On Mar 30, 4:02 am, Bud-- wrote:
Repeating:
"You have to be really stupid to say the IEEE would release a guide to
the general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards. And the
IEEE guide, pdf page 4, makes it absolutely clear that the IEEE guide
has been peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE. But w_ must
deny the obvious to protect his religious belief in earthing."
And multiport plug-in surge suppressors are a surge protection device in
the IEEE Emerald Book "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment".
Bud's job is to promote plug-in protectors. Therefore he will lie
as necessary to sell more plug-in protectors. Those plug-in
protectors don't even claim to provide protection from surges that
typically do damage. Anyone can look at those numeric specs. No such
claim because it does not provide that protection. Bud alsol never
provides a spec sheet that says so. Meanwhile, his own citations
describe how plug-in protectors will harm adjacent appliances.
IEEE does not recommend what Bud intentionally perverts. IEEE
papers warn how his protectors can create damage. IEEE Standards make
recommendations. Bud hopes you believe otherwise. Bud will not even
requote those Standards because Standards are quite clear; why plug-in
protectors are not effective protection:
IEEE Red Book (Std 141) recommends protection:
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.
Bud's products have no dedicated earthing connection - which is
required for effective protectors. So Bud must deny this IEEE
requirement - earthing.
No earth ground means no effective protection - as even IEEE notes.
Bud's protectors are not used where damage must not occur - telephone
switching stations, radio and TV stations, 911 emergency response
centers, etc. Why do they not use plug-in protectors? They do not
waste money on protectors that can even damage adjacent electronics.
Bud's own citation Figure 8 shows how ungrounded protectors even
destroys a TV. Page 42 (paper page 33) shows TVs being destroyed
because of ineffective and so profitable plug-in protector. A kid
attaches an Xbox to the TV. Just another path that an adjacent
protector may use to damage TVs. The Xbox and TV complete a
destructive path to earth - same problem shown in Figure 8.
Plug-in protectors include a 'disconnect the protector from AC
mains' circuit so that scary pictures do not occur. Disconnect the
protector; leave appliance to fend for itself. No problem. Real
protection was already inside the appliance anyway. Adjacent
protector was there to enrich the manufacturer.
Some claim protectors are 'one shot' devices or 'fuses'. Why? If
plug-in protection stayed connected, then these scary pictures
result-
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm
Best to disconnect - blow out fast - so that fire is not an option and
so that only appliance internal protecton does all the work. Then the
naive will spend more money on 'magic boxes'. Profits - not
protection - is the objetive..
Numerous professional sites describe what is necessary for
protection - earth ground. One whole day of reading from
professionals say what Bud hopes you never learn are listed in in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit
needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA
Bud claims his protector will stop what three miles of sky could
not. He will post incessantly to deny reality - deny those scary
pictures.
Bud must deny what his own citations and authors say hoping you will
not understand their technical points. Martzloff, who Bud cites
often, even says plug-in protectors can contribute to appliance damage
- a 1994 Martzloff 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.
Martzloff states in 1993 what is absolutely necessary for
protection:
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.
High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
service entrance of the premises.
Bud is paid to promote myths and spins. Bud needs you to deny what
provided protection - earthing. A protector either is a connecting
device to earth ground OR is a scam that enriches Bud. Oh. He
forgets to mention that part also? Telling half truths is how he
operates. As a troll, he follows me everywhere 'cut and pasting' the
company lies. He routinely will not quote what the IEEE demands for
protection - earth ground. Spinning and lying is Bud's job.
Bud even misrepresents IEEE papers that warn about damage created by
a plug-in protector. Bud hopes you don't understand how his
protectors put those TVs at 8000 volts - destroy the TVs. Why? Surge
found earth ground destructly via TVs because surge was not earthed
when entering a building - no 'whole house' protector. Without a
'less than 10 foot' connection to earth: No earth ground means no
effective protection.