westom wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:57 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
I think Bud and Tom actually believe that sooner or later, after perhaps
17000 discussions, one of them will actually win the debate.

It is now 36,371.

Have you ever "won" a discussion with a Jehovah's Witness?

However,
if you learn this, then you will buy protectors from far more
resonsible companies such as Square D, General Electric, Cutler-
Hammer, Leviton, Keison, Polyphaser, Intermatic, and so many others.

As trader4 has shown, all of these "responsible" companies except
SquareD and Polyphaser make plug-in suppressors. Must be they aren't
"responsible" at all.

For its "best" service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."


As always - no 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]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?

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

--
bud--