On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-4, westom wrote:
For example, Martzloff defines an "easiest solution". trader_4 then ignores Martzloff's point. That "easiest solution" can even make appliance damage easier - especially when a 'whole house' solution is not implemented.
http://pml.nist.gov/spd-anthology/fi...es_happen!.pdf
That's the Martzloff document on surge protection written for NIST.
I showed you where he says:
"Plug-in Surge Protectors
This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."
Now you show us where he says in that guide what you claim he says:
"That "easiest solution" can even make appliance damage easier - especially when a 'whole house' solution is not implemented"
Stop lying.
He misrepresents what an IEEE brochure shows in Figure 8 page 33. A surge protector (without the always required earth ground) can earth a surge destructively through any adjacent appliance. It need not even be connected to that plug-in protector. Any other nearby appliance can become a victim when one foolishly uses a plug-in (point of connection) protector without properly earthing a 'whole house' protector.
Hard to misrepresent what is there in black and white. It shows TV1
being protected from a surge by a plug-in protector. It shows TV2
with no protector, being damaged. It concludes with:
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/IEEE_Guide.pdf
Page 33, fig 8.
Why is it that I have pages to cite, with the actual sentences quoted,
where everyone can read it in context, but you only have what you claim
it says?
More facts that trader_4 would have learned if an adult. A surge is incoming to all equipment.
Pure fantasy. A surge coming in on a cable line or telephone line
isn't going to the microwave oven.
Is everything damaged? Of course not. Once all but invited inside, a surge is hunting for earth ground destructively via everything. Only some appliances make a better connection. In figure 8, that is TV2.
And the IEEE document clearly states:
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
Of course the village idiot completely ignores this elephant in the
room and instead lies.
Plug-in protectors only protect from near zero surges that are small overvoltages between two wires. It does not avert and may make easier damage by destructive surges - that hunt for earth ground.
Tell that to Martzloff, NIST and the IEEE:
"Plug-in Surge Protectors
This is the easiest solution and there are a wide variety of brands
in the stores. These come in two forms: a box that plugs directly
into a wall receptacle or a strip with a power cord and multiple outlets."
As predicted and as he does every time - trader_4 ignores another problem with undersized plug-in (point of connection) protectors: 'fire'.
There you go again. I guess that Martzloff, who you cite (out of context
or worse) is totally irresponsible then for recommending them.
What happens when a near zero protector foolishly tried to block or absorb a destructive surge - hundreds of thousands of joules?
Pure fantasy, it's be explained to you many times over the years that
hundreds of thousands of joules can't make it to an appliance. Clue:
Look up flashover.
In rare cases, house fires occur. UL1449 was created because fires happened in undersized plug-in protectors. UL1449 has been upgraded three times - and still fires happen. Just another reason why informed homeowners earth a 'whole house' protector - to avert fires created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors.
All kinds of standards exist on all kinds of systems, appliances, etc
that go into a house. Fires still happen. Wow, who would ever think
that could be?
trader_4 even ignores a recent APC recall of millions of their plug-in protectors due to that fire problem.
I asked you for the link to this "recent" recall and of course, like
everything else, you can't provide it. GM had a recent recall, does
that mean that all cars made by all manufacturers are unsafe? Go figure.
Informed consumers earth one 'whole house' protector because his 'easiest solution' is also a fire threat.
trader_4 always ignores the AT&T report that says how plug-in protectors can even make damage easier.
Now it's an AT&T "report". You said before it was from an AT&T "forum".
Curious, like most of what you claim, there is no link so we can all
read it. Where the link to that recent APC recall?
Not only does he intentionally misrepresent IEEE's Figure 8 on page 33 (Adobe page 42).
No misrepresentation, just the facts of what they actually say, right the
"To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
Now, you show us where the IEEE guide says what you're lying about, which
is that the surge protector at TV1
caused the damage at TV2. Show us where they say they should not be used.
Show us where they say they are a fire hazard.