w_tom wrote:
On May 8, 12:11 pm, bud-- wrote:

UL makes no effort to measure a protector's protective ability.
Cuttler Hammer says you are wrong.
URL deleted

Again Bud misrepresents what professional say.

Sorry I picked up the wrong URL. The correct one is

http://tinyurl.com/5m3wrf

UL does not measure protection - in direct contradiction
to what Bud posts.

Using the correct URL, the CH cite above says suppressors have to remain
functional through an initial set of surges (20 surges - 6kv, 3kA). That
is significant functionality.
They can fail safely after that. (Although CH does not say it, I believe
the test for plug-in suppressors is at a lower current.)

A protector can completely fail during UL1449
testing and still be approved.

It can fail after significant functionality (above) has been
established. For instance when subjected to long overvoltage a
suppressor can fail safely.


Meanwhile, Bud repeatedly claims that protectors create fires
because UL1449 was created in 1998.

w_ is so stupid he still can’t figure out the difference between a
creation date and a revision date.

UL1449-2ed (1998) requires thermal disconnects.

UL1449 was approved in 1987 as
Cutler-Hammer also says. Again, Cutler-Hammer disagrees with what
Bud posts.

With minimal intelligence w_ could read in old link "UL1449(2nd edition
1996 [publication date])".

In the new link, 1st sentence: "The Second Edition of UL1449 became
effective August 17, 1998."

Numerous plug-in protectors after 1998 with UL approval
still create a fire risk – the scary pictures:

Lacking valid technical arguments, w_ continues to lie about scary pictures.

None of the links say a damaged suppressor even had a UL label.

Still missing - a link to any source that says UL listed plug-in
suppressors made after 1998 are a problem.

A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

w_'s religious mantra will protect him from evil.


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

Still missing – answers to embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why do all but one of w's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.
- Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?

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

--
bud--