On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:47:01 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

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:

Again trader4 has thrown things against a wall hoping something sticks. trader_4 keeps referencing citations that he did not read, did not understand, and that contradict his beliefs.

Just plonk the idiot so I don't have to see his drivel second and
third hand.

Previously, trader_4 denied that surges incoming to a home can be 20,000 amps. How ironic. His latest citation contradicts him. It says,
There is also a wide range in the severity of the
strike itself, with the very severe or very mild
being rare, the majority being in mid-range (a
current of about 20,000 amperes for a short time)

How can this be? trader_4, with a mocking attitude, said surges incoming to a home are not that severe. His citation provides numbers that agree with the engineer - contradict the naysayer!

His citation says:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge
protector will work by diverting the surges to ground. The
best surge protector in the world can be useless if
grounding is not done properly.

Who keeps saying that? A denigrator whose citation contradicts his beliefs? Or an engineer who did this stuff? An engineer even provides numbers for grounding properly: low impedance (ie less than 10 feet) connection and single point earth ground.
  
 His citation also says:
You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor "arrest"
it. What these protective devices do is neither suppress
nor arrest a surge, but simply divert it to ground, where
it can do no harm.

Which protectors have that low impedance connection to earth? 'Whole house'. Which do not? Plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Martzloff warned of damage "when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are present at the point of connection of appliances." Even trader_4's latest attempt at honesty is contradicted by his latest citation.

We can do this forever. Since the number of technically responsible citations constantly contradict what trader_4 believes.

Another Martzloff paper in 1991 describes plug-in protector on a branch circuit and why damage can happen:
CONCLUSION ...
2. While the main function of the device, limiting
overvoltages between line and neutral, is accomplished,
the return path for the surge current will produce
difference of potential among the conductive parts at
the end of the branch circuit, differences that can be
damaging to certain components of connected equipment.
3. A more effective protection scheme is to divert the
surges at the service entrance, rather than allow them
to flow in the branch circuits.

Point 2 describes damage to any nearby appliance by a plug-in protector and demonstrated in an IEEE brochure Figure 8 Page 33. Point 3 describes how to avert damage to all nearby appliances by simply properly earthing one 'whole house' protector.

An easy solution does not mean effective protection as trader_4 wishes. It only means it is easy and can easily make other damage possible - as Martzloff notes in so many IEEE papers.

Taking sentences out of context does not make one educated. He never did this stuff. Insulting and denying are what he does. Even his own citations repeatedly contradict him. Martzloff is clear about this. A plug-in protector, not coordinated with the always required and properly earth 'whole house' solution, can even make appliance damage easier. His latest citations says why.
The best surge protector in the world can be useless
if grounding is not done properly.

Protectors recommended by trader_4 have no low impedance grounding. But they sure are profitable.