On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 7:49:25 PM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
I believe I paid £5 for each of them. They each saved £1000 equipment.

Conclusions based in wild speculation are alive and well. Those £5 protectors do not even claim to protect from potentially destructive transients. But if I feel they do, that alone proves they do?

Same applies to a melted plug. A logical adult then discovers why that unacceptable failure happened to avert future danger. A naive adult says it happened; therefore it must be OK. Experience, not tempered by basic knowledge, is why junk science exists.

Only junk science speculates a £5 protectors did anything useful (other then enrich its manufacturer). Only wild speculation assumes an unsafe design and a resulting melted plug is acceptable.

Completely unknown is even simple stuff such as how transformers adjust so that voltage varies by less than 10%. Denying even simple concepts proves superior knowledge? Hardly.

Others are cautioned about claims and denials without perspective - ie numbers. No numbers is a first indication of what is now being touted as "fake news". Also called junk science reasoning.

A defective design permitted a plug to melt into a gooey mess. That is acceptable only because it happened? Experience without knowledge creates a classic junk science conclusion.