Whole house surge suppressor

[westom]

This report suggests that there is opportunity to improve human knowledge about lightning and offers suggestions for further research.

A polite way of saying no research exists that proves ESE technology. That report was in 1995. The NFPA said after 2000:

For many years, controversy has surrounded the question whether the NFPA should develop a standard for a new lightning protection technology known as Early Streamer Emission (ESE) lightning protection. The proponents of that technology, primarily those associated with the Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., and related corporations (who will hereafter, for convenience, be referred to as the Hearys) have extolled the technology and, in particular, have claimed that ESE terminals offer a vastly increased zone of protection over that of traditional lightning rods. Those claims have been disputed and, most recently, a special panel created to consider information and to issue a report concerning ESE lightning protection technology to the Standards Council (BryanPanel Report), firmly rebutted the claims of ESE proponents that the technology had been adequately validated, concluding, among other things, as follows:
The ESE lightning protection technology as currently developed in the installation of complete systems does not appear to be scientifically and technically sound in relation to the claimed areas of protection or the essentials of the grounding system (Bryan Panel Report at p. 26).

The Hearys are specifically cited due to common knowledge. They spend massively promoting their products in advertising, hearsay, and through lawyers. Never spend any money on research. The NFPA is politely saying ESE will not be considered unless they do science. Because no science says ESE devices work. ESE companies refuse for one simple reason. The product is promoted on hearsay and myth to consumers most easily scammed. Why waste money on science?

The NFPA reports were being polite. Other IEEE papers are blunter. ESEs are a marketing scam that even failed in FAA and NASA tests. In one case, three days after it was installed, it was blown from the building by lightning. Now, what happens to radioactive material in some ESE protectors? ESE industry will not even discuss that.

Protection is always about the electrical path to earth. An electrical current that exists AFTER a plasma path is constructed kilometers through the sky. A current that exists simultaneously everywhere in a path that destroys one or some items in that path. Or that is harmlessly conducted without any damage when a human installs well proven protection. Routinely earth 20,000 amp lightning strikes without damage using technologies proven over 100 years ago. The least expensive solutions (ie earthing and 'whole house' protector) do better than what was routine 100 years ago. To have direct lightning strikes and no damage.

Amazing how 100 years of well proven science can be disputed by speculation and myths promoted only by advertising and hearsay.

An effective protection system means you know how and where hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate. Protection of everything (even a Telsa) is about where energy dissipates. Advertising and hearsay does not change that reality.

 

[GSP]

Westom,

Thanks for your posts.

Is there a good textbook or handbook for design of lighting protection systems that you can recommend?

GSP

 

[westom]

Is there a good textbook or handbook for design of lighting protection systems that you can recommend?

I do not know of any one good book on this stuff. First required are basic concepts taught to a first year EEs. Including impedance. Polyphaser's app notes on this were considered legendary in the radio industry. They might still be found at:
White Papers and Technical Notes

To appreciate much of the underlying knowledge requires basic EE concepts including wave theory. For example, many will confuse wire thickness as more important that wire length. Or confuse ohms resistance with ohms impedance.

Same concepts were also described by AT&T for DSL protection:

Surge protection for DSL and dialup service.
Surge protection takes on many forms, but always involves the following components: Grounding bonding and surge protectors. ...
Grounding is required to provide the surge protector with a path to dump the excess energy to earth. A proper ground system is a mandatory requirement of surge protection. Without a proper ground, a surge protector has no way to disburse the excess energy and will fail to protect downstream equipment.
Bonding is required to electrically connect together the various grounds of the services entering the premises. Without bonding, a surge may still enter a premise after firing over a surge protector, which will attempt to pass the excess energy to its ground with any additional energy that the services surge protector ground cannot instantly handle, traveling into and through protected equipment, damaging that equipment in the process. ...

Now, if all the various service entrance grounds are bonded together there are no additional paths to ground through the premise. Even if all of the grounds cannot instantly absorb the energy, the lack of additional paths to ground through the premise prevents the excess energy from seeking out any additional grounds through that premise and the electronic equipment within. As such, the excess energy remains in the ground system until dissipated, sparing the protected equipment from damage. ...
By far, the whole house hardwired surge protectors provide the best protection. When a whole house primary surge protector is installed at the service entrance, it will provide a solid first line of defense against surges which enter from the power company's service entrance feed. These types of protectors can absorb/pass considerably more energy than any other type of protector, and if one does catastrophically fail, it will not typically be in a living space. ...
Plug in strip protectors are, at best, a compromise. At worst, they may cause more damage than they prevent. While they may do an acceptable job of handling hot to neutral surges, they do a poor job of handling any surge that must be passed to ground. ...
Then, to add insult to injury, some strip protectors add Telco and/or LAN surge protection within the same device, trying to be an all-in-one sale. Remember bonding? When Telco or LAN protection is added to a strip protector, if the premise ground, which is not designed to handle surges, cannot handle all of the energy, guess where that excess energy seeks out the additional grounds? You got it! The Telco and LAN connections now becomes the path, with disastrous results to those devices. ...

Ham radio operators also learn this stuff; sometimes the hard way. Then discuss these concepts. For example Bill Hider and others in "grounding system":
[Towertalk] grounding system
[TowerTalk] Lightning and ground systems

A case study of how lightning damage to a Nebraska radio station was eliminated including how the staion engineers made damage even worse by not first learning these concepts:
Copper.org: Electrical: Power Quality - Proper Copper Grounding Stops Lightning Damage

Or multiple articles in QST magazine in 2002 - the voice of the ARRL and Ham radio - entitled "Lightning Protection for the Amateur Radio Station".

Or an industry professional summarizes the concepts:

Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes is almost non-existent. The last time we went down from a strike, it was due to a strike on the power company's lines knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple, and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a low ohm DC path.

Dr Kenneth Schneider summarized it in Chapter 6 of his "Primer for Premises Data Communication":

WHEN SHOULD YOU WORRY ABOUT LIGHTNING?
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to ground. Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning protection device grounds the incoming signal connection point of the equipment being protected. Thus, redirecting the threatening surge on a path-of-least resistance (impedance) to ground where it is absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two "subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of switching circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow dissipation of the surge energy.

I cannot cite any specific primer. Much of how I learned it comes from decades of experience combined with so many professional sources (even published before 1960) that contributed concepts and knowledge from various professions. We even traced lightning through electronics by identifying and replacing every damaged semiconductor - to make that equipment functional again. Sources inncluded the Bell System Technical Journal. Research by some industry benchmarks including Drs Standler and Uman. And medical doctors who described how lightning gets conducted through a body.

 

[bud--]

Is there a good textbook or handbook for design of lighting protection systems that you can recommend?

You could try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_protection
Certainly not adequate to design a system but good information.
Design uses a "rolling sphere" analysis.

Another source that has miscellaneous information (some of which is linked to by Wikipedia):
Structural Lightning Safety Section Contents - National Lightning Safety Institute


For surge protection the best readily available information I have seen is at:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is a major organization of electrical and electronic engineers).
And also:
National Institute of Standards and Technology Error Page
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE surge guide is more technical (and was previously posted by drees).

Same concepts were also described by AT&T for DSL protection:

Surge protection for DSL and dialup service.
By far, the whole house hardwired surge protectors provide the best protection. When a whole house primary surge protector is installed at the service entrance, it will provide a solid first line of defense against surges which enter from the power company's service entrance feed. These types of protectors can absorb/pass considerably more energy than any other type of protector

Service panel protectors are a real good idea.
But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances [electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."

Service panel suppressors do not by themselves prevent high voltages from developing between power and phone/cable wires. The NIST surge guide suggests most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and signal wires.

The author of the NIST surge guide looked at surges on power service wires. He found the maximum surge on a residential power service that has any reasonable probability of occurring is 10,000A per wire. That is based on a 100,000A lightning strike to a utility pole adjacent to a house. Service panel protectors with higher ratings just give long life. Recommendations for ratings are in the IEEE surge guide on page 18.

Service panel protectors are very likely to protect anything connected only to power wires from a very near very strong lightning strike.


If you have a 1000A surge to the earthing system at a house, and the only electrode is a ground rod with a near miraculous 10 ohms resistance to earth, the building ground system will rise 10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. Much of the protection is that all wiring - power, phone, cable, ... - rises together. That requires a short ground wire from phone and other entry protectors to a common connection point on the power earthing system. (An example of a ground wire that is too long is in the IEEE surge guide starting page 30.)

Plug in strip protectors are, at best, a compromise. At worst, they may cause more damage than they prevent. While they may do an acceptable job of handling hot to neutral surges, they do a poor job of handling any surge that must be passed to ground. ...

Nonsense.

Plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing a surge. As clearly explained in the IEEE surge guide (starting page 30) they work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector. The voltage between the wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected equipment.

Then, to add insult to injury, some strip protectors add Telco and/or LAN surge protection within the same device, trying to be an all-in-one sale. Remember bonding? When Telco or LAN protection is added to a strip protector, if the premise ground, which is not designed to handle surges, cannot handle all of the energy, guess where that excess energy seeks out the additional grounds? You got it! The Telco and LAN connections now becomes the path, with disastrous results to those devices. ...

More nonsense.

When using a plug-in protector all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same protector. External connections, like cable, also MUST go through the protector. It is clearly explained in the IEEE example above.

Both the IEEE and NIST surge guides say plug-in protectors are effective. The only 2 detailed examples of protection in the IEEE surge guide use plug-in protectors and show how to protect equipment connected to both power and signal wires. The signal wires go through the protector.

 

[bud--]

Is there a good textbook or handbook for design of lighting protection systems that you can recommend?

GSP

NFPA 780 or ANSI/NFPA 780 should be good but I doubt you can find it.

http://www.e29.com.mx/pdf/greenbook.pdf
is the IEEE "Green" book - "IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Systems",
1991. It has lightning protection information starting around page 158. (It is over 10M.)

 

[westom]

bud is paid to promote plug-in protectors. If those devices truly did the protection he claims, then he can post manufacturer spec numbers. He never does. His devices have obscenely high profit margins that even pay him to follow me everywhere - a troll - to post half truths and outright lies.

Take a $4 power strip. Add some ten cent protector parts. These can sell for $35 or $90. The profits are that extreme. The actual protection is near zero. An earthed 'whole house' protector is necessary to even protect plug-in protectors. So many professionals note, only the earthed protector provides effective protection. The IEEE even puts a number to it. The earthed protector does maybe "99.5% to 99.9% protection. It’s not perfect. And costs about $1 per protected appliance. Then spend $35 or $90 per appliance for an additional 0.2% protection. Even the above AT&T summary says what is truly effective and why plug-in protectors are not used in facilities that cannot have damage.

bud routinely forgets even what his NIST citation says on page 17:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will work by diverting the surges to ground. The best surge protection in the world can be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Plug-in protectors have no earthing. Its maybe 0.2% additional protection from surges that are typically not destructive is, essentially, "useless". Expensive sales promotersto protect profit margins is even my personal troll - bud. He only posts here because I posted here. It is his job.

 

[bud--]

bud is paid to promote plug-in protectors.

Lie #1.
My only association with the surge protection industry is I am using some surge protectors.

If those devices truly did the protection he claims, then he can post manufacturer spec numbers. He never does.

Lie #2
I have posted specs often (like those below). So have others. A 10 year old could find specs. But westom always ignores the specs. Apparently westom knows plug-in protectors can not possibly work so specs can not exist.

His devices have obscenely high profit margins that even pay him to follow me everywhere - a troll - to post half truths and outright lies.

Lie #3.
They are not 'my devices'.

Lie #1 repeated.

And my "half truths and outright lies" come from the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Anyone can read them and find out if I am right.

A bad link got posted for the NIST surge guide. A good one is:
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/pubs/spd-anthology/files/Surges%20happen!.pdf

Take a $4 power strip. Add some ten cent protector parts.

One of the MOVs in a plug-in protector I am using has a rating of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for ten cents. The other 2 MOVs are rated 590J 30,000A. The protector cost under $30 and has a protected equipment warranty.
(The surge current, even at the service, can be nowhere near the MOV current spec rating. The high current spec just goes along with the high joule ratings.)

An earthed 'whole house' protector is necessary to even protect plug-in protectors.

Lie #4
Complete idiocy.
However just the opposite may be true. For its best service panel protector SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [protectors] at the point of use."

So many professionals note, only the earthed protector provides effective protection. The IEEE even puts a number to it. The earthed protector does maybe "99.5% to 99.9% protection.

Lie #5
The 99+% figures are from the IEEE "Green" book and are for lightning rods. They have nothing to do with service panel protectors.

bud routinely forgets even what his NIST citation says on page 17:

Lie #6
What does the NIST surge guide really says about plug-in protectors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent information on surge protection. And both guides say plug-in protectors are effective.

 

[dsm363]

Should we move this whole thing to the off topic area?

 

[hcsharp]

Should we move this whole thing to the off topic area?

I don't think so. They just disagree and at least some of their content is still on-topic, if not most of it.

 

[westom]

The topic is protecting a Telsa. That means doing what is also found in every telephone CO to protect their $multi-million computers. Protecting a Telsa is the same solution. Concepts such as single point earth ground, no current inside the building, and where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate are all relevant to protecting a Telsa.

Plug-in protectors without earth ground are completely irrelevant to the topic.

Telsa is at risk for the same reason telco COs and munitions are at risk. In both locations, plug-in protectors are definitely not used due to risks such as fire. Better earthing and 'whole house' protectors are only used. Have same protection for everything in the house and to protect a Telsa. Plug-in protectors also need that protection.

 

[hcsharp]

The topic is protecting a Telsa. That means doing what is also found in every telephone CO to protect their $multi-million computers. Protecting a Telsa is the same solution. Concepts such as single point earth ground, no current inside the building, and where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate are all relevant to protecting a Telsa.

Plug-in protectors without earth ground are completely irrelevant to the topic.

westom the plug-in protectors that I use all have a grounding lead on the plug. This is directly wired to the ground rod in my basement. Isn't this considered to be earth grounded? I thought they had to be earth grounded?

Also, after reading a little of this stuff (from both of you) I see the advantage of a single earth ground and avoiding ground loops. Then why does the Nat'l Electric Code specify installing additional ground rods for long runs like for a sub-panel in some cases?
thanks.

 

[Dave EV]

What westom is trying to say is that the most important thing for proper lightning protection is proper grounding. A single ground in your basement will not protect your house from lightning - that's inviting the lightning to go into your house when you want to keep it outside.

A simple example:

Image from: Indianapolis Lightning Rods provided by Thomas Jefferson Roofing and Remodeling

Note that there are 2 grounds in this example - and neither enters the house. It is extremely important that the grounds have low resistance to earth. There are a number of methods of doing this.

Surge protectors without proper grounding will not save your house from lightning induced surges.

 

[westom]

Then why does the Nat'l Electric Code specify installing additional ground rods for long runs like for a sub-panel in some cases?
thanks.

The NEC says nothing about surge protection. The NEC is only about human safety. Surge protection is about transistor safety. Latter means both meeting and exceeding code requirements.

If any ground is same, then connect a lightning rod to the ground on a computer motherboard. According to your reasoning, that is also an earth ground.

You are confusing earth ground with safety ground, with digital ground, with chassis ground, etc. All are interconnected. And all are electrically different.

That power strip only has a safety ground. And it would violate many requirements essential to earth grounding such as low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet', no wire splices, no sharp bends, no metallic conduit, etc).

Not just any ground. Earth ground. Specifically single point earth ground. Others will promote myths hoping all will ignore the electrical significance.

Again, how does that protector keep current outside a building. As dress notes, that's inviting the lightning to go into your house when you want to keep it outside. Once that current is inside, it will hunt for earth destructively via household appliances; or a Telsa. Protection always means hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside. Once inside, then nothing but advertising myths can avert the resulting hunt.

 

[hcsharp]

So are you suggesting that when the NEC requires I install another ground rod at my garage subpanel due to the long distance from the main panel, that I am potentially making myself safer, but putting my electronics (and Tesla) at greater risk?

The NEC says nothing about surge protection. The NEC is only about human safety. Surge protection is about transistor safety. Latter means both meeting and exceeding code requirements.

If any ground is same, then connect a lightning rod to the ground on a computer motherboard. According to your reasoning, that is also an earth ground.

You are confusing earth ground with safety ground, with digital ground, with chassis ground, etc. All are interconnected. And all are electrically different.

That power strip only has a safety ground. And it would violate many requirements essential to earth grounding such as low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet', no wire splices, no sharp bends, no metallic conduit, etc).

Not just any ground. Earth ground. Specifically single point earth ground. Others will promote myths hoping all will ignore the electrical significance.

Again, how does that protector keep current outside a building. As dress notes, that's inviting the lightning to go into your house when you want to keep it outside. Once that current is inside, it will hunt for earth destructively via household appliances; or a Telsa. Protection always means hundreds of thousands of joules dissipate harmlessly outside. Once inside, then nothing but advertising myths can avert the resulting hunt.

 

[bud--]

Plug-in protectors without earth ground are completely irrelevant to the topic.

Then why did you introduce them to the thread and why do you continue to talk about them.

westom the plug-in protectors that I use all have a grounding lead on the plug. This is directly wired to the ground rod in my basement. Isn't this considered to be earth grounded?

Westom's argument is that plug-in protectors are not well earthed so they can not possibly protect from surges (note the effect of inductance below). But plug-in protectors do not work primarily by earthing a surge. As clearly explained in the IEEE surge guide (starting page 30) they work by limiting the voltage from each wire (power and signal) to the ground at the protector.

Also, after reading a little of this stuff (from both of you) I see the advantage of a single earth ground and avoiding ground loops.

Note that part of a "single point ground" is that entry protector ground wires be short. A surge is a very short event. That means surge currents have high frequency components. That means that the inductance of the wire is more important than the resistance. A 30 ft ground wire in the IEEE example starting page 30 has 10,000V end-to-end. That wire was far too long to connect a cable entry ground block to the "single pint ground".

Then why does the Nat'l Electric Code specify installing additional ground rods for long runs like for a sub-panel in some cases?
thanks.

Earthing electrodes are to try to keep the electrical system in a building at the earth potential at the building. The NEC requires earthing electrodes at separate buildings.

In a previous example a 1,000A surge current to a 10 ohm to earth ground rod at the house lifts the house ground system 10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. In general 70% of the voltage drop away from a ground rod is in the first 3 feet. The earth at a detached garage will be 7,000 - 10,000V from the wiring from the house. A ground rod at the garage means the garage electrical ground will be near the potential of the earth. You then have a surge on the hot and neutral wires. If you have sensitive equipment in the garage you can use surge protectors.

If you have a panel in the garage you can install a panel protector. Wiring in the last 5 or 10 years has separate feed neutral and ground wires, and a separate neutral and ground bar. The protector is made for a subpanel and has protection, and a connection, for the neutral in addition to a ground connection.

Some older garages had a neutral but no ground. They were wired like a service with neutral and ground being the same, and a protector will have only hot and ground connections.

==================
All earthing systems for a building must be connected. Lightning rod earthing systems must be bonded to the power earthing system. Even then there can be quite high voltages between the rod system and power wiring. Metal up to 6 feet from the rods and down conductors may have to be bonded to those conductors. If not there can be a side flash if the rods are hit by lightning.

The message - earth is not all at the same potential during a lightning strike. And the ends of a wire can be thousands of volts apart.

The NEC says nothing about surge protection.

The NEC has a chapter on surge protection.

That power strip only has a safety ground. And it would violate many requirements essential to earth grounding such as low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet', no wire splices, no sharp bends, no metallic conduit, etc).

And the compulsive off topic dig at plug-in protectors.
Plug-in protectors do not primarily work by earthing a surge.

 

[westom]

So are you suggesting that when the NEC requires I install another ground rod at my garage subpanel due to the long distance from the main panel, that I am potentially making myself safer, but putting my electronics (and Tesla) at greater risk?

Nobody can answer that without many more details. But you must meet and also exceed those code requirements.

Some solutions define protection in terms of separate structures. For example, an app note shows each structure with its own single point earth ground. Any wire that enters either structure must first connect to that structure's single point earth ground. To make each ground better, a ground wire also interconnects the two single point grounds:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf

If two structures (each with its own single point ground at its panel), then all other wires (telephone, cable, etc) that interconnect those two structures must also be earthed low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') at each single point ground before entering.

Ballpark numbers suggest structures separated ten or 25 feet should be wired as if separate structures with their own single point grounds.

 

[AmpedUP]

Re-awakening this thread after a year and a half slumber. It contains a lot conjecture and argument. Now it's 2014. Has anyone installed "whole house" surge protection, and if so, do they have any experiences to share with us?

 

[jerry33]

Re-awakening this thread after a year and a half slumber. It contains a lot conjecture and argument. Now it's 2014. Has anyone installed "whole house" surge protection, and if so, do they have any experiences to share with us?

I installed one long before this thread was started. I expect it to help if someone runs into the local power pole. I don't expect anything more. I do notice that the lights do not flicker as much, but I wouldn't say that it was because of the surge protector--more likely it's because a lot of the power goes through the UPS.

 

[westom]

It contains a lot conjecture and argument. Now it's 2014. Has anyone installed "whole house" surge protection, and if so, do they have any experiences to share with us?

Nothing about 'whole house' protectors was conjecture or argument. That solution is proven by over 100 years of experience and fundamental science. Only solution used in every telco switching facility, to suffer even 100 surges per storm and no damage to the $multi-milliion switching computer, is earthing 'whole house' protectors. They also do not use conjecture or argument. They also know recommendations, that are conjecture and argument, are subjective; missing numbers.

A protector obviously does nothing for dimming lights. Dimming (and brightening) lights may be a symptom of a household wiring problem. In most cases, the problem is minor. In rare cases, that symptom indicates a major human safety threat. Lights should not dim or brighten when major appliances power cycles. And obviously not change intensity when small appliances cycle. Do not cure symptoms. Fix the problem.

From the many reasons why (how a protector works), no protector does anything to avert or cure dimming bulbs. That also should have been obvious.

How many would have anything to report? 1) Surges that might do damage can occur maybe once every seven years. Protectors are for a threat that infrequent and destructive. 2) A properly earthed 'whole house' protector means nobody even knew a surge existed. Both reasons why observation and personal experience are so uninformative.

How often are dimmer switches and smoke detectors failing in everyone's house? Obviously, if appliances are failing monthly, then a homeowner has problems other and beyond what a protector would address.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Now it's 2014. Has anyone installed "whole house" surge protection, and if so, do they have any experiences to share with us?

I have lived in Sarasota for 10 years now. We are in an area with a significant number of lightning strikes. For the first nine years I procastinated in installing whole house surge protection and fortunately we never suffered any damage. A little over a year ago I had a whole house protector installed for a little added peace of mind since my Model S would be plugged in most of the time.

I am happy to report that I have nothing to report. :biggrin:

To be clear I had no expectation that whole house surge protection would protect again a direct strike, but I hoped it would add an increment of protection against utility switching surges caused during thunder storms.

Larry