On Apr 10, 11:27 am, "w_tom" wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:09 am, "bud--" wrote:

For good information on surges and surge protection try
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ublishedversio...
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to
AC power and communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005
(the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US).

For the IEEE guide use
http://tinyurl.com/2qrszf


Go to that Bud citation Page 42 Figure 8. A plug-in protector
earths a surge - 8000 volts destructively - through the adjacent TV.
Why? Too far from earth ground and too close to transistors. IEEE
does not recommend what Bud posts. IEEE recommends in Standards.
IEEE Standards repeatedly define what is necessary for protection -
earth ground.
[The diagram shows a surge on a cable TV cable and 2 TVs, TV1 has a
plug-in suppressor.]
For those with minimal reading and thinking ability, the point of the
illustration, as stated in the text, is "to protect TV2, a second
multiport protector located at TV2 is required". And the protector did
not do anything to the adjacent TV. It protected TV1 and lowered the
surge voltage at TV2 from 10,000V to 8,000V.

The guide, published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are
effective.


But Bud promotes for plug-in protectors.
To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

He follows me everywhere
as a troll promoting myths.
As many know w_ is evangelical in his belief and searches with google-
groups for "surge" so he can share his drivel on plug-in suppressors.
I recommend people read reliable sources.


Bud's citations show how plug-in protectors can work and can cause
damage.
For those with minimal ability to think, they show how plug-in
suppressors work and prevent damage.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Bud own citation says an effective protector does this: page
6 (Adobe page 8) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

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.
The question is not earthing. The *only* question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. About that the NIST guide says "this is the easiest
solution".



Did Bud forget to mention that earthing is the protection; that a
protector is only the connection to earthing? Well plug-in protectors
don't have that earthing.
w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) in earthing. Since
plug-in suppressors do not work by earthing he believes they cannot
possibly work. But the IEEE guide explains they primarily work by
clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common
ground at the suppressor.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in surge suppressors are
effective.

Bud even insists earthing is not
necessary. Funny. Even his own citations define earthing as
necessary - as does the IEEE where recommendations are published - in
IEEE Standards.
Bullcrap. I recommend reading the IEEE guide which includes earthing
as one of the major protection methods. I *repeat* the explanation in
the IEEE guide - plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not
earthing. But that violates w_'s religious belief.


No earth ground means any effective protection
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.


Both the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are
effective. For reliable information read the guides.

As always, no links from w_ that say plug-in suppressors are not
effective. All you get are w_'s opinions based religious beliefs.
Where are supporting links??


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
No sources.
Distort or attempt to discredit opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--