w_tom wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:30 pm, bud-- wrote:
Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
And one from the NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
Bud will never provide a
manufacturer spec that claims such protection.
..
Provided often and ignored. For example a few months ago on this
newsgroup when w_ posted his drivel.
http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
..
Bud is a sales promoter of plug-in
protectors.
..
To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.
With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
..
The first citation demonstrates how a plug-in protector earths a
surge, 8000 volts destructively, through an adjacent TV.
..
If poor w_ could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
guide says in this example:
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the power service ground that is
too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
- w_'s favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO
protection.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.
But with no valid technical arguments, w_ tries to twist what the IEEE
guide says.
..
Therefore the NIST says on page
6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):
..
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are the "easiest solution".
With no valid technical arguments, w_ tries to twist what the NIST guide
says.
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors
are effective.
..
Will Bud's tiny protector absorb a surge? Of course not.
..
Of course not. No one talks about absorbing surges except w_.
The IEEE guide explains, for those who can think, that plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping.
..
Why does
one effective 'whole house' protector remain functional after direct
lightning strikes AND protect everything inside the building?
..
A service panel suppressor is a good idea.
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."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.
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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in] protector"?
--
bud--