w_tom wrote:
On Jul 17, 1:32 pm, wrote:
The IEEE is good enough for everyone here but W_. They show plug-in
surge protectors being used. As for technical proof, where is W_'s
that says plug-in surger protectors offer no protection and actually
cause damage.

Nobody said "plug-in
surge protectors offer no protection".
..
"No earth ground means no effective protection."
..
Why spend $3000 in plug-in protectors (as Bud says is necessary)
one 'whole house' protector provides the same protection
..
bud does not say that is what is necessary. (w_ is sooo dumb.)

And repeating:
What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."
..
Where is that spec for ANY plug-in protector that claims to protect
from a type of surge that typically causes damage?
..
Specs provided often and ignored - including in this thread.
..
From IEEE Emerald Book:
..
Poor w_. Religious fanaticism can be so debilitating. From the Emerald Book:
Multiport surge suppressor: "A surge-protective device used for
connecting equipment to external systems whereby all conductors
connected to the protected loads are routed, physically and
electrically, through a single enclosure with a shared reference point
between the input and output ports of each system."
..
Meanwhile another highly regarded IEEE author notes the problem with
plug-in (point of connection) protectors. In his 1995 IEEE paper,
Martzloff stated as his very first conclusion:
..
The village idiot always forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the
same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
..
How many IEEE and other sources say this?
Thousands that trader must ignore.
..
How many IEEE and other sources say this?
Thousands that w_ must ignore.
..
No earth ground
means no effective protection.
..
And the required religious mantra.

But still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_??? I
am beginning to have doubts about what you have been saying.

And still never answered - embarrassing 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"?
– Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does the IEEE guide says in its example "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE guide example?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book recognize plug-in suppressors as effective?
– Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.

Why can’t you answer simple questions w_???

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

--
bud--