On Apr 22, 1:04*pm, bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:29 pm, bud-- wrote:
The last plug-in suppressor I bought (about $25) had 1 MOV that was
1475J, 75,000A and 2 that were 590J 30,000A. *w_ will likely ignore this
and continue to ask for specs, as usual.

* A plug-in protector uses maybe 1/3rd and never more than 2/3rds of
it joules in protection.

Poor w_ can invent the stupidest arguments. *75,000A, the MOV that takes
most of the hit, is far larger than needed in a service panel
suppressor. There is no possibility of getting that current on a branch
circuit. The high value just goes with the high energy ratings.

Investigation by the author of the NIST guide with surges up to 10,000A
on a branch circuit with a MOV at the end found in 13 of 15 cases the
amount of energy absorbed by the MOV was less than 1.2J. The maximum was
35J. Arc-over at the panel and impedance of the branch circuit simply
limit the current, and thus energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor.
The ratings in my suppressor are far over what it will see making the
likelihood of ever failing essentially zero.



* *Bud still provides not one plug-in manufacturer spec that actually
claims protection.

What an idiot.

One whole house' protector costs about $1 per protected
appliance.

Counting light bulbs and switches as "appliances".

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. Poor w_’s
religious blinders prevent him from reading in the IEEE guide that
plug–in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Still missing - link another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

Still missing – answers to simple questions:
- 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"?

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.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

I think both have their uses and as per the IEEE, can complement each
other. For example, an issue Tom never addresses is that lots of
people are living in an apartment or rented home and they can't
install a whole house protector at the panel. And even for those
that do have a whole house protector, having secondary protection at
the point of use only adds to the protection. Curiously, one of his
arguments is that manufacturers of electonic eqpt all include surge
protection in the electronic eqpt, so it's already built-in and
apparently Tom is OK with that. Yet, the protection used inside
electronics like a TV set has no earth ground nearby, without which,
according to Tom, surge protection is impossible. In fact, at the
appliance, it's even an addional cord length of 6 ft away from earth
ground as compared to where a plug-in suppresor would be. So, then
how could protection inside the electronics possibly work?

I know one thing. If a surge does make it to the outlet, I'd rather
have it next encounter the MOVs inside the $20 surge protector,
instead of the ones in the $2000 TV.