Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Shack Wiring (Epilogue)

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Shack Wiring (Epilogue)
From: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
Reply-to: "Tower and HF antenna construction topics." <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 12:47:15 -0400
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
> For usage, Standler's book:"Protection of Electronic Circuits from
> Overvoltages" is the hot ticket.

I just purchased Standler's book and it offers some interesting insight 
concerning branch circuit surge protection.  On p. 289 of the 2002 Dover 
Publishing edition, Standler recommends the popular "all three modes of 
protection," typically hyped by manufacturers of branch circuit protection 
devices.   This form of protection employs three MOVs:

1) Line to Neutral;
2) Neutral to Ground; and
3) Line to Ground.

>From p. 289:

"...the three varistors shown in Fig 19-3 produced the lowest clamping 
voltages for Vhn, Vhg, and Vng for an 8/20 us waveform...some low-cost 
protection modules contain only a single varistor, which is usually 
connected between the hot and neutral conductors.  Although a single 
varistor is better than none at all, this is a marginal practice.  Martzloff 
and Gauper (1986) showed that the use of only V3 [W9AC: Line to Neutral] in 
Fig. 19-3 could produce a large value of voltage between neutral and 
grounding conductors when surge currents passed through the inductance of 
the neutral wire."

Clearly, Standler is advocating the use of the "all three modes of 
protection" type of varistor arrangement on branch circuits.  Note that 
Standler does not discuss the series-mode type of suppressor advocated by 
K9YC and other professionals in the audio and instrumentation industries 
(i.e., SurgeX, Zero Surge, and BrickWall).  That form of suppressor uses 
only a single MOV device between line and neutral.  However, according to 
those manufacturers, the difference is that the surge is first stored in a 
large value of C and slowly dissipated to neutral to prevent the very issue 
described by Standler where a surge on the neutral "could produce a large 
value of voltage between neutral and grounding conductors when surge 
currents passed through the inductance of the neutral wire."

Here are my conclusions, not that they're correct by any means:

1) Use of "all three modes of protection" using MOVs is fine at the service 
entrance panel or utility meter.  There's little risk of independent 
potential rise on any conductor as the result of a diverted surge from a 
MOV;

2) Avoid "all three modes of protection" MOV devices anywhere on a branch 
circuit, despite recommendations by Standler, Martzloff, and Gauper; and

3) If a branch circuit MOV device is used, use a series-mode device between 
line and neutral whereby the surge potential is stored and slowly dissipated 
through the neutral conductor.  These are expensive devices but I suppose 
that's relative only to the amount of potential damage caused to equipment 
by using incorrect surge suppression devices for the job -- or no surge 
suppression at all.

Paul, W9AC 

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>