On May 28, 12:46*am, w_tom wrote:
On May 27, 3:32 pm, N8N wrote:

OK, lesson learned. *No matter how well-intentioned, any question
regarding surge protection turns into a flame-fest on this NG.

* What flame war? *


That comment alone should be enough to show how out of touch you
are. You can't even recognize a flame war. And it always proceeds
and ends in the same way everytime this topic comes out. That is
with everyone else disagreeing with you. And with you accusing Bud,
me and everyone else who disagrees with you of being in the business
of selling plug-in surge protectors.

Bud has provided links to the IEEE that clearly show plug-ins being
used to protect equipment. People can decide who they want to
believe, you or the IEEE. Bud has even asked you dozens of times for
a single link that says plug-ins are totally ineffective.

BTW, I'm also waiting for an answer to my question. Electronics and
appliance manufacturers include MOVs for surge protection inside their
appliances. From time to time you have stated this up
yourself. Yet, you can't explain how it can be that these MOV's
can provide protection when inside the appliance where they have NO
DIRECT EARTH GROUND. So, how can it be that the lack of a direct
earth ground renders a plug-in useless, but the ones inside the
electronics, 4 ft away, are protected by the same components operating
under the same limitations? Faced with this, last time, you simply
denied that electronics/appliances have MOVs for protection, which of
course I refuted with references and links.




One is posting myths and personal disparagement.

Only if you beiieve the IEEE and NIST surge protection guides are
myths.



Another is posting responsible source after responsible source
followed by basic electrical concepts backed by 100 years of
experience and knowledge. *Did you read these posts emotionally or do
you grasp the facts and numbers? *If using technical facts, then every
Bud citations contradict his claims:

What these protective devices do is neither
suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply divert
it to ground, where it can do no harm.

* Quoted directly from Bud's citation. *It contradicts what Bud
claims. *That quote also agrees with everything posted by w_tom. * Bud
even refuses to post a manufacturer spec that supports his claims.
Why? *No source supports what Bud posts. Even the protector
manufacturer does not claim what Bud posts. *Bluntly obvious: even
Bud's citations contradict what Bud claims.

* In every responsible source - including Bud's IEEE and NIST
citations - the protector is only as effective as its earth ground. *A
protector that, by itself, somehow provides protection instead will
not even make that claim. *600 requests and Bud still cannot quote
even one manufacturer spec. *No flame war. *Bottom line facts. *Even
the manufacturer will not claim what Bud posts. *Why is this so
difficult? *Every Bud citation says an effective protector must have
that short connection to single point earth ground. *Why is this
difficult to understand? *Where is your confusion?

Nothing difficult to understand. As Bud stated, with you this is a
religious issue. Nothing anyone can show you will be good enough.
If surge protection guides from the IEEE and NIST that clearly show
and discuss plug-ins being used won't convince you, it's clear nothing
will