westom wrote:
On May 1, 12:15 pm, bud-- wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Cut and paste the same half truths.

w believes that the IEEE and NIST guides are half truths.

Post insults.

w is insulted by the IEEE and NIST guides.

And still no
manufacturer spec that even claims that protection.

The lie repeated.

No wonder telcos
all over the world waste no money on bud's products.

You mean a telco switch?
That is high amp?
And hard wired?
And that has thousands of phone wires that would have to go through a
suppressor?

And they aren't "my products".

Page 42 Figure 8 - a surge protector was so effective as to earth
that surge 8000 volts through the adjacent TV?

Another lie repeated.

And
pretends that Martzloff does not define the same damage in his 1994
IEEE paper:

Martzloff said:
"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]."

Poor w has to twist what sources really say to protect his religious
belief in earthing.

bud will repost the same half truths repeatedly

w has repeated the lies above repeatedly.

bud will not answer the OP's problem.

The OPs problem was grounding outlets.
I provided an answer.
w has not.

w dragged the thread into his religious crusade against plug-in
suppressors.

The
OP should start an examination of the earth ground system

The OP did not have a problem with the earthing of his power system.

Their few hundred joules
will magically make hundreds of thousands of joules surges disappear.

The village idiot ignores Martzloff's technical paper, which I summarized.
Just like he ignores everything that conflicts with his religious belief
in earthing.

Earth ground is essential

Everyone is in favor of earthing.
The question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective. Both the IEEE
and the NIST say they are.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground

Ho-hum - the religious belief in earthing.

Ho-hum - still no source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors do
NOT work.

Ho-hum - 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?

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

--
bud--