1. Home
  2. Home Repair
  3. Just had a thought about surge suppressors...
  4. Page 3

Just had a thought about surge suppressors...

Both Bud citations show what a plug-in protector can do. Since it has no earthing and is too close to appliances, the plug-in protector earthed that surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

The NIST is even blunter about Bud's protectors that don't have earthing:

Why did the plug-in protectors divert a surge 8000 volts destructively through the TV? NIST also explains what Bud's other citation shows on Page 42 Figure 8.

And again, Bud posts insults while never providing the only relevant fact. Protectors promoted by Bud do not even claim to provide that protection. Why does the professional sales promoter not provide numeric specifications for products he recommends? Again - no plug-in protector will even claim to provide that protection. Bud must post insults incessantly so that you will forget what he cannot post. A spec that claims protection.

Reply to
w_tom
Loading thread data ...

Maybe W_ would like to explain to us how it is that surge protection INSIDE an appliance is usefull in preventing damages from surges, yet a plug-in protector won't provide any protection. Both typically use similar devices, ie MOV's and operate under the same limitations, ie neither the appliance nor the plug-in has a short connection to earth ground, without which W_ claims no protection is possible.

Of course this has been asked of W_ before, with no answer, just more rants. And let me think. Which device would I rather have see a surge and first deal with it? The protection inside the $2000 HDTV or the one inside the $20 plug-in surge protector?

Reply to
trader4

If protection inside an appliance accomplishes what a plug-in protector does, then why waste so much money on a plug-in protector? Protection inside appliances assumes the surge will be earthed before entering a building. Otherwise internal appliance protection may be overwhelmed. The plug-in protector would do nothing. Worse, it may even provide paths bypassing appliance protection (if the 'whole house' protector is not installed). As demonstrated in previous examples, a surge was even earthed destructively through a network of powered off computers because plug-in protectors were used (without the essential =91whole house=92 protector).

A plug-in protector provides nothing useful; may even make appliance damage easier. But it sure is profitable. And the properly earthed 'whole house' protector is still required if or if not a plug-in protector is installed.

Should we spend tens or 100 times more money for the plug-in protectors - to only do what is already accomplished inside an appliance? Or earth one 'whole house' protector so that all household appliances are protected?

This answer was provided repeatedly. As stated by industry professionals, science papers, and generations of experience - even those who installed surge protection 100 years ago - a protector is only as effective as its earth ground. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector is essential so that protection inside all appliances is not overwhelmed. Plug-in protector provides nothing useful, does not even claim to provide that protection, AND can even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances.

So that plug-in protector does not contribute to appliance damage, earthing a 'whole house' protector is necessary. Once the 'whole house' protector is properly installed, then protection inside each appliance is not overwhelmed. Why would anyone spend tens or 100 times more money for plug-in protectors? Because myths so often replace simple science.

Reply to
w_tom

. Support for w_=92s claim - zero. People who agree with w_=92s claim - zero. People who disagree with w_=92s claim - numerous. .

. If the village idiot knew what ESD was - static discharge - he would know it was very short duration.

If the village idiot read his own sources he would know that the energy in the ESD tests was 0.011J max and the duration of the discharge is on the order of 100 nanoseconds. .

. w_ has no facts.

-- bud--

Reply to
bud--

Still never shown =96 that there is protection inside even a significant percentage of appliances.

Still never answered - trader=92s question above. .

. And the required religious mantra.

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing 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 guide say in that example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug=96in] protector"?

- Why does =93responsible=94 manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every appliance".

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

-- bud--

Reply to
bud--

. The lie repeated. Along with the other lies.

But, what a surprise, still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Just w_=92s religious dogma.

And still never answered - embarrassing 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 guide say in that example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug=96in] protector"?

- Why does =93responsible=94 manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every appliance".

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

-- bud--

Reply to
bud--

Posted repeatedly were many internal protections found in all appliances. But when selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for $25 or $150, then Bud's job is to post myths, lies and insults. Protect those sales.

No plug-in protector manufacturer claims protectin in numeric specs. If those spec numbers existed, Bud would have provided them. Bud makes numerous accusastions to avoid the only relevent fact. Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide protection that Bud can only imply with myths, lies, and insults. Bud wll never provide a single plug-in protectors spec that claim protection. He cannot. So Bud will even post insults. No earth ground in plug-in protectors means no effective protecxtion.

As any industry professional has known even 100 years ago. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Telcos do not waste money on Bud's plug-in protectors. Telcos need protectors that are effective. Your telco switching computer, connected to overwhead wires alll over town, must never be damaged by maybe 100 surges during every thunderstorm. Everywhere, your telco earths 'whole house' type protectors for effective protection.

Reply to
w_tom

. Posted *never* were internal protections found in all appliances. .

. The lie repeated. Specs were posted in this thread (and numerous others). .

. w__=92s religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing 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 guide say in that example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug=96in] protector"?

- Why does =93responsible=94 manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every appliance".

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

-- bud--

Reply to
bud--

And again Bud posts the same half truths AND still never posts a single plug-in protector spec that claims protection. Even plug-in protector manufacturers do not claim protection from the typically destructive surge. So again, Bud posts the same half truths and false accusations.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where surge energy must be harmlessly absorbed. No earth ground means no effective protection - which is why Bud cannot provide any plug-in spec that claims protection. Bud's job is to say anything to protect those obscenely profitable sales.

Reply to
w_tom

W_Tom is a mental case. Despite endless requests, by many people, he has been unable to cite ANY reliable sources for his idiotic theories. Bud, meanwhile has repeatedly posted links to the government agenices and safety organizations that have published the peer reviewed and accepted information on this subject. Bud has also repeatedly asked w-Tom for ANY links to cites for his absurd claims, and he ignores those requests. He has to, because NO reputable established source agrees with him.

Debating him point by point is useless, as he is not a rational person. He's a rambling, babbling, idiot.

You have been warned. Some of his advice is just plain wrong, and other parts, if followed could cause injury or death to you or your loved ones.

Reply to
salty

Does salty@dog only post insults? Does he ever demonstrate technical knowledge? Does he ever post something relevant to the topic or helpful for an OP?

The subject is "thought about surge suppressors". Where does he provide useful insight or even address the topic - here or in other discussions?

Reply to
w_tom

As I pointed out very explicitly, w_tom is a mental case and there is no reason for a sane person to engage him in a point by point discussion. Just be warned that his advice has at times gone beyond inaccurate all the way to DEADLY if followed.

End of Story.

Reply to
salty

Why snipped-for-privacy@dog.com will not engage in a "point by point discussion". Also appreciate why snipped-for-privacy@dog.com routinely attacks other posters. This messenger exposed snipped-for-privacy@dog.com for posting myths. snipped-for-privacy@dog.com will not post 'point by point'. Last time he did that, then obvious was he did not even know how electricity worked. Somehow snipped-for-privacy@dog.com even forgot what was taught to 2nd grade science students.

Does snipped-for-privacy@dog.com ever demonstrate technical knowledge? Does he post something relevant to this topic or helpful for an OP? Of course not. He only posts what he understands - disparaging remarks.

The subject is "thought about surge suppressors". Where does he provide useful insight or even address the topic? He cannot and he will not. He is still smarting from being identified as technically naive.

Provided by others are answers to simple questions such as 'how does that plug-in protector stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not stop?' Or 'where does all that energy get dissipated harmlessly?' Or 'where is that manufacturer spec that claims to provide protection?' Where does snipped-for-privacy@dog.com provide such answers? He only posts what he understands - insults and personal attacks.

Reply to
w_tom

Q.E.D.

Reply to
salty

Why won=92t w_ answer 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 guide say in that example "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug=96in] protector"?

- Why does =93responsible=94 manufacturer SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

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

- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every appliance".

Why can=92t w_ find anyone, even on the lunatic-filled internet, that agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

-- bud--

Reply to
bud--

HomeOwnersHub website 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.