westom wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:38 am, bud-- wrote:
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

bud must deny what any protector does. From page 6 of his NIST
citation:

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

bud is paid to promote protectors

One of w's favorite lies. Wouldn't be necessary if poor w had valid
technical arguments.

In fact, bud's
own citation Page 42 Figure 8 shos what happens when a protector is
too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. A surge is
earthed 8000 volts destrutively through an adjacent TV.

Another of w's favorite lies.

In the IEEE 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 ground at the power service
that is far 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.

bud even forgets the
damage created by plug-in (point of use) protectors as defined in
Martzloff's 1994 IEEE papaer:

w 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]."

On alt.engineering.electrical, w similarly misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor, another upside down house author, and provoked a
response from an electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of surge equalization type
[multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from
me. LOL."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

bud refuses to provide even one protector spec for one
simple reason. No plug-in (point of use) protector claims to protect
from the typically destuctive surge.

Another of w's favorite lies.

Specs have been provided often, such as about a year ago in this newsgroup:
http://tinyurl.com/6alnza
Specs are just ignored by w.

It will somehow stop
and absorb what three miles of sky cannot? bud makes that claim.

w is fond of inventing what others say.

Poor w's religious blinders prevent him from reading the explanation in
the IEEE guide of how plug-in suppressors work.
Repeating:
Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or
absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.

I need not post insults as bud always does everywhere.

Poor sensitive w is insulted by reality.

A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.

w's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

Still missing - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

Still never answered - simple 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 the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?

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

--
bud--