Bud-- wrote:
The issue is ONLY whether plug-in surge suppressors are effective.

If plug-in protectors were so effective, then why do responsible
sources and responsible manufacturers instead discuss earthing and
'whole house' protection? Why then from that paper and from an author
that discusses SRE; his own papers discuss superior and properly
earthed 'whole house' solutions AND note that adjacent plug-in (point
of use) protectors may even contribute to damage?

The issue is effective protection. Two types of protectors exist.
Series mode and shunt mode. Series mode protect by stopping, blocking,
or absorbing surges. Series mode protectors are not discussed here.
Shunt mode protectors work by intercepting or diverting - words right
out of the IEEE green book. SRE is a shunt mode protector.

So where is its earth ground connection? What does multiport SRE
divert (shunt) to? Into adjacent electronics? What kind of protection
is that? From generations of experience and without being part of a
complete room solution: ineffective.

Somehow a multiport, SRE, plug-in (shunt mode) protector will work by
only doing equipotential; by not doing conductivity? Equipotential
does not work in a room that does not bring every one of six ports to a
single point? Defined in that paper is one port that violates SRE
effectiveness: enclosure port.

And finally, one will spend tens of times more money per protected
appliance for this shunt mode protector that does not shunt to earth?
More money for inferior protection that is even too close to
transistors? These are damning questions demonstrated by reams of
citations (IEEE papers, experience from industry professionals, lessons
learned even on the Empire State Building, those so highly regarded
application notes from Polyphaser, etc) on effective protection.

The bottom line fact remains: a protector is only as effective as
its earth ground. A shunt mode protector must make the short (low
impedance) connection to a single point earth ground. This solution
provides both conductivity and equipotential; both necessary because
neither is sufficient. An SRE solution (using a shunt mode protector)
inside a room not specifically constructed to provide equipotential
just does not work. And so even those authors of the SRE paper move on
to discuss a 'best' 'whole house' solution.

Reasons why the SRE is not effective:1) shunt mode protector that
does not provide conductivity to earth, 2) attempts equipotential in a
room that violates that principle, 3) defined in a paper that then
defines a 'whole house' solution as better, 4) costs tens of time more
money, 5) would already be inside an appliance if so effective, 6)
attempts to intercept or divert a surge too close to transistors - a
problem identified and solved in transmitter tower sites and telephone
switching centers so many generations ago, 7) and completely ignores
what has long been demonstrated the most essential component in an
effective protection 'system': single point earth ground.

Somehow this SRE would have eliminated what killed the cow? Yes,
only if the room was part of the SRE solution - a faraday cage. Rooms
just are not constructed to make that possible. Shunt mode protector
that is effective must provide both equipotential and conductivity -
because neither alone is sufficient.

How does electronics get best protected - and at least cost?
Building is constructed with an Ufer ground. Best protection starts
with architect's prints. We still don't build as if transistors exist.
So we earth as best we can after not having done a superior solution
up front. Protection 'system' is only as effective as its earth
ground. Plug-in protector manufacturers hope we never learn that fact.