Surge Protector for Friederich 24k btu Wall A/C Unit - Is it okay to use?

[trader4]

On Nov 13, 3:29 am, w_tom wrote:

More absurdity. These numbers are off by an order of magnitude from reality, just like most of the rest of your arguments.

Yes, keep posting pics of the handful of scary pictures from the hundreds of millions of surge protectors in use. I can post pics of car wrecks. Does that mean that all cars are inherently unsafe and you should not own one?

How about people living in a rental home? Or living in an apartment building? Or a co-op? Where they can't put a whole house protector in? According to you, what should they do? Answer that one please.

Bud already answered that one for you, pointing out that there are no such numeric specs provided for the whole house surge suppressors either, and that clearly doesn't bother you.

No, the 15ft elephant is that both the NIST and IEEE discuss home surge protection, talk at length about plug-ins, say they can be used effectively and safely and you continue to ignore it.

Here's the IEEE:

"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating and absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work better than either one alone."

Again, making things up. Never said any such thing. I only said that it makes no sense that you keep talking about the surge protection contained in appliances/electronic gear and claim it is effective. That built-in protection is very similar in concept and works under the same limitations as a plug-in, ie no close by earth ground. Or do your appliances come with an earth ground?

He even denies standards

Again, another blatant lie. Never denied any such thing.

So, I guess the IEEE and NIST recommendations were written and reviewed by irresponsible engineers. Let's take a look at the irresponsible, unqualified engineers that wrote the IEEE document that says plug-ins work. I've posted the authors credentials below. Hmmm, one of them is Chief Engineer at Cutler-Hammer. Another was manager of lightning protector development at Bell Labs. You keep spewing about how companies that make whole house suppressors and the phone company know so much more about surge protection than anyone else. And these engineers talk at length about using plug-ins, show scenarios using them, and say:

"The hard-wired protectors will have a higher surge-current rating and absorb most of the surge, but may not have a low enough limiting voltage to protect the equipment. Both protectors together work better than either one alone."

Richard L. Cohen (Editor, Author) is a Consultant for lightning and surge protection. He was Vice President of Engineering at Panamax, Incorporated. Prior to joining Panamax, he was the manager for lightning protector development at Bell Laboratories. He started and was Chair of the IEEE Surge Protection Device Working Group 3.6.10, for multi-port surge protector standards, and is a member of the UL Standards Technical Panels for low-voltage AC protectors and lightning protection systems. Dr. Cohen is a Senior Member of the IEEE, and a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He holds a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Physics, and has seven patents, with four more applications pending. He has authored over 200 research papers and reviews. Doug Dorr (Author) is Director of Technology Development at EPRI Solutions, Inc. He has been involved in power quality research and surge protective device testing for the past 14 years. He is the Vice Chair of the IEEE Surge Protective Devices Main Committee and also Chair of the Low-Voltage AC Surge Protective Device Working Group. Mr. Dorr has been involved in development of more than a dozen standards and currently chairs the 2005 revision to the IEEE Emerald Book, an "IEEE Recommended Practice on Power and Grounding Electronic Equipment". He is a Senior Member of the IEEE, and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering, with electrical concentration, from the Indiana Institute of Technology in Fort Wayne, Indiana

James Funke (Associate Editor, Author) is Chief Engineer of Eaton's Cutler-Hammer business unit. He was previously Chief Engineer for Tycor International. He has specialized in surge protection research throughout his career. He is Chair of the IEC SC37A Technical Advisory Group reporting to the Standards Council of Canada. He is also the Chair of the CSA committee writing safety standards for SPDs, and actively participates on Surge Protection committees with NEMA and UL. Mr. Funke is contributing to several IEEE SPD Committee working groups on surge protection, and has received two Working Group awards for contributions to surge protection standards. He holds seven surge protection patents, with three more applications pending. He is an IEEE Senior Member and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1988) and a Masters of Business Administration (2004). Chuck Jensen (Author) is Senior Engineer with Duke Power Company. He serves as a Power Quality Specialist, providing consulting engineering services to customers of the utility, and specifies and designs surge protection systems. He is a Member of the IEEE, serving on several IEEE SPD Committee working groups. Mr. Jensen also serves on the UL Standards Technical Panel for Surge Protective Devices, STP

1449, and is a Registered Professional Engineer in the states of North Carolina and South Carolina. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1984). S. Frank Waterer (Author) is a Staff Engineer at Schneider Electric. He provides consulting engineering services to commercial and industrial customers about power distribution systems, power equipment applications, grounding systems, protective relaying, ground fault protection, and surge protection. He is a Member of IEEE and is the Secretary of IEEE/SPDC. Mr. Waterer is a member of numerous IEEE, UL, NEMA, and ANSI working groups and technical committees relating to grounding and surge protection. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering (1980).

I'm sure you took whatever EE Times had to say completely out of context or made things up, just like you do here, claiming I said things that I never did. But, I think it is quite amusing that you would resort to EE Times, which is basicly a newspaper, while dismissing the 15ft elephant documents from IEEE, NIST, etc.

Another lie. Never said any such thing.

Meanwhile effective protection from direct lightning strikes

Another lie, didn't state that either.

The plug-in

Another lie, I never even used the term indirect strike.

Now, after all the disparaging crap you've spewed, this one is real special. But homeowners can decide who's advice is right and do what they want after they read the NIST and IEEE recommendations:

Do what every responsible

Another lie.

Every responsible source cites earthing as

Again, you need to look at the whole picture. No where in any of the above does it say that plug-ins don't provide any protection or can't be used as part of a home protection strategy. Nor does it say they are a fire hazhard. The balanced view for the homeowner regarding surge protection is provided by highly credible engineers from IEEE and NIST.

There is one curious note about the last paragraph though. You dis- proved another one of your rants that hasn;t surfaced for a while. You've ranted on in the past about how if there is any lightning damage it's a human fault, because a properly designed system offers

100% protection. Clearly the last source refutes that.

[bud--]

The same drivel, lies, and mischaracterization of what the IEEE and NIST guides say. w_ still can?t see the elephant.

And the same religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.

Still missing - link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still only w_?s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Why can?t you find any links w_?

Doesn?t need a protector? The IEEE guide says ?there is no requirement to limit the voltage developed between the core and the sheath. .... The only voltage limit is the breakdown of the F connectors, typically ~2?4 kV.? And "there is obviously the possibility of damage to TV tuners and cable modems from the very high voltages that can be developed, especially from nearby lightning." A plug-in suppressor will limit the voltage from core to shield.

As usual w_ is at odds with the IEEE guide.

Still no answers to simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device.

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list ?each type of surge?? ? What are w_?s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge? Why no answers to simple questions w_?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

[w_tom]

A problem was not shown in 1 million pictures. The NC Fire Marshall even describes why some fires occurred. To trader4, that proves the threat does not exist. Another Trader4 post chock full of denial reasoning twisted into factual proof. Bud posted his usual diatribe of half truths? A Bud post is also factual proof? Why does trader4 use a Bud claim as proof? Oh. Otherwise trader4 must learn technology? Trader4 even claims exploding MOVs provide safe protection. Manufacturers say otherwise. Trader4 - why did you know without first learning from manufacturer datasheets? Or am I assuming you can comprehend technical numbers?

Trader4 posts resumes. That proves people recommend protectors without earth ground? At least one of his 'experts' state that protectors must be earthed to provide effective protection. Why did trader4 forget to quote that part? Trader4 makes claims by posting half facts. He has a big resume. Therefore he must say protectors don't need earthing?

Examples from virtually every high reliability facility demonstrate what the effective protector does - shunt, connect, clamp, divert a destructive surge to earth. Manufacturers with far more responsible names make effective 'whole house' protector. Why? More facts that trader4 must ignore. Where is energy dissipated? Trader4 believes a silly little one inch part will absorb all surge energy? Without earthing, that surge energy is magically eliminated? Or too much energy gets dissipated in grossly undersized plug-in protectors; sometimes even creates 'scary pictures'. But trader4 says that 'scary picture' problem does not exist because not enough pictures were provided. So surge energy must magically disappear. Trader4 says so. It must be true. Trader4 must ignore.

Quotes the NIST and IEEE say protectors must be earthed. Both state surge energy must be dissipated in earth. How do trader4 and Bud get around this? They just ignore the parts they don't like. It is called denial. Simply ignore facts such as the essential need for earthing. It is called propaganda - rationalization by half facts. Trader4 just ignores.

Bud stopped quoting another favorite source because that source also said plug-in (point of use) protectors can even be destructive to adjacent appliances. How curious. Same was demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8. Matzloff's statement of fact was so fundamental as to be his first conclusion:

Manufacturer specifications claim protection as trader4 and Bud stated? Oh. Neither could provide one single manufacture spec number. Why no numbers? Plug-in protector manufacturers do not claim protection from the typically destructive surge. Why would they claim protection that does not exist? Best is to say nothing - ignore. No protection specs is trader4 proof that protection exists. How simple. Manufacturer specification will not even list the many types of surges - define no protection. That means protection must exist? Since those numbers do not exist, then protection must exist? Trader4 and Bud reasoning.

Why would the manufacturer claim protection? A $3 power strip with some fancy paint and a few $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $150. Why would the manufacturer risk such obscene profits with honesty? Since the fanatical trader4 *automatically knows* by selectively ignoring facts, then why confuse myths with numeric specs? Trader4 - where is surge energy dissipated when the protector has no dedicated earthing? Why does an EE Times report on electronics protection not discuss protectors; only discuss earthing? Where must surge energy get dissipated? Crickets.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Effective protection means surges are earthed before entering the building. Effective protection means a surge will not overwhelm protection already inside the appliance. Effective protection grounds a surge so that energy is dissipated harmlessly in earth; not 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Responsible companies have well earned reputations AND make protectors with that 'all so critical' earthing connection. Effective 'whole house' protectors cost about $1 per protected appliance AND will protect the most critical electronic devices such as GFCIs, smoke detectors, and furnace. Many of those responsible manufacturer were listed previously. Protection will only be as effective as its earthing.

Some homes - especially those with two wire wall receptacles - must have breaker box earthing upgraded to post 1990 code requirements. No wiring changes are made inside the home. Surges earthed by one 'whole house' protector and 'upgraded earthing' means effective protection - without rewiring the entire house, without 'scary pictures', and without 8000 volts destructively through household appliances.

How many millions of 'scary pictures' and how many thousands of professional citations does trader4 need to admit a protector is only as effective as its earth ground? trader4 ignores what he can't understand - even when multiple IEEE Standards are quite blunt. Eathing is where surge energy is dissipated. No earth ground means no effective protection.

[bud--]

w_?s own hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

None of w_?s links says there is a problem with listed surge suppressors manufactured after 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

The usual lie. w_ likes to misconstrue the views of Martzloff in this paper.

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in suppressors are effective.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what Martzloff says about them.

w_ just keeps posting the same drivel which has been debunked.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are.

Still missing, as always. a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still only w_?s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Why should anyone believe your ravings w_?

And still no answers to simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device.

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list ?each type of surge??

- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10. ? What are w_?s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge? Why no answers to simple questions w_? Trader and I take apart w__'s arguments, but poor w_ can't respond to what technical sources really say.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

[w_tom]

Bud routinely lies. In the early 1980s, fire was a common threat with plug-in protectors as even demosntrated by articles in PC Magazine in two years. Then Underwriter's Laboratories created a standard to reduce that threat in 1987 - not 1996. Bud would have you believe those 'scary pictures' are protectors without the safety backup. Bud would have you believe those 'scary pictures' are protectors built before 1987. He will say any half truth to protect profits. Profits - not protection - are the purpose of plug-in protectors.

Bud still will not post manufacturer numeric specs that list each type of surge and protection from that surge. He cannot. Plug-in protectors without earthing cannot protect from a surge that typically damages appliances. No spec numbers exist because the protector is primarily for profits; not protection. No wonder grossly undersized plug-in protectors may even create those 'scary pictures'. A properly sized 'whole house' protector earths direct lightning strikes and remains functional. That is what every protector must do - remain functional so that the human does not even know a surge existed. Oh. That will not promote sales?

UL1449 is the safety backup. A grossly undersized protector depends on its backup system - just like Challenger was safe because primary o- rings were burning through but backup (secondary) o-rings were always stopping the explosion. Oh. Grossly undersized protectors are safe because the back-up system usually works? Not always as even demonstrated by that recent apartment building fire in Boston. As demonstrated by the NC Fire Marshall.

BTW, a protector can completely fail during UL1449 testing and still be approved. UL does not care whether the protecctor works. UL only cares about that spark and fire threat to humans. Making the protector disconnect during a surge faster means the protector can be more undersized - and get a UL1449 approval. Grossly undersized protectors can completely fail during UL testing and be approved. UL1449 says nothing about effective protection. UL1449 was created to

1987 to reduce the frequency of those 'scary pictures' - a problem that does not happen when the 'whole house' protector is properly sized.

If a protector was properly sized, then consumers would not say, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". Being undersized means a surge too small to overwhelm protection inside a computer, instead, destroys the protector. Failure (no protection) actually gets the naive to promote more protectors. More profits. With profits at risk, Bud must say anything to avoid reality in those 'scary pictures'.

: or What is the purpose of a plug-in protector? As responsible sources (quoted above) say, a protector must be earthed. No earth ground means no effective protection. But if the protector has no earth ground AND if the protector is grossly undersized, then a $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts can be sold for $25 or $150. Tremendous profit margin. Profits are the purpose of a protector without earthing.

Cable companies install the best surge protection and without a protector. Cable must be earthed where it enters the building. Earthing determines protection. No protector necessary to provide the best protection. Cable guys will even recommend removing a plug-in protector. That grossly overpriced protector 1)provides no protection (no earth ground), 2) degrades cable TV signal, and 3) may even earth a surge destructively through the TV or some other device (as demonstrated by the IEEE pamphlet on Page 42 Figure 8).

Why does that protector not even claim to provide protection in numeric specs? What does Bud routinely avoid discussing to promote sales? Earth ground. What has that earthing connection - makes $2000 or $3000 in plug-in protectors unnecessary? Don't ask Bud. He fears you might learn why earthing is critical for protection. Instead view the list of responsible manufactures who manufacturer one 'whole house' protector. Superior protection with proper earthing for about $1 per protected appliance. No 'scary pictures' of a sparking or burning protector on the rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers: just one 'whole house' protector.

How curious. That is the type of protector installed by every telco in every town. Why do they also not use plug-in protectors? Telcos learned over 100 years ago what is required for protection. Telcos also do not need a fire threat. Telcos also do not waste money on plug-in protectors.. Telcos routinely earth one 'whole house' protector AND locate a protector where it provides better protection - up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Better protector is not adjacen to electronics.

Bud still does not provide manufacture spec numbers for each type of surge. Better is to lie about UL1449 created in 1996. UL1449 was created in 1987. Distorting reality and attacking those who provide the whole story is Bud.

Bud will reply again. He must keep posting; get the last word. Profits are at risk if you learn why effective protectors have that earthing wire. No earth ground means no effective protection as every responsible engineering agency says.

Engineering? Where are those engineeing specs for a plug-in protectors? Why does Bud never provide those numbers? He cannot. Manufacturer cannot claim protection that does not exist. Bud fears you might learn about earth ground. Bud will even lie about UL1449 so that you will ignore those 'scary pictures'. One properly earth 'whole house' protector eliminated the 'scary picture' problem and actually does provide protection.

Even Martzloff says the plujg-in protector may even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance. How curious. That is the picture on Page 42 Figure 8 provided by Bud. But again, no earth ground means .... The surge earthed before entering the building means no surges seeking earth ground, destructively, via household appliances. Bud always knew that. But profits are at risk.

[salty]

OMG! This w_tom guy must be on drugs! Does ANYBODY think he's rational and correct?

EARLY 1980's! Wasn't that over 25 years ago?

Unlike Bud, w_tom never lies. He's telling you exactly what the voices in his head told him to tell you.

[w_tom]

Surge protectors have existed for 100 years. UL1449 is 20 years old. Even with UL1449 safety backup, some protectors create 'scary pictures' such as the recent building fire on Louis Prang Street in Boston. Did you read what the NC Fire Marshall reports? Did you read what IEEE Standards (Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book) all require for protection? Or do you know otherwise because plug-in protectors are sold in retail stores?

Radio Shack would not sell an ineffective product? Since Radio Shack profits were so low last year, suddenly Radio Shack is offering numerous Monster Cable products - which is Radio Shack's new credibility.

Do you have a problem with those 20 or 30 professional citations that all require earthing for protection? Or did you just ignore them? Where are reasons to justify doubt? Where are your numbers? Why do telcos, the US Air Force, Sun Microsystems, and other high reliability organizations not do what Bud recommends? Where damage cannot happen, routine is to not use plug-in protectors. High reliability facility needs effective protection. Just because plug-in protectors are sold in retail stores (at massive profit), does that means plug-in protectors are useful? Of course not.

So many gold painted cables now sold in Radio Shack for maybe $10 - when the same cable without gold sells for maybe $2. But it is sold in Radio Shack. It costs more. Therefore it must be better? Same reasoning justifies plug-in protectors. Monster Cable can sell products for significantly more money because so many consumers never ask "why?" It is more expensive; therefore it must be better? Does salty@dog first ask "why"? Or do you automatically know plug-in protectors are effective?

Monster also sells 'high tech' speaker wires for something approaching $20. Does that mean speakers with 'high tech' speaker wire sound better? Again, of course not.

Radio Shack sells Monster Cable plug-in protectors for $150. Does that mean the protector provides protection? Of course not. It's a Monster Cable product. Its purpose is profits just like gold painted cables and 'high tech' speaker wire for better sound. Amazing how many will buy 'high tech' speaker wire (not ask why) because the retail salesman says it is better.

However show me. Show me why salty@dog knows a plug-in protector does anything useful. It does not claim in specs. So many know it must work because it is sold in stores? What does that prove? That other "monster cable" type companies also know how to increase profits.

One manufacturer - SL Waber - making this same protector (EP63 Power Master) was more honest:

Do you know something their engineers don't? Then please post it. If you know a plug-in protector actually provides protection, then simply post spec numbers that lists protection from each type of surge. Show me. Where are your numbers?

Why would you spend $2000+ for plug-in protectors when one 'whole house' protector for tens (maybe 100) times less money will actually provide protection? Or do you just know only because plug-in protectors are sold in retail stores and recommended by a Best Buy salesman?

Listed were responsible companies that sell protectors with the essential earthing wire. Square D, Leviton, GE, etc. Are they scammers? Of course not. What does every engineering citation say? An effective protector will *divert* a surge to earth. Protectors from responsible companies have that dedicated earthing wire. Costs less. Lasts longer. Not located where fire danger is greatest.

Where is surge energy dissipated without damage? Please salty@dog, tell us where surge energy will be dissipated if the protector does not have that short earthing connection? Surge enegy is dissipated in earth. Do you really believe a silly little one inch component inside a protector will stop what three miles of sky could not? A protector without that earth ground must absorb what three miles of sky could not? These are the damning questions you should be asking even long before same type myths also promoted Saddam's WMDs.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Bud must post incessantly. Otherwise profits on protectors without earthing are at risk. What would happen if stores suddenly started selling only effective protectors? Well Radio Shack would no longer make how much profit selling a $3 power strip with some $0.10 protector parts for $150. If it actually claims surge protection, well, show me. Where are those numbers? Bud cannot. Show me the numbers.

[salty]

What a complete (and dangerous) BOZO!

OMG! This w_tom guy must be on drugs! Does ANYBODY think he's rational and correct?

EARLY 1980's! Wasn't that over 25 years ago?

Unlike Bud, w_tom never lies. He's telling you exactly what the voices in his head told him to tell you.

[bud--]

Yea, but that?s all poor w_ can find.

And that may be when he stopped thinking.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

w_ must post incessantly because the religious foundation of his world has been challenged. Just like arguing with a Jehovah?s Witness.

But of course no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still only w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. Do ya suppose no one agrees with you w_? Too bad w_, seems like no pigeons here.

And still no answers to really simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device.

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge? What?s the matter w_? The questions are simple?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

[w_tom]

salty@dog *knows* without any facts. He denies. That makes him knowledgeable? UL1449 addressed spark and fire issues in 1987 - long before the 1996 claim from Bud. In the late 1980s, backup protection (ie thermal fuses) were installed inside protectors to disconnect the protector circuit (leave the appliance connected; still exposed to surges). Still those 'scary picture' problems remain. No insulting by salty@dog or Bud changes reality. One would locate undersized devices on a rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers? Yes, one who knows like salty@dog - who knows so well using insults.

Responsible posters including fire departments provide these 'scary pictures':

: or In one, protector components are completely removed. Protector light still says the protector is OK? Where is the honesty?

Learn why plug-in protectors are recommended. salty@dog without a single technical fact knows it must work. After all, insults prove he is smarter.

Plug-in protectors are even sold alongside 'high tech' speaker wire. Both must be better because both are grossly overpriced? Who sells plug-in protectors? Monster Cable among others. Who sells one 'whole house' protector? Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Intermatic, GE, etc The latter sell a type of product even used by your telco in all their computer centers. Telco does not use Monster Cable products. Telcos do what salty@dog did not. Learn the technology.

According to salty@dog's insults, Monster Cable is more responsible than Siemens. That is how plug-in protectors are promoted.

Where are those numeric spec numbers from a plug-in protector manufacturer that claims protection? Even salty@dog cannot copy and post those numbers. Why? Manufacturer does not claim to provide that protection. But salty@dog does?

Who recommends plug-in protectors? Those who prove only by insults. Provided above are what virtually every high tech factility does for protection. They don't use plug-in protectors because surge protection is needed.

[trader4]

I can show you pictures of car wrecks too. Does that make all cars unsafe and something that is to be avoided? If they are so unsafe and the source of many fires, why is it that UL, who should know a hell of a lot more about this than you, continues to give them their OK?

Your delusions and false attributions continue to be amazing. Salty never even mentioned Monster Cable or Siemens. Only you did.

IEEE and NIST

There's proof for you without insult. BTW, we're still waiting for your source that says plug-ins are ineffective, can't be used as part of a protection strategy, are fire hazhards and unsafe.

Let's check the score on proof. Bud and I have:

IEEE NIST

And you have?

Zippo

Those who prove only by

[salty]

Holy Crap!

W_Tom the loon is having a complete meltdown. Maybe HE needs a surge suppressor!

[w_tom]

Run stop signs because those scary pictures did not happen. Or learn from others who installed a plug-in protector ... that does not even claim to provide protection. Or learn from both the IEEE and NIST who define what is required to make a protector effective ... earth ground. What happens when the protector is not properly earthed? Page 42 Figure 8 - 8000 volts earthed destructively through an adjacent TV. No wonder high reliability facilities don't use plug-in protectors; insted use a 'whole house' type protector.

Since science is not promoted on retail store shelves, then mockery and insults prove protectors that require tens or 100 times more money also must be better.

When does salty@dog, trader4, or Bud post manufacturer specs for that protection? Oh. No such numbers exist. No wonder telcos all over the world do not use plug-in protectors. Effective protection is required.

[bud--]

The same drivel repeated.

Where is your link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Where are your answers to really simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device.

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?

Why should anyone believe you?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

[w_tom]

Of course they work. They protect only from a type of surge that does not damage electronics. It may even earth another type of surge

8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. Page 42 Figure 8.

Meanwhile, a properly earthing 'whole house' protector eliminates all surges. The surge that does not enter the building will not find a path to earth 8000 volts destructively through that TV - with or without a plug-in protector.

Bud fears you might not spend $25 or $150 on a three dollar power strip with some $0.10 parts. Learning why effective protectors have that 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection would harm profits. One 'whole house' protectors ... or $2000 or $3000 in plug-in protectors that don't even claim to provide protection. Bud claims the plug-in protector is complete protection. How? Where is the earthing wire required even in Bud's citations?

No earth ground means no effective protection. One 'whole house' protector properly earthed means the homeowner need not even know surges exist. But then profits would be at risk. So Bud replies incessantly. Half truths and deceit are necessary to protect obscene profit margins.

Ask Bud. Where are the spec numbers for a plug-in protection that claim protection from each type of surge? He must post anything to avoid that question. Why? Plug-in protectors don't even claim that protection. So Bud never provides spec numbers.

[bud--]

And the same drivel repeated.

No link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

No answers to really simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device.

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?

Why should anyone believe you?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

[w_tom]

A plug-in protector promoter only had to provide manufacturer spec numbers that list each type of surge and protection from that surge. He cannot do that because - as even his NIST and IEEE citations state

- the protector needs that short connection to earth ground. Since it has no dedicated earthing wire, then better is not answer the question

- provide no specs. That is how myths become lies.

How curious, after being asked maybe 300 times for spec numbers, the promoter of half truths still provides nothing. He cannot. Every responsible source says a protector works by earthing. *Diverting* a surge to earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So a troll goes everywhere challenging reality and lying to others. Profits are at risk. Bud must post myths and personal attacks incessantly.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as numerous IEEE Standards, et al, state - bluntly.

[salty]

Bud is correct, and you were BORN wrong.

I hope nobody is foolish enough to follow your advice on anything electrical. You have given advice over the years that could have easily killed someone or burned their house down. No, I'm not going to spend an hour retelling that old news.

Now, respond as you always do with another moronic tirade about how I didn't provide any numbers.

For anyone who follows w_tom's advice, here is the only number you will need:

911

[bud--]

Ho-hum. The ?old political trick? repetition #29.

Lacking valid technical arguments poor w_ has to invent issues. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N. That covers all surge modes.

w_?s favored SquareD service panel suppressors do not list ?each type of surge?.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

But still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

And still no answers to really simple questions:

- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?

- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device.

- Why don't favored SquareD service panel suppressors list "each type of surge"?

- Where is the link to a 75,000A 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.

- What are w_'s connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?

- Why don?t favored SquareD service panel suppressors list ?each type of surge??

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.