On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 00:43:10 -0000, westom wrote:

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?

I'm basing this on real life experience, not specs. They were subjected to L1 and L2 instead of L1 and neutral. They melted and protected the equipment long enough for the breaker to trip due to overload.

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.

It protected the expensive equipment.

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.

£1000 of equipment still in working order is a success. Replace £5 surge protector, reset breaker, all done.

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.

What has this to do with the current conversation?

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.

A melting plug is better than a blown computer.

--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect.