's an unintended pun :) --68.85.99.144 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MOVs do degrade

message: The surge protector pictured is obviously not American.  Where is it from and should that be noted in the caption? PrometheusX303 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a CEE 7/4 standard plug. See the Schuko article. I don't think this needs to be mentioned; its proves the point and is possibly a more internationally recognised format than the American style. ―AdamMillerchip 05:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I just found three external links in the article, apart from the open directory... and I removed all of them. Two were advertising for specific brands of protector, and the third link mentioned that it contains "numerous technical errors".
Does anyone here have the technical knowledge to verify that? I don't, unfortunately, and if the article is accurate it should go back in (and I apologise in advance for removing it)!
This is the link (as I found it in the artcle):
HowStuffWorks: How Surge Protectors Work  - This source contains numerous technical errors.
— FIRE!in a crowded theatre... 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: A "buying guide" from Tripplite is not a technical resource.  Surge protection means spike protection from what would otherwise cause electrical damage.  The average lightning strike is 20,000 amps and as large as 200,000 amps.  Therefore a nominally sized protector is rated for 40,000 amps or higher which is about 1000 joules.  Such protectors will survive about 10 average 20,000 amp lightning strikes, 400 surges of 2000 amps, or the one typically extreme surge.  Protectors start at 1000 joules to survive multiple lightning surges or survive the extreme surge. 
A 200 or 400 joules protector is too small to protect from one average lightning surge.   The www.tripplite.com/EN/buying-guides/technology-primers/surge-suppressor-how-it-works.cfm  "buying guide"  mentions lightning as a surge.  But it balks at asserting protection.  A 400 joules protector is too small to protect from one lightning surge.  Survival, as varistor manufacturers define, means the protector is not damaged.   "Buying guide" numbers are too small but are what that manufacturer markets.
When sized to survive the typical destructive surge, the protector is rated for 40,000 amps.  Charts from varistor manufacturers define this as 1000 joules or larger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.49.22 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on joule rating spends much of the time telling us that joule rating isn't useful. If everything else is constant, higher joule rating should be better.  It is volts times amps times time, or an integral when they aren't constant. An MOV conducts to keep the voltage across itself more or less constant.  Yes a higher voltage means more power (and joules), but one should choose the appropriate MOV voltage.  The usual failure mode for MOV is to short out, that is sacrificing itself for your protection, assuming something else, such as a fuse or circuit breaker then shuts off. Otherwise, all the energy goes into heating up the MOV, which has to not melt before the surge goes away. Gah4 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joules 

message: I have been trying for years to find some genuine tests of surge protectors that show they actually work as advertised. There are loads of "reviews" which consist of "they offer $$$ insurance and nothing blew up when I tested it", but no serious, scientific tests as far as I can tell. All the ratings on the units are simply safety related, i.e. "will not explode if hit by X volts".
I have lost devices that were supposed to be protected, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that actually trying to claim on the compensation offers is next to impossible. Again, no hard data though. Can anyone provide any kind of reference for this sort of thing? Without it, all surge protectors amount to little more than snake oil since presumably if they actually worked the manufacturers would have had independent tests carried out. Mojo-chan (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to show these things actually work? 

message: "Surge protectors" come in 2 basic varieties 
- service suppressors installed where service wires enter a building
- plug-in suppressors that protect equipment plugged in downstream
The article header says "a surge protector (or surge suppressor) is an appliance". That implies the article is about plug-in suppressors.
Some of the text applies to communications suppressors that are applied at the entrance to a building.
The discussion for power wiring is essentially for plug-in suppressors except "Important specifications" was hijacked some time ago to be for "surge protector for AC mains". Some of the specifications are incorrect for plug-in suppressors.
What is the intent of the article?
Service suppressors
Plug-in suppressors
Both
Some of the header, which appears to not be editable, is not correct for plug-in suppressors.
BudKey (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service protectors or plug-in protectors 

message: This article needs to include a section on degradation of these devices over time.
Typofixer76 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on degradation needed 

message: The article could do with references to IEC standards and please remember not all of the globe is on ANSI / NEMA standards nor on 60hz  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.94.134 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEC Standards 

message: One of my coworkers was recently advised by a GDT manufacturer's application engineer to connect the GDT in series with a MOV.  This is a new one one me; I typically use a GDT across the line, then series inductors, then a MOV.  (the inductors slow the rise time so that the MOV doesn't fire first and clamp the voltage, stopping the GDT from firing). The GDT should self-extinguish at the next zero crossing as discussed in http://www.comptronic.se/files/documents/AN-111.pdf
I am researching this, and once I get a good anwer from reliable sources, I hope to add the info to this Wikipedia article.  I haven't been able to find the kind of high-quality references I need to write it up, so I am putting my preliminary research here in the hope that someone else knows of some better references.
I started this by thinking that this doesn't make any sense at all.  A GDT is a slow high current device and a MOV is a fast low(er) current device.  Put them in series and it seems that you would get the low current capability of the MOV and the slow turn-on of the GDT.  Am I missing something here? 
To start with, UL mentions it here:
http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/hightech/consumerelectronics/pag/pag142/
Quote: "The combination of an MOV in series with a GDT provides a fast reaction time and long life for high voltage and high current transient protection applications."
Next, United States Patent 5388021 (Voltage surge suppression power circuits) says this:
"To clip the surge remnant, a common practice is to insert an L-section suppression circuit in the line following the gas tube. This circuit consists of a series impedance and a voltage clamping device, such as a MOV or a silicon avalanche suppressor, connected across the power line. The series impedance is connected between the gas tube and the clamp and can simply be a resistor or an inductor, or both; a resistor being suitable only for low voltage, low current applications. The impedance must be high enough in value to guarantee gas tube breakover so that the clamp only clips and diverts the energy in the remnant, not the energy in the entire surge. A major problem associated with gas tubes is "follow-on" current, the current from the power source which continues flowing through the gas tube after the surge current terminates. In ac circuits, the follow-on current clears when the line current goes through zero but the gas tube could be re-ignited on the next cycle. A typical gas tube is rated to handle a 60 Hz, one-half cycle peak current of only 20 amperes, hence, if the power source can deliver much higher currents, i.e., a 460 V ac  power line, the gas tube could be destroyed, particularly if it breaks over at the beginning of a cycle. In dc applications, a separate means for extinguishing the arc must be included in the circuit. Frequently, the follow-on current is limited to a safe value by connecting a low value resistor or a clamp such as a MOV in series with the gas tube. This technique, however, can significantly raise the clamping voltage if the surge current level is high."
The first part sounds like the GDT/Inductor/MOV circuit that I have been using for years, but note the bit at the end about the MOV in series with the GDT.
United States Patent 3973224 also mentions my usual circuit, but without any reference to a series GDT/MOV.
United States Patent 4677518 ( http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4677518.pdf ) has a good explanation in the "detailed description of the preferred embodiment" section:
"Referring now to the drawing, with particular attention to FIG. 1, a transient surge suppressor according to the invention utilizes a breakdown device, for example, a gas discharge tube 12 connected in series with a non-linear resistance element, such as, for example, a varistor 14. The series-connected elements 12 and 14 are connected across a pair of lines to be protected, such as a power main 16."
"Assuming that the power main 16 is a 120 volt RMS AC 60-cycle power main, the peak voltage applied across the series combination of the gas discharge tube 12 and the varistor 14 is 120 volts times the square root of two, or approximately 170 volts. Thus, the component values of the gas tube 12 and the varistor 14 should be chosen such that the gas tube 14 is not triggered by the peaks of the line voltage. Thus, if a gas discharge tube having a trigger voltage of 145 volts is selected as the gas discharge tube 12, and a varistor having a nominal voltage of 100 volts, such as for example, the ERZ-C20DK101 manufactured by Panasonic, is used as the varistor 14, the series combination will not be triggered by the 170 volt peaks of the alternating current wave. However, if a transient appears on the line 16, such as a transient illustrated by the line 20 (FIG. 2), the gas discharge tube 12 will trigger when the voltage across its terminals exceeds 145 volts, which corresponds to approximately 245 volts across the series combination of the tube 12 and varistor 14, as is illustrated by the point 22 of FIG. 2. When the gas discharge tube 12 triggers, the gas in the tube ionizes, the negative resistance phenomenon occurs and the voltage across the tube drops to the glow voltage, nominally about 60 to 75 volts. This reduces the voltage across the series combination to about 160 volts, as illustrated by the plateau 24 in the graph of FIG. 2."
"As the current through the discharge tube 12 increases further, the tube is driven into its arc mode wherein the voltage across its terminals drops further. Typically, the arc mode voltage or arc voltage of a gas discharge tube is nominally 15 volts, and the voltage across the series combination is then reduced to approximately 115 volts as is illustrated by the point 26 of FIG. 2."
"As the transient continues and the current through the gas discharge tube 12 and the varistor 14 increases due to its dynamic resistance, the voltage across the varistor 14 will increase, first at a fairly gradual rate, and then more rapidly as the current through the varistor 14 increases. This results in a gradual increase in the voltage across the combination, as is illustrated by the curve 28 of FIG. 2. This voltage will continue to rise to a maximum point 30 which is determined by the maximum current produced by the transient. Once the transient energy has been dissipated, the current through the gas discharge tube produced by the power line voltage will drop below the level necessary to sustain ionization. Also, since a substantial portion of the power line voltage will appear across the non-linear resistance device, the voltage present across the gas discharge tube will be below the voltage needed to sustain conduction. Thus, the discharge tube will switch to its nonconductive state; and because the values of the voltages of the discharge tube and the varistor have been chosen such that the peak of the line voltage will not cause the discharge tube to be triggered, the tube will remain nonconductive until the next transient occurs."
Looking at the above, the question arises of how this is better than a MOV alone.  If I am understanding the above correctly, the primary advantage is the ability to select a MOV with a much lower clamping voltage, which lowers the energy that the MOV must dissipate.  Guy Macon  15:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDT and MOV in series? 

message: Everyone who participated in upgrading this topic since I was last here in 2009 needs congratulations.  Its far better.  Best to you all Igsaturation (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocated 2011 comments 

message: There seems to be no difference between the two, from what i can tell. Furthermore that article is an orphan that cites no references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sckolar (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that proper WP:MERGE protocol calls for a merge notice at the target article as well as the source article. You seem to be new at this, so I encourage you to read the guidelines and follow them.  If you are unable to do so, I or some other editor will eventually  clean this up, but I encourage you to finish the job if you can. Also, please sign your articles with four tildes (~).  Reify-tech (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again you have merged two articles and not followed the correct procedure (at WP:MERGE) as recently drawn to your attention via an ANI.  However: on this occasion, I am going to let it go.  This is because, as noted, there was nothing salvegeable from the source article and none of it has, in fact, been merged.  There is thus no edit history to preserve.  85.255.234.139 (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Spike buster with Surge Protector? 

message: I have encountered several discrepancies with this article and other sources of information around the various ratings for a surge protector, including, but not limited to, a buying guide published by Home Depot, an article on Lifehacker, How Stuff Works, and numerous other articles. I recommend that this article should clarify why there is a discrepancy, if it is justified, or an expert be brought in to resolve the problem. 161.31.231.60 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings

message: The paragraph that mentions gas-discharge tubes "formerly produced by C P Clare" uses the word "radioactive." Is the word used in the usual sense of ionizing radiation emitted by the gas, or is it a mistaken attempt (by a non-native English speaker?) to derive a word for the light sensitivity? If the former, should the information be moved elsewhere in the article? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently some do contain radioactive materials, mostly to help initiate ionization and therefore a quicker strike..  Some data sheets  explicitly guarantee the tube to be radioactive-free for this reason. SpinningSpark 18:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay; sorry for being too lazy to find/check the sources myself. Perhaps it might help just to insert a paragraph break before the sentence in question. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radioactive GDTs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Surge protector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://citel.us/gas_distcharge_tubes_overview.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't really know the subject matter, so, beyond "uhh... link no worky!", most of my comments below are based on the notoriously unreliable combination of cursory web searches and common sense, and should not, under any circumstances, be mistaken for informed, knowledgeable, or even particularly useful advice. I'll leave the corrections to someone with a better grasp on the material and/or wiki citation formatting.
*Reference #24 gives a 404. The old 'About NFPA' page is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20130401015326/http://www.nfpa.org:80/categoryList.asp?categoryID=143&URL=About%20NFPA , and their current About page is at https://www.nfpa.org/About-NFPA . I'm not sure which would be more appropriate, since (possibly due to some missing words or grammatical issues) I'm not sure what the text with the citation is actually trying to say. It states "A failing MOV is a fire risk, which is a reason for the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA)[24] UL1449 in 1986...", but UL1449 is, as far as I know, published by UL, and not NFPA )unless it was meant to refer, not to UL1449, but to NFPA 70, the National Electric Code, which "compliments UL1449".
*Reference #25 also gives a 404 (to http://downloads.eatoncanada.ca/downloads/Transient%20Voltage%20Surge%20Supp/Tech%20Data/TVSS%20UL%20spec%201449.pdf ), and doesn't appear to be archived. At first I thought that #4 could be substituted, as both links looked like they were pointing to copies of the UL 1449 standard, but I'm not certain what #25 actually used to be, and #4 isn't what the footnote makes it sound like (see below).
*Reference #4 is all sorts of confusing (or else I'm just easily confused), and makes me wonder whether it's some sort of accidental conflation of a couple unrelated citations. It reads Rosch, Winn (May 2008). "UL® 1449 3rd Edition" (PDF). Eaton Corporation. Eaton Corporation. I'll take the problems with this one at a time:
:# Winn L. Rosch appears to be a PC hardware writer, and the only place on the net that I can find his name even mentioned on the same page as UL1449 (aside from this reference on this page or obvious copies/derivatives thereof) is the Wikipedia Varistor page (where #16 simply cites his Hardware Bible regarding MOVs - no clear connection there, although the neighboring #11 does cite another - otherwise unrelated - page on UL1449). Similarly, I can't find any indication that he ever worked or wrote anything for Eaton (although some of his patents are cited in one of theirs), and neither his name nor any other author is credited anywhere in the PDF (the document properties lists "Author: Zoltun", which appears to be their graphic design firm).
:# The listed title is "UL® 1449 3rd Edition", while the actual PDF is, rather than the standard itself, the significantly different "UL® 1449 3rd Edition — Key Changes".
:# The document is only a page and a half leaflet, and doesn't actually contain any of the information discussed at 4a, 4c, or 4d (although 4b could possibly be inferred, if you cross your eyes and stare at it from the right angle for long enough).
--71.234.116.22 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken & incorrect reference links 

message: Seems to me that it would be useful to mention that AC voltages given are RMS, and that the peak is sqrt(2) times larger.  For example, in the sentence mentioning the 330V clipping value for 120 VAC systems. Gah4 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMS 

message: In some places, it could be useful to mention the effect of inductance.  For example, in the case of parallel MOVs, even the small inductance of the lead wires, at high enough dI/dt, it will slow down the current rise through the first one to conduct, giving the second one just a little more time. There is some mention of series inductance later, but not of LC filters which are also used along with other devices. Gah4 (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductance 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a link to power strip in the "See Also" section? I think these are related and often confused. Aenet1405 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , power strip is already linked in the body of the article so a See also link is not required. See MOS:NOTSEEALSO. ~Kvng (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Strip 

message: These are overlapping topics and we either need to work to reduce the overlap (perhaps by using WP:SUMMARY) or merge it together. ~Kvng (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Surge arrester]] and [[Transient voltage suppressor]]