w_tom wrote:

If the MOV got that 'hot' as to open a thermal fuse, it was grossly
undersized – operating in complete violation of its manufacturer.
Grossly undersizing is common with plug-in protectors since profit
margins are more important than effective protection.

In w_’s mind, plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and service
panel suppressors have mega ratings. But plug-in suppressors are readily
available with very high ratings for relatively low cost. And branch
circuit impedance greatly limits the current, and thus energy that gets
to a plug-in suppressor.


Scary pictures demonstrate problem with grossly undersized
protectors that still have UL 1449 approval.

None of w_’s links say any damaged suppressor even had a UL label.

The scary pictures demonstrate a 'too common' problem with
plug-in protectors that Bud promotes for:

Lacking technical arguments about plug-in suppressors, w_ tries to
discredit people who expose his drivel. All I promote is accurate
information.

http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

Lacking valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

His hanford link is about "some older model" power strips and says
overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that required thermal
disconnects. That was 1998. The hanford failure was in 1999 - a one year
old suppressor? There is no reason to believe, from *any* of these
links, that there is a problem with suppressors produced under the UL
standard that has been in effect since 1998.

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

--
bud--