westom wrote:
On May 1, 12:19 pm, bud-- wrote:
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.

Even I would sell someone a plug-in protector.

So now w says his "responsible companies" aren't responsible at all.

But what about SquareD. They don't sell plug-in suppressors but say
"electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing
plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use".

Of course, I too must claim no protection from
typically destructive surges.

Of course the "responsible companies" say their plug-in suppressors are
effective - trader4 showed that in a previous thread.

So where is that bud numeric spec that
claims his plug-in protectors provides any protection. He still
cannot find even one. He pretends the question has not been asked
1000 times - and never answered.

The lie repeated.
Specs have been provided often, including in this thread. They are
always ignored - as they have been in this thread.

bud cannot post even one manufacturer spec that claims protection.

The lie repeated again.

When too close
to electronics and too far from earth ground, that few hundred joules
must absorb hundreds of thousands of joules?

Poor w ignores the results from Martzloff, just like he ignores
everything else that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

w is the poster child for cognitive dissonance.

How does his protector stop what three miles of sky could not?

It is willful stupidity.

w refuses to understand the explanation in the IEEE guide. Plug-in
suppressors work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires to the
ground at the suppressor.

And w refuses to understand the results from Martzloff.

How
does he explain his protector earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV?

Another lie repeated.

He pretends we engineers also
did not see that damage.

Any alleged engineers are not able to RTFM. Any competent manufacturer
will say that all wires to a set of protected equipment must go through
a plug-in suppressor.

So where is that manufacturer spec that
claims all this protection? Even bud cannot find one?

The lie repeated for the 3rd time.

But still never seen - a source that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

And 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--