westom wrote:
On May 2, 8:42 am, wrote:
If plug-ins are incapable of any protection because they have no
direct earth ground, how is it that the same components used in plug-
in surge suppressors are typically used to provide surge protection
inside appliances and electronics?

Again I answer - and you will ignore it. Those MOV once were in
appliances. No longer.

Bullcrap.

trader4 showed in a previous thread that MOVs are widely used as
protection. w ignored it.
As an example, a GFCI outlet I recently took apart had an MOV for
protection. It connected only L-N.

Still not answered - how do the MOVs that ARE in equipment provide
protection when they do not have a good earth ground and "no earth
ground means no effective protection".

And still not answered - trader4's question "how is it that aircraft are
protected from surges from nearby lightning or direct strikes"?

MOV is a diverting device.

MOVs are a clamping device. All they do is limit the voltage across
their terminals.

It does not stop and absorb energy as
bud claims.

Because the village idiot is unable to understand the simple explanation
of how plug-in suppressors work that is in the IEEE guide

and because the village idiot can't understand the explanation in a
Martzloff technical paper, which I summarized

the village idiot thinks plug-in suppressors work by stopping and absorbing.

We traced an MOV earthed a surge destructively through a
network of powered off computers.

You were not smart enough to RTFM. What a surprise.

Numerous sources say the same thing. MOVs protectors are not
effective when disconnected from protection

Numerous sources say the same thing - plug-in suppressors are effective.
The IEEE.
The NIST.
Martzloff in numerous technical papers.
Almost all of w's "responsible companies".

Where is *any* source that says plug-in suppressors do NOT work? There
are none.
There is just w and his religious belief in earthing.

As the NIST says

The NIST says:
Plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.

Only ineffective protectors make that ‘stop and absorb’ claim

Only w makes a "stop and absorb" claim.

So that protection inside every
appliance is not overwhelmed.

Still missing - a source that say protection is "inside every appliance".
And missing - an explanation of the protection.

No earth ground means no effective
A protector is
only as effective as its earth ground

And the religious mantras that protect poor w from reality.

Surprise - surprise - still no source that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

And still no answers to 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"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

Why can't you answer simple questions w???

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

--
bud--