On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 8:44:32 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
No, I posted it because you claim no protection is possible, without a
direct connection to earth ground. Yet, airplanes have surge protection
and they do it partly by doing the same thing plug-in protectors do,
which is by clamping voltages.

So again he posts same accusations that were already rebutted. If he keeps alleging the same bogus lies, then some people will actually believe him. Again: When an airplane is on the ground, protection exists because a plane must be earth grounded. Tarmacs have numerous connection points to provide this earthing connection. Planes in the air are designed so that the current remains outside - does not hunt for earth ground via interior electronics. Then protection that is standard in all electronics is not overwhelmed; surge currents remain outside. How curious. A 'whole house' solution does same.

A surge is connected to earth on a current path that remains on the outside of the plane - so no damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IRfbC0RHsY

trader_4 will ignore this as he always does. All others need not be manipulated by his acidic spin. He constantly posts that airplane lie hoping you will fall for his rhetoric.

trader_4 also did not comprehend Martzloff's paper. It is what he does. Claim it agrees with his lies. Meanwhile, Martzloff was quite blunt about 'point of connection' protectors even causing damage. Martzloff demonstrates how destructive voltages can "occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." That same damage was observed by engineers even long before Martzloff wrote his paper. But then we engineers did this stuff. trader_4 never did.

He never posts specification numbers or other relevant sources. He even and intentionally misrepresented what both Martzloff and the IEEE brochure say. As if Figure 8 does not show a 'point of connection' protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through a nearby TV. Can the IEEE make Martzloff's point any clearer?

I never said plug-in protectors are useless. trader_4 reads what he wants to see - not what was said. He has a problem with integrity. A plug-in protector only does what it claims to do. It only claims to protect from a completely different type of surge that typically does not do equipment damage. When adjacent to equipment, it must either block or absorb a surge. It is only useless doing what it does not claim to do - and what trader_4 insists it will do. It only does what it claims to do.

But again, I have said what trader_4 will intentionally misrepresent.

Protector numbers only claim to block or absorb tiny surges. And only one type of surge. Not the other type that typically causes damage. All reasons why a plug-in protector, without a 'whole house' protector, is near zero (ineffective) protection. 'Whole house' protector is necessary for the plug-in protector to do something useful. Plug-in protector creates problems such as making damage easier and fire.

Trader_4 will ignore another problem - fire. Otherwise he must admit to serious shortcomings in his denials. He never did this stuff. So he intentionally misrepresents airplane protection, Martzloff and IEEE brochure citations. and what I said. Integrity and honesty are not his strongest assets.

Any protector inside HVAC equipment needs every typically destructive surge earthed - either by a 'whole house' solution or by a lightning rod.