w_tom wrote:
The NIST defines how it might work and then warns why
plug-in protectors are not effective:
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? Repeating:
“They are ‘the easiest solution’.”
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."
With no valid technical arguments w_ has to twist what the NIST says.
Bud recommends protectors ....
I recommend only accurate information. Read the guides and install what
you want.
Bud will avoid ALL discussion about earthing. His protectors have
no effective earthing.
Repeating:
“The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
A $3 power strip with some $0.10 parts sells
for $25 or $150.
One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000 A and 1475 Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.
Undersizing makes it even more profitable.
"Undersizing" is a red herring. Suppressors with very high ratings are
readily available.
Another problem with
protectors that are missing that earthing connection - these 'scary
pictures':
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has are pathetic scare tactics.
Same reason explains a Boston fire on 28 Sept :
What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the
cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before
1998?
Ask Bud for specifications that list each type of surge AND numbers
for protection from each surge? Numbers do not exist.
Repeating:
“Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from H-G, N-G, H-N.
That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes.”
Lacking technical arguments w_ has to invent “each type of surge”.
w_’s favored service panel suppressor manufacturer SquareD does not list
“each type of surge”.
Bud's second citation shows a plug-in protector too far from earth
ground and too close to appliances. Therefore it earths 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV - Page 42 Figure 8. What kind of
protector is that?
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.
The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.
As always, w_ has still not found another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on
his religious belief in earthing.
w_ has never answered:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Can’t even answer simple questions w_???
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
–
bud--