point of use surge protection question

I'm ASSuming that I already know the answer to this, but I'll try anyway - assume a usual little surge protector with three MOVs, H-N, H-G, N-G. Will it provide protection to a device connected directly by hard wires to the receptacle that it's plugged into? I'm guessing that it really doesn't care as to "upstream" or "downstream" only that the level of protection depends somewhat on the distance from the protector. Also if a surge destroys it it obviously will not disconnect a device not "downstream" of it.
Reason I ask is, due to the fun and games I've been having with repairing appliances due to a big surge about a week and a half ago, I thought that adding surge protection to my furnace and air filter would be a good idea. Problem is, now that I dig into it, the furnace is hardwired to the back of a box on the side of the furnace. There is a switch and a duplex receptacle in that box. The switch controls the furnace and one half of the recep; the other is always hot. A humidifier is plugged into the switched side, a condensate pump into the unswitched side. I figured the best I could do, without adding some kind of hardwired surge protection, was to plug it into the unswitched recep for the condensate pump and it would provide the same protection as if it were inline, with the caveat that if a surge destroyed the MOVs in the surge protector, it is possible that it might zap the furnace before the breaker tripped. Am I correct?
Are there any common, commercially available point of use surge protectors designed to be mounted in, say, a 1900 box screwed to the side of a piece of equipment? I am thinking that one at the dishwasher might be advisable as well, as its only protection appears to be one H-N MOV and we already established that that wasn't sufficient in at least one instance :(
thanks,
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

The only relevance to upstream / downstream of a typical MOV type surge suppresser would relate to a fuse or breaker that would be tripped when the MOV(s) create their short circuit.
So, yes, a MOV containing suppresser would provide some protection to other devices on the circuit, though in the event of a sustained over voltage like you seem to have had from the transformer failure, if the MOV trips it's own fuse before the fuse or breaker at the panel trips, upstream loads would be unprotected.
Most of the suppressers intended for service entrance mounting could be installed most anywhere, and many are designed to mount to a typical 1/2" knockout on any panel or box.
One of the main panel suppressers would in all probability clamped and tripped the main breaker on your panel thus isolating your whole house from the transformer fault.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

Do you have any examples of a main panel suppressor like that? The only ones I've seen either attach to or replace a double pole branch circuit breaker not the main.
The idea of using an add-on panel suppressor an excellent idea, although possibly pricey. Is there anything to the average suppressor besides three MOVs and a fuse? I certainly could handle fabbing something like that myself, and there is a fairly decent electronics supply somewhat nearby - not convenient, but not an insane drive either.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Beyond MOVs, the only other simple suppresser technology I'm aware of are gas discharge tubes which operate similarly. Other suppresser technologies are more complex.
The main panel suppressers aren't all expensive. The QO Surge Breaker I use was I think around $60, though of course it isn't a knockout mount version. I'm pretty sure there are a number of sub $100 options for basic panel suppressers.
If you want to DIY something, Digi-Key is a good source for the parts. It's not magic, but for good design you do have to pay attention to conductor sizes, insulation ratings and component layout so you don't have unexpected faults when the suppresser tries to do it's job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

As Bill posted, the voltage at the outlet will be higher than at the plug-in suppressor because of the significant impedance of wire to surges. Minimizing the wire length in a service panel is very important because currents are high. At your furnace currents will be much lower because of the impedance of the branch circuit. If the surge current to the suppressor was 500A and leads were 39" the voltage at the receptacle would be about 325V higher than at the suppressor.

Suppressors are required (since 1998) to have a thermal disconnect that disconnects failing MOVs. I believe the thermal disconnect is likely to disconnect the MOV before any breaker. Second would probably be the breaker on the plug-in suppressor. For the overvoltage you had, none of these, or the panel breakers, are guaranteed to safely disconnect.

What you were hit with is temporary overvoltage, not a surge. It is not easy to protect from overvoltage. But what you were hit with is quite uncommon.
I would suggest reinstalling a service panel suppressor and letting that protect the furnace and dishwasher (from surges, not major overvoltage).
It shouldnt be hard to find a KO mounted suppressor. Should have a ground wire in addition to hot and neutral.

The closest ones would be the breaker type. Wired ones all probably connect to a branch breaker. In either case it is a question whether the thermal protection would disconnect before the main. I would bet on the thermal disconnect.

Thermal disconnects that reacts to the heat of a failing MOV.

I made my own plug-in suppressor long ago. Later I decided it was not a good idea to use because it does not have the thermal disconnect that suppressors now have. If you make one, make it to be safe if a MOV catastrophically fails.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

that the inductance in the wiring between the upstream connection point and the surge protector may keep the spike from being suppressed. The inductance works to help suppress the spike for anything downstream of the surge protector.
I know there isn't much inductance in that short a piece of wire, but for fast spikes it is an important part of the suppression system.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where damage is not acceptable, that separation between protector and electronics increases protection. For example, you telco connects their $multi-million computer directly to wires all over town. It may suffer about 100 surges during every thunderstorm - without damage. To be effective, a protector is located up to 50 meters from the computer AND as close as possible to earth ground.
What provides protection to your furnace or dishwasher? Not the protector. Protection is earth ground. The effective protector connects surges to earth ... better when distant from the appliance.
Why is an H-N protector ineffective? Surge on both wires ignores an H-N protector; continues on to earth ground destructively through a furnace. Effective protection connects each wire (H N G) to earth (not to each other). Separation between protector and furnace means even less surge finds earth via the furnace. Others also describe how and why a 'whole house' protector is so effective because it makes that shortest connection to earth.
Where does surge energy get dissipated? Any protector that somehow makes surge energy disappear (ie H-N) is mythical. From the NIST:

energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth.
Why does separation increase surge protection? Longer wire increases impedance. Separation means a surge is less likely to find earth ground via the furnace. Shorter wire (protector to earth) means less impedance (as BillGill, et al have noted). Catastrophic surge must obtain earth via a breaker box earth ground rod; not destructively via the furnace. More reasons why a protector is only as effective as its earth ground and why MOVs too close to the furnace don't provide effective protection.
Appliances contain internal protection that make smaller surges (temporary overvoltage) irrelevant. Why is one 'whole house' protector so effective? A catastrophic surge earthed before entering a building will not overwhelm protection inside an appliance or furnace. To be effective on catastrophic surges, a protector needs that short (ie less than 10 foot) connection to earth ground. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Even better, the superior protection costs about $1 per protected appliance; not a ridiculous $25 or $150 for a plug-in protector.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Provide a source that agrees with "separation".
For reliable information on surges and surge protection read a guide from the IEEE at: http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf Or a guide from the NIST at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

If a strong surge produces a current to earth of 1,000A and the earthing electrode has a very good resistance to earth of 10 ohms, the 'ground' at the service panel will rise 10,000V above 'absolute' earth potential. The protection of a service panel suppressor is largely keeping the voltage between H-N-G at the panel at a low voltage. Also required is keeping the voltage from phone and cable wires to power wires at a low voltage. That requires using a short 'ground' wire from the phone and cable entry protectors to the 'ground' at the power service. All wires will float up to 10,000V together.
If the earthing electrode is only a ground rod, about 70% of the voltage drop is in the first 3 feet from the electrode. There will be over 7,000V from service 'ground' to earth beyond 3 feet from the rod. The furnace is likely to sit on a conductive concrete floor over 3 feet from the ground rod. There may be over 7,000V from power wires to 'ground' at the furnace.
The IEEE guide has a similar example for equipment like pad mounted A/C compressor/condenser units (pdf page 43). The guide says "Only an appropriate protector, mounted *at the equipment*, bonding between all line wires, neutral, and ground, can prevent damage." [Emphasis added.] That is exactly counter to what w_ says.
w_'s comments are, as usual, simple minded and based on a religious belief in earthing.

A suppressor at the furnace would clamp from H-N, H-G, N-G. It would not just clamp H-N. The voltage between H-N-G at the furnace would be safe at the furnace.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution".
Plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage between H-G, N-G, H-N, just like at the service in the example above. Earthing occurs, but not primarily through a plug-in suppressor.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection is only by earthing. As usual, it leads him to conclusions at odds with experts.
For real science, read the IEEE and NIST guides.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bud promotes for plug-in protectors and will say anything to avoid admitting his conflict of interest. The effective surge protector makes a very short connection to earth. Then it increases that protection by increasing the distance between protector and protected electronics. IOW it must have lowest impedance to earth ground AND higher impedance to electronics. What determines impedance? To lower impedance, that earthing wire must be short, have no sharp bends, no splices, separated from other conductors, and not inside metallic conduit. All these engineering facts are ignored by Bud who promotes protectors without any earthing.
So go to what Electrical Engineers say. Electrical Engineering Times is blunt about what provides protection. Notice they don't discuss plug-in protectors. Protection is defined by what provides that protection: earth ground and the short connection to earth ground. The article is quite blunt about what it defines: "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Both top of the front page articles are found at: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807127 http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807830
This is what engineers said even seventy years ago. This contradicts what a sales promoter (Bud) posts. Both articles are for engineers - not for sales promoters who hype mythical protection from plug-in protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
So Bud starts his insults of this poster as he does everywhere. The plug-in protector claims to provide protection? Where? For maybe the 600th time, Bud is challenged top provide a single plug-in manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud will not. No plug-in manufacturer will claim protection from the destructive type of surge in manufacturer specs. Why? The protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A plug-in protector - as made so obvious in Electrical Engineering Times - does not provide effective protection.
Let's see. We install one 'whole house' protector with earthing that meets and exceed post 1990 electrical code for maybe $1 per protected appliance. Or we spend $25 or $150 per protected appliance for what Bud recommends. Do increased profits mean better protection? Or do you install what telcos have installed routinely (for no damage) even 100 years ago? The protector is only as effective as its earth ground - as even Ben Franklin demonstrated with lightning rods in 1752. Why does Bud repeatedly oppose this and then insult this poster? Profits are at risk.
Why do responsible manufacturers (ie Leviton, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, Keison, Intermatic, Siemens, GE, etc) sell 'whole house' protectors? Why do less responsible manufacturers such as APC, Tripplite, Belkin, and Monster Cable avoid all discussion about earthing? The former sell effective protectors. Latter sell protectors that maximize profits. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - as even Bud's own citations state - bluntly. Two 'top of the front page' articles in Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" define what provides surge protection - the single point earth ground. The effective protector makes a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to that earthing. Bud will post anything to deny this really - and still cannot provide a single manufacturer spec to promote his sales myths.
The OP asked for furnace and dish washer protection. That means surges are earthed before entering a building AND kept away from electronics. Any protection that might work at the furnace is already inside that furnace. Protection that can be overwhelmed if a surge is not earthed before entering a building. As others here have noted, the 'whole house' protector is a superior solution AND costs less money. Less Money? Bud will post anything to protect those excessive profit margins on plug-in protectors (from less responsible manufacturers). Bud will not even admit who he promotes for.
Furnace protection (and everything else in the building) means one whole house protector and upgraded single point earth ground.
Did Bud forget to post what the IEEE says in Standards? He does this often. From the IEEE Green Book (Standard 142):

Bud is correct. A properly earthed whole house protector will only be maybe 99.5% effective. What do you want for something that costs about $1 per protected appliance? After all, the $150 plug-in protector can even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. Oh. Did Bud forget to mention that part? Profits are at risk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Lacking valid technical arguments w_ tries to discredit opponents, as usual. My only association with surge protectors is I have some.

The only insult so far is from w_ above.

Posted often and ignored.

Why do "responsible manufacturers" - all of w_'s list except SquareD - sell plug-in suppressors?
Why does SquareD say with its "best" service panel suppressor "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in ... devices at the point of use" ?

Why does the IEEE guide say (for a case similar to the furnace) "Only an appropriate protector, mounted *at the equipment*, bonding between all line wires, neutral, and ground, can prevent damage"?

Did w_ forget to post that the IEEE "Emerald" Book says plug-in suppressors are effective? He does this often.
Where is any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective? Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? Why does the NIST guide say plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? Where is any source that agrees with w_ about "separation"? Why doesnt w_ ever answer questions? Why doesnt w_ get treatment for his obsessive-compulsive disease?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say a protector requires earth ground. Only Bud denies what his own citations require for effective protection. Well, if a plug-in protector provided that protection, then Bud posts those manufacturer specs for protection. Why no specs? Bud cannot post what does not exist. No plug-in protector claims to protect from the typically destructive type of surge. 600 requests for that spec. Bud refuses to post even one spec.
Because profit margins are so massive, even I would sell a plug-in proteccxtor to anyone so naive as to believe Bud. High profits? Take a $3 power strip, add some ten cent parts, and sell it for $25 or $150. Massive profits for something that does not even claim protection. Why does Bud keep posting so that he can have the last post? Profit margins are at risk.
If Bud was honest, then he need not post insults. An honest Bud would provide manufacturers numeric specs that claim protection from each type of surge. No plug-in manufacturer - not one - will claim such protection. Which type protector protects from all types of surges? One properly earthed 'whole house' protector as even Bud's citations demonstrate. Bud's citations show how plug-in protectors can earth surges - 8000 volts destructively - through adjacent appliances. Yes, a plug-in protector can even contribute to damage of adjacent electronics. Page 42 Figure 8.
Other problems with grossly undersized plug-in protectors - scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 / Scary pictures demonstrate another problem. No wonder Bud must resort to mockery and insult.
Bud will keep posting until he has the last post. What will not be in that last post? A manufacturer spec that claims protection. Bud cannot provide a spec that does not exist. Bud will post insults incessantly until he has the last post. Then you might forget what provides surge protection - earth ground. Both IEEE and NIST citations state that a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Bud cannot provide even one plug-in spec that claims effective protection. Just another reason why Bud must post incessantly to have the last post.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Only in w_'w hallucinations. Never answered by w_: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide say plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

If w_ was intelligent, he would understand it is not an insult to say "the emperor has no clothes".

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2.
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service ground is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since 1998. But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

I am waiting for w_ to answer simple questions.
w_ will keep posting because his religious belief in earthing has been challenged. Just like arguing with a Jehovahs Witness.

Provided many times. For example 5 weeks ago on this newsgroup: http://tinyurl.com/6alnza

Only w_ is stupid enough to say that because of his religious belief in earthing. The question is not earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.
Still never seen - any source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never seen - answers to embarrassing questions: - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors? - Why does the NIST guide say plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? - Why does the IEEE "Emerald" Book says plug-in suppressors are effective? - Where is any source that agrees with w_ about "separation"? - Why does SquareD say with its "best" service panel suppressor "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in ... devices at the point of use"? - Why does the IEEE guide say (for a case similar to the furnace) "Only an appropriate protector, mounted *at the equipment*, bonding between all line wires, neutral, and ground, can prevent damage"?
Where are your answers w_???
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
OK, lesson learned. No matter how well-intentioned, any question regarding surge protection turns into a flame-fest on this NG.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What flame war? One is posting myths and personal disparagement. Another is posting responsible source after responsible source followed by basic electrical concepts backed by 100 years of experience and knowledge. Did you read these posts emotionally or do you grasp the facts and numbers? If using technical facts, then every Bud citations contradict his claims:

Quoted directly from Bud's citation. It contradicts what Bud claims. That quote also agrees with everything posted by w_tom. Bud even refuses to post a manufacturer spec that supports his claims. Why? No source supports what Bud posts. Even the protector manufacturer does not claim what Bud posts. Bluntly obvious: even Bud's citations contradict what Bud claims.
In every responsible source - including Bud's IEEE and NIST citations - the protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A protector that, by itself, somehow provides protection instead will not even make that claim. 600 requests and Bud still cannot quote even one manufacturer spec. No flame war. Bottom line facts. Even the manufacturer will not claim what Bud posts. Why is this so difficult? Every Bud citation says an effective protector must have that short connection to single point earth ground. Why is this difficult to understand? Where is your confusion?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That comment alone should be enough to show how out of touch you are. You can't even recognize a flame war. And it always proceeds and ends in the same way everytime this topic comes out. That is with everyone else disagreeing with you. And with you accusing Bud, me and everyone else who disagrees with you of being in the business of selling plug-in surge protectors.
Bud has provided links to the IEEE that clearly show plug-ins being used to protect equipment. People can decide who they want to believe, you or the IEEE. Bud has even asked you dozens of times for a single link that says plug-ins are totally ineffective.
BTW, I'm also waiting for an answer to my question. Electronics and appliance manufacturers include MOVs for surge protection inside their appliances. From time to time you have stated this up yourself. Yet, you can't explain how it can be that these MOV's can provide protection when inside the appliance where they have NO DIRECT EARTH GROUND. So, how can it be that the lack of a direct earth ground renders a plug-in useless, but the ones inside the electronics, 4 ft away, are protected by the same components operating under the same limitations? Faced with this, last time, you simply denied that electronics/appliances have MOVs for protection, which of course I refuted with references and links.

Only if you beiieve the IEEE and NIST surge protection guides are myths.

Nothing difficult to understand. As Bud stated, with you this is a religious issue. Nothing anyone can show you will be good enough. If surge protection guides from the IEEE and NIST that clearly show and discuss plug-ins being used won't convince you, it's clear nothing will
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 28, 11:41 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I responded to myths with facts. I don't care how those facts and numbers might make another emotional (angry). Their emotions are not relevant . Emotions imply that a flammer has minimal technical knowledge or is emotionally insecure. In Bud's case, profits are at risk.
Posted are citation after citation followed by facts, numbers, and quotes from professional after professional ... that all dispute Bud's plug-in protector claims. Even Bud's own citations show how a plug-in protector (without earthing) can even create appliance damage. Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts earthed destructively through a TV because a plug-in protector was too close to the appliance and too far from earth ground. Bud IEEE citation defines damage encouraged by a plug-in protector.
My replies ignored flamming by another (other than to note those insults routinely exist). Posted was the science that has been demonstrated for 100 years (even in US patents), proven by professional papers over 70 years ago, and found in properly earthed (whole house) protectors. A protector that costs about $1 per protected appliance - tens of times less money compared to what Bud promotes.
Let's see. If Bud was posting technical facts, then his citations would not contradict him. If Bud was posting reality, then he could quote a manufacturer spec for protection from each type of surge. He refuses. No manufacturer claims that protection promoted by Bud. Is that called flamming? No. That is replying to his insults with technical facts.
What provides protection? Where is surge energy dissipated? Earth ground. What does a plug-in protector not connect to? Earth ground. What does every responsible source say is necessary for surge protection?

That's another quote direct from a Bud citation. Is that flamming ... or simply posting technical facts? Quoted from Bud's citation ... that says why a plug-in protector does not protect from the typically destructive type of surge.
Every responsible source notes the importance of earthing. The effective 'whole house' protector come from responsible manufacturers such as GE, Intermatic, Keison, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Siemens, Polyphaser, Levition ... Not on that list are protectors that Bud recommends such as Monster Cable. But again the reality stated without flames: a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Again - technical facts are provided and those myths exposed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly on cue, everyone who disagrees with W_ is accused of selling plug-in surge protectors.

And to wrap it up, here we go again, W_ posts his list of "responsible manufacturers", vs other manufacturers. Further proof as to his religious beliefs and lack of logical reasoning. . I pointed out to W_ many times that almost everyone one of those "responsible manufacturers", also manufacturers plug-in, point-of-use surge protectors as well.
PS: Don't bother with the usual lame response that the "responsible manufacturers" only sell a product which is supposedly totally ineffective and dangerous because they can make money doing it. The logical contradiction in that would make Spock's head explode!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 29, 7:19 am, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Actually you didnt point that out. Bud does. So trader and Bud are the same person. How curious. How many other aliases does Bud have? How curious. Again no response with technical facts. Again, defense of ineffective and obscenely overpriced plug-in protectors by attacking the messenger.
Repeating the standard response to that same and silly accusation. Even I will sell plug-in protectors to people so naive as to buy them. When selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25 or $150, profits are massive. Anyone would sell those to the naive. But only responsible manufacturers sell effective protectors - protectors that have that dedicated earthing wire. Protectors that do not even claim to provide protection are from APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Monster Cable.
Bud (trader) posts insults incessantly to deny engineering reality. A protector is only as effective as it earth ground. Honesty is not Bud. It now appears that Bud is also trader - with the same bitter attitude.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I am the one who pointed it out. Do a little googling and you will find it from a couple weeks ago in another thread, where you tried to draw a distinction between "responsible companies", who sell whole house surge protectors and other companies who sell plug-in, point-of-use, etc. With just a little bit of googling, I quickly smashed that, by showing that all but one of the companies on your list of "responsible companies", also sell plug-in type. Try using Google and you can easily find that thread. Bud repeated it in this thread, because it's one more glaring hole in your argument
Again no response with technical facts. Again,

LOL? You're the guy running around claiming that Bud and I are technically incompetent and have a vested interest in selling plug-in protectors. You've also now claimed that we're the same person. As for no technical facts, both the IEEE and NIST clearly show plug-in, point-of-use protectors being used. We're still waiting for any reference that says plug-ins are totally ineffective and dangerous, as you have claimed.

No insults, unless by insult you mean pointing out the glaring holes in your arguments. You still can't see how totally illogical it is to come up with a list of "responsible manufacturers", and then when it turns out they also sell plug-ins, which you claim are ineffective and dangerous, to say these "responsible manufacturers", only sell them to make a buck.
PS: If you keep grouping everyone together that doesn't agree with you, pretty soon that group will include everyone else but you in this discussion, as well as the IEEE, NIST, etc. At least we are all in good company :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
N8N wrote:

Because w_ is evangelical in his belief in earthing, he uses google-groups to search for "surge" to spread his religious tract. In the last month he has appeared in 3 treads on this newsgroup because someone mentioned "surge". He does the same to other newsgroups.
Maybe if everyone used a creative spelling of "sugre"....
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.