No paragraph even implied that the protector circuit was
damaged due to a load. The 'shunt mode' protector circuit was
so grossly undersized that a transient (not the load) damaged
an undersized protector. The Wavetracker protector was damaged
by a transient that confronted electronics simultaneously and
that was too small to overwhelm protection inside the adjacent
electronics. Electronics internal protection protected the
appliance. Point one: the grossly undersized Wavtracker did
as excepted of any grossly undersized protector. It
prematurely failed. Effective protectors shunt the load and
remain functional.

As described, the Wavetracker sounds equivalent to most
plug-in, consumer protector devices. They all have fast
response components. Note the slowest responding device on
your list was the gas discharge tube (GDT). Some even have a
minimal inline choke. However which is this ground the
Wavetracker shunts to? Safety (equipment) ground or earth
ground? There is a major difference - electrically. Second
point: if a typically destructive transient is grounded to
receptacle safety ground, well, that transient must travel how
many feet back to earth ground? 50 feet maybe? So for 50
feet that transient is now inducing transients on all other,
adjacent wires? What kind of protection is that? Protection
made ineffective by a long connection to earth ground while
bundled with other wires. Induced transients created.

Third, wire impedance is major part of a protector circuit.
We apply numbers for a typically destructive transient.
Numbers - something so often missing to recommend an
ineffective plug-in protector. Wire provides maybe less than
0.2 ohms resistance, but has maybe 130 ohms impedance. Will a
trivial 100 amp transient shunted by that Wavetracker take the
130 ohm path to earth? Of course not. That would leave the
Wavetracker and protected electronics at less than 13,000
volts relative to earth ground. If the protected electronics
is at 13,000 volts, then a transient will find other
destructive paths to earth via that electronics. And so we
have another major problem with adjacent protectors. They can
even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance.
Protector attached to power cord can even shunt a transient
destructively through the adjacent electronics to earth
ground.

A transient on one wire was provided, by the Wavetracker,
potentially destructive paths to earth ground via
electronics. Just another problem with adjacent protectors.
They are too close to transistors and too far from earth
ground to be effective. That trivial 100 amp transient is
made irrelevant when shunted less than 3 meters at the
earthing point. Effective solution is called a 'whole house'
protector.

Described are reasons why shunt protectors adjacent to
appliances are not effective. Wire impedance is large due to
distance. Wire impedance is increased when we include
splices, sharp bends, and other complications. If that
Wavetracker were farther from electronics and substantially
closer to single point earth ground, then the Wavetracker
would have shunted to earth before transient got close to
electronics. But again, the Wavetracker was so pathetically
undersized as to be damaged by one transient anyway. A
transient too small to overwhelm protection inside the
adjacent electronics damaged a grossly undersized Wavetracker.

Yes, electronics has internal protection that includes
transformer and other components. Why let that transient get
near to electronics by placing a protector adjacent to
electronics? A transient so large as to damage the
Wavetracker was still too small to overwhelm protection inside
the adjacent electronics. Internal appliance protection is
that superior. And internal appliance protection is made even
better when the protector is located close to earth ground.

First three of many reasons says the Wavetracker was not
effective. One, induced surges. Two, too much wire impedance
to earth ground thereby encouraging the transient to find
destructive earthing paths via the adjacent electronics. And
three, a Wavetracker so undersized as to be damaged by what
was really a trivial transient? A transient so small that it
did not also damage the adjacent electronics? What kind of
protection is that? Ineffective.

Again, effective protector is located less than 3 meters to
earth ground. A transient made so trivial by a properly
located protector as to not overwhelm protection already
inside electronics.

But now we have the most important fourth point. The
protector is not protection. Protector is only a connection
to protection. Protection is earth ground. Yes, distance to
and quality of that earth ground determines whether internal
electronic protection will work or will be overwhelmed.
Again, a most important number for effective protection -
'less than 10 foot' connection to a single point earth
ground. Notice the difference between this post and so many
others. This post also provides the perspective of numbers.

LL wrote:
No matter what the load, the protection circuit would not have failed
due to the load because it is in electrical parallel (with the load)

The Wavetracker is/was unique for a consumer surge protection device
in that in is uses some very fast response components (zener diode,
gas tube) and the usual MOVs as well as chokes for each outlet.

These devices do shunt the spike to ground. Go large enough with a
spike and they will fail the component - then the next component in
line takes up the slack. For my device the first and fastest item in
line (zener diode) is the one that failed.

The "protection" you speak of other devices (computers, TVs, etc.) is
the transformer in it's power supply. Do you really want a big spike
to get in your expensive electronics?