On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 11:37:36 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Two obvious fallacies there.

Only fallacies are same myths and lies from a technically naive denier. If hundreds of thousands of joules are not earthed at the service entrance, then a destructive surge (even if smaller) easily overwhelms protection inside appliances. Even surges too tiny to overwhelm that protection can still destroy near zero protectors. In rare cases, even create house fires.

If a protector is adjacent to appliances, then it can only block or absorb a surge. It cannot connect to what harmlessly absorbs hundreds of thousands of joules. Adjacent protectors even make appliance damage easier. Another example: a surge on a hot (black) wire might be connected to the safety ground (green) wire. (Safety ground is not earth ground). Now that surge has completely bypassed protection inside a computer's PSU. Now that surge is connected directly into a computer's motherboard. He calls that protection?

Oh, that cannot happen because it is called a surge protector. Please.

A technically naive naysayer has no idea why Martzloff, et al repeatedly warn of damage BECAUSE a protector is adjacent to appliances ... and too far from earth ground. Because a 'whole house' solution was not installed.

How many times must the word impedance be ignored before a technically naive naysayer decides to learn what it is? Safety ground clearly is not earth ground. Define how many times with numbers? And still the naysayer cannot tell the difference. Technical ignorance and a vendetta against learning is evident. Effective protectors connect low impedance (ie less than 10 feet) to single point earth ground making irrelevant everything in his latest denial.