westom wrote:
On Mar 26, 6:35 pm, wrote:
Most of those same responsible companies also sell plug-in surge
protectors too. Some recommend using them in conjunction with their
whole house surge protectors.

Meanwhile the IEEE puts numbers to this stuff. A properly earthed
'whole house' protector is 99.5 to 99.9% protection.

Not provided - quote or context.

As can be seen from other quotes from w, he completely twists what
sources says.

Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But repeating from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some
kind of two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be
NO - but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the
service entrance is useless."

Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltages from developing
between power and signal wires.

That 'whole
house' protector required to even protect those ineffective plug-in
protectors.

More complete idiocy. Cite a source. (Hallucinations don't count.)

Plug-in protectors that will magically absorb hundreds of
thousands of joules

Continued idiocy.

can create these scary pictures (and the fire
marshal who describes why the threat exists:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w is unable to understand his own hanford link. It is about "some
older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision
to UL1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem with
suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in effect since
1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.

The informed homeowner installed a ‘whole house’ protector for about
$1 per protected appliance.

If you count light bulbs as appliances.

Plug-in protectors without a ‘whole house’ protector do
not even claim to provide the necessary protection.

Continued idiocy.

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

A $3 power strip with some ten cent
protector parts

I recently bought a major brand plug-in suppressor with ratings of 590J
and 30,000A per MOV, 1770J and 90,000A total. Provide a source for a
30,000A/590J MOV for ten cents.


You forgot "a protector is only as effective as its earth ground." Are
you feeling OK?


Still no link to another lunatic that agrees that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.

Still never answered - simple questions:
Why aren't airplanes crashing daily when they get hit by lightning (or
do they drag an earthing chain)?
- 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 do your favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does favorite manufacturer SquareD say (for their service panel
suppressor) "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?
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--