Why is 'absorb' verse 'shunt' an important difference? If a
protector absorbs surges, then it sits between surge and the
protected device - in series. It must stop or block surges.
But then it must be a series mode protector. It is not. It
is shunt mode. Shunt mode protectors don't function if they
absorb surge energy. Difference between 'shunt' and 'absorb'
is important to keep the consumer confused.

A shunt mode protector connects off to the side; is not
located electrically between protected device and incoming
transient. A shunt mode protector connects as if it was
another appliance - albeit much closer to the single point
ground.

Absorbing is what the plug-in protector manufacturer hopes
you assume. That way they need not discuss earthing and hope
you assume it is a series mode protector. But they are,
instead, shunt mode protectors. Effective shunt mode
protectors must be connected short to earth ground. If you
*assume* it absorbs surges then they can avoid an earthing
discussion; let myths purveyors promote their ineffective
product.

Series mode protectors absorb. Shunt mode protectors are
similar to electric switches or electric wires - they shunt.
If others believe that it absorbs, then critical earth ground
may be overlooked. Essential to selling that ineffective
protector is to avoid all mention of earthing. And so they
hope other will *assume* it absorbs. If it shunts, then one
may ask what it shunts to? Those would be embarrassing
questions.


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.