The plug-in protector does nothing effective. A properly
sized protector should not vaporize or opens when shunting
typically destructive transients. If protector is vaporized,
then it provided ineffective protection.

Often an adjacent TV may suffer no damage, but the protector
fails catastrophically (catastrophic damage must never happen
to a protector as defined by MOV manufacturer data sheets).
Then the naive assume, "the protector sacrificed itself to
protect my TV". Reality: protector was so grossly undersized
as to fail while TV's internal protection protected the TV.
Remember, a transient confronts TV and protector at same time
with equal force. Protector does not sit between a transient
and TV - as myths claim. Protector connects to AC mains just
like another light bulb. But if the protector is undersized,
then some humans will speculate, "the protector failed to save
my TV". A transient too small to harm the TV instead
destroyed a grossly undersized (and overpriced) protector.
What kind of protection was that? Ineffective plug-in
protector was damaged by a transient too small to even harm
the TV.

What does that human do? Buy more grossly undersized and
overpriced protectors - and recommend them to friends. A
properly sized protector means no one knows a transient
occurred.

We install properly sized protectors so that failure is not
an issue. Protector is installed for events that occur
typically once every eight years. But to sell more $3 power
strips with some $0.10 components for $15 or $50, then I too
would hype a myth that protectors must be replaced every year.

Protectors degrade quickly when undersized. But again,
numbers expose the myth. Take a typical 345 joule plug-in
protector. Maybe it will last for two equally sized
transients. Therefore even the minimal 1000 joule 'whole
house' protector would last for maybe 300 of those same sized
transients. 2 verses 300. Protector installed for events
that occur typically once every eight years. Damning numbers
that reverse 100% your reasoning.

Increased joules causes an exponential increase in protector
life expectancy. So why are plug-in protectors so grossly
undersized? They are not providing effective protection. Why
waste more money on more $0.10 parts to properly size a
protector. If it fails, then the naive will hype "the
protector sacrificed itself to protection my...."


How do you know the 'whole house' protector did not save
appliances? Do you do as I do - identify the electrical path
AND replace all electrical components? How do you know that
plug-in protector did anything? What is the criteria? Again,
the old Missouri adage. Show me. What are the facts? Which
components did and did not fail? What was the complete
circuit of that transient?

In another example, the VCR may have shorted to protect an
adjacent TV. Then the naive human assumed a plug-in protector
provided the protection. But he could not explain why the VCR
was damaged. Turns out, the transient never saw the
protector. But again, this level of detail so often
demonstrates plug-in protectors as ineffective. How many
joules in each protector? Why are some so grossly undersized
as to be damaged? Just more damning numbers.

Then we have price. One spent $15 or $50 for ineffective
protection of each appliance. The properly sized 'whole
house' protector costs about $1 per appliance. Worries about
the 'whole house' protector shorting, not indicating a
failure, or leaving a house dark are not valid. Reasons why
involve details made obvious when the 'whole house' protector
is installed.

A protector that catastrophically fails (vaporizes) is
classic of undersized protectors. But then where would you
want such a protector? On a desk full of papers, or in dust
balls on the rug behind a desk? Plug-in protectors are not
just undersized. They are in the wrong location for human
safety. Just more reasons why the plug-in protector is not
effective. The most damning reason - no earth ground which
means no effective protection.

Intermatic once provided a brochure describing an event in
their sales manager's house when Andrew went through Florida.
High voltage primary wire dropped on a wire into his house.
Intermatic 'whole house' protector was badly burned. But it
shunted the high voltage primary voltage until a utility fuse
finally cut off those thousands of volts. Nothing inside his
house was damaged. The house did not catch fire from
thousands of volts on 120 volt appliances. Plug-in protectors
did not vaporize while sitting on combustible materials inside
rooms. Properly sized 'whole house' protectors for about $1
per protected appliance? Or $15 to $50 for the grossly
undersized and ineffective plug-in protectors?

These are damning numbers. And then we add the most
important fact. The protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Bottom line fact that plug-in protectors avoid
discussing to sell at 15 or 50 times the price.

Choreboy wrote:
Outlet strips won't do much and are sometimes called surge protectors.
With a surge protector, I guess you got MOVs or something else to dump
surges, inductors to show high impedence to transients, and something to
blow quickly if an MOV can't handle a surge.

With a whole-house protector, all you get is something to dump surges.
If it opens, how do you know? If it shorts, your whole house is dark.

If I had to choose how to protect a computer, I'd choose a plug-in unit,
but I've never understood whether a $50 unit is better than a $15 unit.
As you say, the components are cheap.

I have heard that plug-in-units should be replaced every year or two
because they deteriorate. I don't know if that's true. It seems to me
that a well-designed unit can be trusted until the light comes on and
you can't get power.

[...]

When ice brought down a high-voltage line a few miles away, my
whole-house protector didn't save my TV or stereo. My scam plug-in
protector saved my computer, external drive, and modem.