On Jul 12, 9:04*am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
w_tom wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:44 am, "CL \"dnoyeB\" Gilbert" wrote:
A protector is only as effective as the earth ground it can provide vs..
the
ground provided through the device it is protecting. *Please recognize
the other 1/2 of that equation.

* Again, discuss wire impedance. *Why do *telcos routinely install
protectors so close to earth ground and up to 50 meters distant from
their computers? *Because separation between protector and electronics
increases protection. *Impedance in that 50 meter separation means
even more surge will not seek earth ground via electronics and will
seek earth ground via the lowest impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot')
earthing connection.

OK, and its your contention that the quality of the path through the
electronics is irrelevant. *Even if that path has infinite resistance, if
the ground is not absolute 0 the device will still get hit with the surge..



* Protection is subverted when a protector is mislocated adjacent to
appliances. *A protector too far from earth ground and too close to
appliances is why an adjacent TV, 8000 volts destructively, earthed a
surge on Page 42 Figure 8. *TV damaged because the protector was too
close to appliances and too far from earth ground.

I don't follow this example you keep giving. *Seems like your saying a
device adjacent to a protected device got damaged!?


I can help you out on that one. Anytime any electronic device is
damaged by a surge, to comply with W-'s religious beliefs, the damage
must be attributed to a plug-in surge protection, if one is present
anywhere. If a computer was plugged into a surge protector and NOT
damaged during an electrical storm, while a nearby TV, which had no
surge protector was, Tom will come up with some convoluted explanation
of how the surge protector at the computer CAUSED the damage at the
TV.

Of course this requires the suspension of some electrical basics,
common sense, and experience, but that clearly isn't an issue.