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."
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.