On Mar 31, 7:34 am, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
What is the problem here? The accepted non-commercial references you
have made don't seem to conflict with what Bud has written. They point out
a different limited problem.

Bud's NIST pamphlet page 6 states how protection is provided:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

You tell me. Bud says plug-in protectors have no earth ground AND
need no earthing because they 'clamp'. Yes they clamp - which is
also called shunt, connect, bond, or divert. Divert to what? NIST,
IEEE, Martzloff, etc say earth ground. So Bud plays fast and loose
with terms to confuse all. How to divert a surge to earth ground?
Clamp, bond, shunt, connect - all mean same. Bud denies this to spin
confusion.

A surge diverted / clamped / shunted to another wire is simply
another path, destructively, through same adjacent appliance.
Curious. We engineers found same when damage was autopsied. We
traced a surge through a plug-in protector, through destroyed computer
ICs, and into earth. Why was computer damaged? Protector had no
dedicated earthing. Surge was clamped / shunted to earth
destructively through computer.

Martzloff warns of the same damage "even when or perhaps
because" of plug-in protectors. Quoted are Martzloff's own words.

As Bud admits, his protectors have no dedicated earthing wire. As
Bud's own citations and authors repeatedly state - earthing provides
protection. You don't see a problem?

Return to another Bud citation from Mike Holt page 42 Figure 8.
How does that TV end up at 8000 volts? A plug-in protector did not
have sufficient earthing. Ground wire was too long - too much
impedance. Therefore TV is damaged by 8000 volts. As Martzloff
notes, an adjacent protector can even contribute to appliance damage.
We engineers knew that a decade earlier - because we saw it by doing
an engineering analysis.

Bud plays fast and loose with reality to promote plug-in
protectors. Where is the problem? Bud's own citation says earthing
is required. IEEE Standards repeatedly state earthing is required for
protection. And Bud admits his own protectors do not earth.

Anything that a plug-in protector might accomplish is already
inside the appliance. But what a protector must do is shunt /
divert / bond / clamp the destructive type of surge to earth ground.
Bud even admits his plug-in protectors do not connect to earth.
Therefore Bud's recommendations are in direct conflict with his own
citations - and the IEEE, and industry professionals, and what has
been historically installed for protection even 70 years ago ... The
conflict is obvious. Bud lies to promote his defective product line.
Meanwhile no earth ground means no effective protection.

Which is it? Earthing is not required as Bud promotes? Or earthing
provides the protection as NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, Polyphaser, ARRL, US
Air Force, US Army, all telephone companies, commercial radio and TV
stations, .... all demand earthing for protection. Why? Protector
is only as good as earth ground - which Bud must deny for self serving
reasons.