In Bud's cited 1993 paper on 'surge reference equalizer' or
'multiport protector', Martzloff, et al defines a problem common in
most residences where traditional plug-in (point of use) protectors are
used:
Figure 2 shows such an arrangement, where the telephone
port of the Fax machine is assumed by the end-user to be
protected, thanks to the Network Interface Device (NID)
installed by the telephone company, and the power port is
also expected to be protected by the plug-in surge-protective
device installed by the surge conscious end-user. ...

IOW power strip protector simply creates one of many defined
transient problems that contribute to electronics damage:
A difference of voltage appears across the two equipment ports
during the surge event, in particular during the rise time. This
difference of voltage can cause an upset or hard failure if the
equipment has not been specifically designed for that stress.
Thus, separate, uncoordinated protection of each of the two
ports can still leave the equipment at risk.

Suggested by that 1993 paper is a multi-port protector - surge
reference equalizer- that only uses a principle called equipotential.
First, $20+ to protect only one appliance; without conductivity to
earth?

Second, defined are six ports that must be part of equipotential.
A multiport protector must provide equipotential for all ports at a
point inside the room. But as posted back in April - it does not
provide equipotential because some ports are not part of that
equalization technique. Where is concrete floor or linoleum tile
included as part of multiport protection? Where are baseboard heat,
air ducts, wall paint, or furniture included? That paper calls them
'enclosure ports'. Any one port not part of a multiport equalizer
means equipotential is compromised.

To have equipotential inside a room means the entire room must be
constructed to provide equipotential. Therefore we locate
equipotential where equipotential is easy to achieve.

And third, protection must provide both equipotential and a
conductive path to earth. Since neither equipotential nor conductivity
alone is sufficient, then a protection 'system' must do both. That
'point of use' protector provides all but no conductivity - no
effective earthing.

Not only is equipotential compromised in a room not constructed to
provide equipotential. Also the 'system' does not provide necessary
conductivity to earth. All this and $20 or $80 to ineffectively
protect one appliance? How is that effective?

Meanwhile his 1993 paper then moves on to describe another protective
solution:
High-current surges on the power system originating
outside of the user's premises, associated with
lightning or major power-system events, are best
diverted at the service entrance of the premises.
While such a protection is not mandated at present,
trends indicate growing interest in this type of surge
protection. Either the utility or the end-user may provide
a high energy surge arrester at the service entrance.

Described is a 'whole house' protector. Note how it is described:
... are best diverted at the service entrance of the premises.

'Best' protector recommended by Bud's 1993 paper costs about $1 per
protected electronics. It does provide equipotential to every room (by
making the equipotential point beneath the entire house rather than a
point inside one room). And it provides a best conductivity to earth.
Both requirements - equipotential and conductivity - are necessary for
a 'best' solution. Surge reference equalizer ... AND more ... that
is provided for a whole building rather than just for one appliance is
called 'whole house' protection. As that 1993 paper notes, part of
that 'whole house' system is already in telephone NID.

The same author later states in a 1994 paper:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Curiously, this interest in a 'whole house' solution coincided with
post 1990 National Electrical Code changes that require earthing an AC
mains breaker box and all other incoming utilities to a common point.
A common earthing point that must be adjacent - a short distance.
Although code is only for human safety, still, those changes make
'whole house' protection more effective and simpler to install. To
provide surge reference equalization - AND more.

What does not change? A protector - the protection 'system' - is
only as effective as its earth ground. A fundamental demonstrated by
IEEE papers cited in that previous April discussion.

The OP (jakdedert) suspects years of electronics damage due to
transients. His earthing system is defined as defective. Earthing
that violates principles of single point earth ground and post 1990
code. Provided were examples from a utility (cinergy.com), further
details in how to create single point earthing for that building, AND
how to connect each utility to that earthing. Connections either by
hard wire or by effective protectors that even cost less - 'whole
house' protectors. Conductors for earthing and those 'whole house'
protectors are even sold in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply
houses. A solution even recommended in Martzloff's 1993 paper and a
following 1994 IEEE paper. A solution that is routine in virtually
every telephone switching station, commercial broadcasting, emergency
response centers, and now in homes constructed to protect household
transistors.

Bud-- wrote:
This is exactly what a multiport plug-in point-of-use surge protective
device protects against. These are called Surge Reference Equalizers by
the IEEE. Another paper specifically about SREs is
http://www.eeel.nist.gov/817/817g/sp...les/SRE%20link. pdf
This paper is currently available from the NIST in a collection with a
forward by your good buddy François Martzloff (who was an author of this
paper).

I have provided links to an IEEE paper and and 2 NIST papers, all
current, that recommend plug in surge protectors. In previous threads
(and this one) I have not seen any links supporting your view. Its you
against the IEEE and NIST (and a lot of other people).