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

Page 2 of 2  


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'. http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 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 or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 14, 2:11 pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 15, 6:39 am, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

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': http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?pageU6&parentU4 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 or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FIRES.doc http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312 /
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 15, 4:37 pm, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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

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.
--
bud--

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

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

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.
--
bud--

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

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

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

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 dont 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.
--
bud--


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

<snip remainder of insane ranting and falsehoods>
Holy Crap!
W_Tom the loon is having a complete meltdown. Maybe HE needs a surge suppressor!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:

Yea, but thats 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 Jehovahs 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? Whats 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.
--
bud--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
w_tom wrote:
The same drivel, lies, and mischaracterization of what the IEEE and NIST guides say. w_ still cant 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 cant you find any links w_?

Doesnt 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 ~24 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 dont 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.
--
bud--

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

Misquotes treader4 (a favorite w_ tactic).
My comments are in addition to trader4's response to w_s dogma.

The lie repeated. See my other post.

Why dont w_s favored SquareD service panel suppressors list each type of surge? Because it is bullcrap.
How does a common mode surge (H and N lift from ground) get past the N-G bond in all US services? Never explained.

The lie repeated #2.

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.
And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are effective. This pamphlet was peer-reviewed by the IEEE and was written to make the information developed by the [IEEE] more accessible to electricians, architects, technicians, and electrical engineers who were not protection specialists.

The lie repeated #3.

The lie repeated #4.

Repeating: Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in both guides.

Geez trader - youre sure stupid.

LOL.
The impedance of the branch circuit greatly limits the current, and thus energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. With high ratings, that are readily available, a plug-in suppressor will likely never fail. That is why warrantees can be offered on protected equipment.
The IEEE guide describes at length how the protected load can be connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected if the MOVs fail and are disconnected. Or the protected load can be connected across the incoming line. In the first case, the protected load is protected if the MOVs fail. (This cant be done with a service panel suppressor.)

A problem for w_ because he only buys Monster products.

The other lie repeated.

Question not answered - repeating: One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.

Repeating: The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. In the example in the IEEE guide it is through the ground wire from the cable entry block to the power service (too long).

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

The lie repeated #5

Provide a link. 15,000V will arc across about 0.75 inches.

w_ provides only one thing. Denial.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #2.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association with surge protectors is I have some.
With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
By the way w_, what are your connections to surge protection equipment manufacturers? Specifically ZeroSurge?

w_tom cant figure out what the IEEE or NIST guides say.

Who should we believe? w_, who has NO sources that say plug-in suppressors do not work. Or trader4 who cites the IEEE and NIST guides. Gee - thats a tough one.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #3.

The lie repeated #6.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why no sources w_??? Doesnt anyone agree with you??
Never any answers: - 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.
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 a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--

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

For poor w_, all plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and all service panel suppressors have mega ratings. Plugin suppressors with very high ratings are readily available .

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. 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 (not a "single point ground"). 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 lie about what the IEEE guide says about them.

The lie repeated.

If you dont have technical arguments, misquote someone.
Repeating: The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING .... Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing).

Only w_ talks about stopping or absorbing. If only he could think...

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.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". and: "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, 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."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to lie about what the NIST guide says about them.

Repeating: The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.

The grossly undersized red herring again.

You may not have noticed, but airplanes drag an earthing chain.

What does the NIST guide say? Repeating: "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, 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."

And the final required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Only w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
And never any answers: - 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?
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. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--

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

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId $54736&cp=&sr=1&origkw=surge+protector&kw=surge+protector&parentPage=search It'd help to see the specifications for the newer units with the "surge protection", because I'm having a hard time understanding why they'd bother, and am wondering whether it's GFCI or something else other than "surge protection" that they have.
Motors are generally immune to surges/spikes. High load motors like A/Cs won't like deep brownouts, but a surge protector can't protect against that. To protect a device against brownouts, you have to turn _off_ the power (or the motor) when the voltage drops too far. That's not what surge suppressors do, and turning off the motor has to be deeply integrated into the A/C.
Tho, I suppose, if your A/Cs have lots of semi-conductor electronics in them (timers, clocks, etc), it might help. Most A/Cs have very little electronics in them - just a thermostat controlling a switch, set point stuff (mostly mechanical), and the compressor motor itself.
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.