On Nov 14, 11:21 am, bud-- wrote:
w_'s own hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says
overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal
disconnects. That was 1998.

None of w_'s links says there is a problem with listed surge suppressors
manufactured after 1998.

Bud routinely lies. In the early 1980s, fire was a common threat
with plug-in protectors as even demosntrated by articles in PC
Magazine in two years. Then Underwriter's Laboratories created a
standard to reduce that threat in 1987 - not 1996. Bud would have you
believe those 'scary pictures' are protectors without the safety
backup. Bud would have you believe those 'scary pictures' are
protectors built before 1987. He will say any half truth to protect
profits. Profits - not protection - are the purpose of plug-in
protectors.

Bud still will not post manufacturer numeric specs that list each
type of surge and protection from that surge. He cannot. Plug-in
protectors without earthing cannot protect from a surge that typically
damages appliances. No spec numbers exist because the protector is
primarily for profits; not protection. No wonder grossly undersized
plug-in protectors may even create those 'scary pictures'. A properly
sized 'whole house' protector earths direct lightning strikes and
remains functional. That is what every protector must do - remain
functional so that the human does not even know a surge existed. Oh.
That will not promote sales?

UL1449 is the safety backup. A grossly undersized protector depends
on its backup system - just like Challenger was safe because primary o-
rings were burning through but backup (secondary) o-rings were always
stopping the explosion. Oh. Grossly undersized protectors are safe
because the back-up system usually works? Not always as even
demonstrated by that recent apartment building fire in Boston. As
demonstrated by the NC Fire Marshall.

BTW, a protector can completely fail during UL1449 testing and still
be approved. UL does not care whether the protecctor works. UL only
cares about that spark and fire threat to humans. Making the
protector disconnect during a surge faster means the protector can be
more undersized - and get a UL1449 approval. Grossly undersized
protectors can completely fail during UL testing and be approved.
UL1449 says nothing about effective protection. UL1449 was created to
1987 to reduce the frequency of those 'scary pictures' - a problem
that does not happen when the 'whole house' protector is properly
sized.

If a protector was properly sized, then consumers would not say, "My
protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". Being undersized
means a surge too small to overwhelm protection inside a computer,
instead, destroys the protector. Failure (no protection) actually
gets the naive to promote more protectors. More profits. With profits
at risk, Bud must say anything to avoid reality in those 'scary
pictures'.
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

What is the purpose of a plug-in protector? As responsible sources
(quoted above) say, a protector must be earthed. No earth ground
means no effective protection. But if the protector has no earth
ground AND if the protector is grossly undersized, then a $3 power
strip with some $0.10 parts can be sold for $25 or $150. Tremendous
profit margin. Profits are the purpose of a protector without
earthing.

Cable companies install the best surge protection and without a
protector. Cable must be earthed where it enters the building.
Earthing determines protection. No protector necessary to provide the
best protection. Cable guys will even recommend removing a plug-in
protector. That grossly overpriced protector 1)provides no protection
(no earth ground), 2) degrades cable TV signal, and 3) may even earth
a surge destructively through the TV or some other device (as
demonstrated by the IEEE pamphlet on Page 42 Figure 8).

Why does that protector not even claim to provide protection in
numeric specs? What does Bud routinely avoid discussing to promote
sales? Earth ground. What has that earthing connection - makes $2000
or $3000 in plug-in protectors unnecessary? Don't ask Bud. He fears
you might learn why earthing is critical for protection. Instead view
the list of responsible manufactures who manufacturer one 'whole
house' protector. Superior protection with proper earthing for about
$1 per protected appliance. No 'scary pictures' of a sparking or
burning protector on the rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop papers:
just one 'whole house' protector.

How curious. That is the type of protector installed by every telco
in every town. Why do they also not use plug-in protectors? Telcos
learned over 100 years ago what is required for protection. Telcos
also do not need a fire threat. Telcos also do not waste money on
plug-in protectors.. Telcos routinely earth one 'whole house'
protector AND locate a protector where it provides better protection -
up to 50 meters distant from electronics. Better protector is not
adjacen to electronics.

Bud still does not provide manufacture spec numbers for each type of
surge. Better is to lie about UL1449 created in 1996. UL1449 was
created in 1987. Distorting reality and attacking those who provide
the whole story is Bud.

Bud will reply again. He must keep posting; get the last word.
Profits are at risk if you learn why effective protectors have that
earthing wire. No earth ground means no effective protection as every
responsible engineering agency says.

Engineering? Where are those engineeing specs for a plug-in
protectors? Why does Bud never provide those numbers? He cannot.
Manufacturer cannot claim protection that does not exist. Bud fears
you might learn about earth ground. Bud will even lie about UL1449 so
that you will ignore those 'scary pictures'. One properly earth
'whole house' protector eliminated the 'scary picture' problem and
actually does provide protection.

Even Martzloff says the plujg-in protector may even contribute to
damage of the adjacent appliance. How curious. That is the picture
on Page 42 Figure 8 provided by Bud. But again, no earth ground
means .... The surge earthed before entering the building means no
surges seeking earth ground, destructively, via household appliances.
Bud always knew that. But profits are at risk.