On May 2, 3:40*pm, wrote:
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv Tantalust wrote:
|
| wrote
|
|Maybe he taken a hiatus after the right propper whopping he got here
|last week. * I thought it was hillarious after he derided the makers
|of plug-in surge protectors and then gave us his list of "real
|companies", like Intermatic, GE, Leviton, etc., that were experts at
|it. * *Only problem was, all of the companies on his list sell plug-in
|ones too.
|
| Huh, so according to all of w_'s sermons, Bud must be working overtime as a
| salesman for all of those companies too? * Busy guy!

Both do not appear to be wrong to me. *They appear more to be arguing about
entirely different issues. *


I suggest you go back and read what w_ has posted in this thread and
do a google for some of his other posts in similar threads on the
subject. The issue is quite simple. If you believe w_, then plug-
in surge protectors offer absolutely no benefit and are in fact
actually destructive. If you believe the IEEE and manufacturer's of
both whole house surge protectors as well as plug-in surge protectors,
as well as other credible sources, then plug-ins do in fact offer
protection and can be part of an effective solution.

Go back and read where w_ posted his list of "real" surge
manufacturers who offer whole house and commercial suppressors, while
disparaging companies who make plug-ins as frauds. Funny thing
happened though. I showed him datsheets and product specs that showed
that every company on his list of "real" surge protection companies
except one, also make plug-ins, discuss their effective use, etc.


If you believe w- is right on this, then maybe you can help him out
by:

1 - Providing a reference that backs up his assertion that plug-in
protectors offer no protection at all

2 - Explain the inescapable contradiction in w_'s position. He has
posted that electronics/appliances, etc have built-in surge protection
that is effective. Yet, those appliances use MOV's and are working
under the same restrictions as a plug-in would, ie they have no direct
earth ground nearby. So, how exactly is it that one can work, while
the other is useless? BTW, w_ faced with this, chose to simply deny
that MOV's are used in electronics/appliances, which just discredits
him more. A few post back I provided references, as if any are
needed, that MOVs are in fact used in electronics/appliances. Plus,
while MOV's are widely used in electronics/appliances, it isn't even
an issue as to the particular component because w_ claims there can be
no protection period, without a direct, nearby earth ground.



But I can't be entirely sure because their rants
are hard to read and I skip a lot of it, including any post where the first
screenful is all quoted text. *And my googlegroups filter is killing off the
posts from w_tom that don't have any threading where I have posted.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, I no longer see any articles originating from *|
| * * * * Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers |
| * * * * you will need to find a different place to post on Usenet. * * * * *|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |