View specs for a plug-in protector. It claims to protect
from a type of surge that does not typically exist. That way,
the myth purveyors will assume it protects from all types of
surges. And so we have a common quote - "a surge got past my
surge protector". In reality, the surge took a left turn to
get the surge protector and a right turn to attack the
computer - simultaneously.

Get a surge protector that protects from a type of surge
that actually does damage. So which one do you install? The
one that costs tens of times more money per protected
appliance, OR the one that costs so much less and even
protects from the destructive type of surge? The latter is
the single, properly sized, and properly earthed 'whole house'
protector. Now that the best protector is also the most cost
effective, we can compare that price to what we might lose
without installing it. IOW the 'whole house' protector
provides a basis to decide protection for everything inside
the house.

Is a PC surge protector needed in the UK. No: if protectors
is the ineffective plug-in type that may even contribute to
damage of an adjacent computer. Maybe: if it is the less
expensive and more effective 'whole house' type.

Pyriform wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Furthermore, the little
surge protector does not absorb even modest transients.
Absorbing is not what they do.

I say absorb; you say shunt. We mean the same thing. Energy
that would have entered the 'protected' load instead goes
somewhere else. So unless you are arguing purely on the basis
of semantics, your claim that even "modest transients" are
not absorbed by plug-in surge suppressors is clearly false.
What I want to know is whether such transients are actually
found, and whether they pose a threat to 'unprotected'
equipment.

Your "unless it protects against everything, it protects
against nothing" argument is not entirely convincing.