On 3/7/2012 11:08 AM, westom wrote:

Bud will post insults to protect his income. He does this for almost a
decade. His job is to promote protectors that are profit centers. He
is paid to be posting here.

1. If westom had valid technical arguments he wouldn't have to lie. The
only association I have with the surge protection industry is I am
using some protectors.

2. Westom is insulted by the IEEE and NIST. That is where most of the
information I post comes from.

3. I didn't first see westom anywhere near 10 years ago.

4. I am a regular participant in this newsgroup. Westom showed up
because micky said the magic word - "surge".

5. Westom has been posting this crap for 10 years?


If Bud's protector did anything useful, then bud could post spec
numbers that claim that protection. He cannot. No such specification
numbers exist.

It is one of westom's favorite lies.

If westom had half a brain he could find specs. A 10 year old could find
specs.

I have posted specs many times. Other people have posted specs. They are
always ignored by westom.

I posted specs in this thread which westom ignored, as always.


What good is a plug-in protector for an electronic timer switch in
the wall? Useless.

Before westom showed up almost all the discussion was about service
panel protectors. I said a service panel protector would protect the
timer and provided recommended ratings from the IEEE.

But westom had to insert his favorite belief that plug-in protectors do
not work.

His products even create fires if a 'whole
house' protector is not properly earthed.

1. They are not my products.

2. " 'Whole house' protector is not properly earthed"?

3. Since 1998 UL has required thermal disconnects for overheating MOVs.
But with no valid technical arguments westom all westom has are scare
tactics.


His citations describe the many completely different types of
protectors. Then discusses why protectors adjacent to electronics are
"useless".

Repeating what the NIST surge guide really says about plug-in protectors:
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in protector.

And the guides take a lot of space to "describe the many completely
different types of protectors" that don't work?


Page 42 figure 8 shows his products earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV.

If poor westom had half a brain he could figure out what IEEE guide
says in this example of how plug-in protectors work:

- A plug-in protector protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- westom's favored power service protector would provide absolutely NO
protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in protector in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.


Plug-in protectors without a 'whole house' protector mean virtually
no protection.

Drugs can control your delusions. Consult your doctor.


Meanwhile, an informed homeowner earths one 'whole house' protector
rated at least 50,000 amps to protect everything including that
electronic timer switch.

Repeating from the NIST surge guide:
A service panel protector is a real good idea.
But what does the NIST surge guide say?
"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."

If your electrician is
so ill informed as to install a grossly undersized 20,000 amp 'whole
house' protector, then find an electrically informed electrician.

The 20kA figure comes from a range of values in the IEEE surge guide. Of
course westom is much smarter than the IEEE.

Westom says plug-in protectors do not work.

Simple questions westom has never answered:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
protectors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in protectors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in protector?
- How would a service panel protector provide any protection in the IEEE
example, 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 westom's "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in protectors?
- Why does "responsible manufacturer" SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[protectors] at the point of use"?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST surge guides. Excellent
information. And both say plug-in protectors are effective.

--
bud--