On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:32:20 -0500, bud-- wrote Re Re: Whole house phoneline surge protection:
So, given the above would a surge suppressor like this
Like any dictator, if Bud says the same lie repeatedly, then some will believe him. Since so many do, then those same people also beleived Saddam had WMDs. Many will blindly believe rather than also demand the 'whys'. Bud's own citations provides those whys: how a plug-in protector might work AND what happens when the 'whole house' protector was not installed. Page 42 Figure 8 - the surge is earthed
8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV by a plug-in protector. Bud does not dispute this. Bud cannot dispute Page 42 Figure 8. So Bud spins how plug-in protectors work. Yeph. Plug-in protectors also can earth surges - 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances. No problem. That power strip protector provided massive profits.Where is that manufacturer numeric spec that claims protection? Bud will not provide those numbers. No plug-in manufacturer claims to provide protection from the typically destructive surge. Even Page 42 Figure 8 shows why. Bud will post insult to avoid that reality because because NO PLUG-IN PROTECTOR CLAIMS SUCH PROTECTION. Bud is not promoting surge protection. Bud is promoting profit protection. Bud will not even admit who he is paid to promote. Honesty is not Bud. Posting insults is Bud.
As Bud admits, a protector can fail during the major surge test (the relevant test) and still get UL1449 approval. Yes, the protector must pass inspections and other trivial tests because it must still be the working protector when tested by a serious surge. When tested by a serious surge, the protector can completely fail - do zero surge protection - and still get UL1449 approval. Bud will even insult to avoid this reality.
Bud is a sales promoter - trained to twist words to confuse others. The protector can completely fail when tested by a serious surge and still be UL1449 approved. Why does Bud dispute this? Bud needs you to believe UL1449 defines an effective protector. UL1449 says it should not burn down the house - but it might.
Scary pictures are what happen to protectors that even meet UL1449 approval. UL1449 has existed since 28 Aug 1985. Bud would have you believe protectors in 2000 and 2007 did not have UL1449 approval. UL1449 is not a guarantee. UL1449 says a protector could be confronted by a major surge, completely fail (provide no protection), but did not spit flames. Bud will even insult to avoid reality of protectors so often located on a rug or in a pile of papers. These protectors met UL1449. In one citation, the NC Fire Marshal says why UL1449 approved protectors still create fires. Most every fire company has seen something equivalent. Bud - whose objective is to protect obscene profits - will say anything to disparage these scary pictures:
Another fact that Bud refuses to provide: a manufacturer spec for protection. Plug-in protector manufacturers do not claim protection that Bud hypes. Bud will never provide protection numbers because NO PLUG-IN PROTECTOR CLAIMS SUCH PROTECTION. Bud is not honest. Bud is a sales promoter who will not even admit who he promotes for.
Every Bud citation says why plug-in protector might work AND why plug- in protector can contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. Every Bud source and maybe 50 provided by this author state that earth provides that protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Plug-in protector don't claim such protection as every Bud citation states. And then are those scary pictures that most every fire company have seen and that only a sales promoter would deny. Profits are at risk.
Sure.
For your amusement the UL listings are: UL497A telephone surge protector UL1283 EMI filters UL1363 outlet strip UL1449 surge suppressor
For surge suppression the significant ones are UL497A and 1449. UL listing means the suppressor is at least above a floor (and can be way above).
As I have said previously, personally I like to have high Joule (or equivalent surge current) ratings, but I may go to extremes. The 2 that I am using have total device ratings of 1770 and 2600J. Both have connected equipment warrantees. They cost about $30.
What you use depends at least partly on the risk. Live in central Florida? Very short branch circuit wire to service panel?
At the risk of being repetitious - all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor. All external wires (cable, phone, ...) need to go through the suppressor.
Notice that the APC does not list each type of surge and protection from that surge. Francois Martzloff defined the problem in the first conclusion of his 1995 IEEE paper:
Bud will selectively quote sentences from that paper trying to dispel the bottom line. Without a dedicated connection to earth ground, that APC does not provide effective protection. Without that earthing connection, then where does surge energy get dissipated? Therefore APC cannot claim protection from each type surge in specifications.
UL numbers say nothing about effective protection. For example, UL1449. When the surge test occurs, a protector can completely fail - provide zero protection - and still get UL1449 approval. Why? UL says nothing about the appliance (or power strip) working. UL standards only address your safety. None of those UL specs state anything about protection. A UL1449 protector can completely fail during testing. But if it does not spit flame during that testing, then it can be UL registered.
Most every fire company has at one time seen this problem even with UL1449 approved protectors. Even a fire marshal describes why UL1449 approved protectors still create a fire hazard. Scary pictures:
Plug-in protector is for a type of surge made irrelevant by protection already inside computers.
. That is because "each type of surge" is nonsense. w_'s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD, for example, does not list "each type of surge". .
. w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." .
. Selectively quote? Poor w_ ignores what Martzloff clearly said about plug-in suppressors.
w_ tried to similarly mischaracterize the views of Martzloff coauthor Arshad Mansoor on alt.engineering.electrical and provoked a response from an electrical engineer: "I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL." .
. w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Since so many do, then those same people also
. w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the corresponding lack of supporting sources.
*Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_* that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.And still never seen - answers to embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"? ? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Each says the typically destructive surge must be earthed. Page 42 Figure 8 even shows how a protector too close to appliances and too far from earth ground can earth a surge *8000 volts destructively* through an adjacent TV. Bud calls that effective protection.
However if Bud=92s sales promoted protectors were effective, then Bud would provide manufacturer spec numbers that list each protection. Bud refuses to provide the only relevant numbers. No plug-in protector can claim to provide that protection. Every Bud citation says why. From Bud=92s NIST citation:
Protectors promoted by Bud are defined by the NIST as useless.
Nothing new here. Earthing protection has been a telco standard for over 100 years. Responsible facilities don't use Bud's 'easiest' solution. All put protectors as close as practicable to earth ground. All create a single point earth ground; what provides the surge protection. Reliable facilities don=92t use effective protection; not obscenely overprices products that Bud promotes.
Bud is not selling earth ground. Bud is promoting a $3 power strip with some ten cent parts for obscene profits: $25 or $150. The $10 grocery store protector also is his protector circuit. Admitting this would put profits at risk. Every Bud citation says why plug-in protectors are ineffective. Quoted above is the standard Bud myth. Bud refuses to provide any manufacturer spec numbers. Honesty is not Bud. Profits are at risk. Where is that manufacturer spec for protection? Does not exist.
Still never explained:
- 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"? ? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"?
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Even Bud's own IEEE and NIST citations state why plug-in protectors are "useless" (from the NIST) or can earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud could stop posting incessantly if he just provided a manufacturer spec number for surge protection. He refuses. Bud cannot provide technical specs when no plug-in manufacturer claims to provide protection. So Bud insults, posts incessantly, and makes irrelevant claims. But is a sale promoter for plug-in protectors. He must post anything to confuse reality. Bud even refuses to provide those plug-in protector specs. Bud cannot provide what no manufacturer will claim. No plug-in manufacturer claims any protection from the typically destructive surge. The effective protector has that earthing connection =96 diverts surges harmlessly in earth. Who said that? Bud=92s citation says completely different what Bud posts. But then profits are at risk. Honesty is not Bud. Posting insults is Bud.
. Provided and ignored, as usual.
w_ could stop posting incessantly if he just provided 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"? ? Why does the IEEE guide say (for long phone entrance ground) "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector"? Why don?t you ever answer questions w__?
And still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
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.