On Oct 3, 2:33 pm, bud-- wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Both Bud citations show what a plug-in protector can do. Since it
has no earthing and is too close to appliances, the plug-in protector
earthed that surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV -
Page 42 Figure 8.

The NIST is even blunter about Bud's protectors that don't have
earthing:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Why did the plug-in protectors divert a surge 8000 volts
destructively through the TV? NIST also explains what Bud's other
citation shows on Page 42 Figure 8.

And again, Bud posts insults while never providing the only relevant
fact. Protectors promoted by Bud do not even claim to provide that
protection. Why does the professional sales promoter not provide
numeric specifications for products he recommends? Again - no plug-in
protector will even claim to provide that protection. Bud must post
insults incessantly so that you will forget what he cannot post. A
spec that claims protection.

On Oct 3, 5:14*pm, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:27 pm, bud-- wrote:

w_ is either stupid or dishonest (probably both). Read the data sheet.
The 15,000V is for ESD protection - Electrostatic Discharge. As in
shuffle across the rug and touch the wire. The source resistance is
very high -1 megohm - and current is very limited - 15mA, and short
period. The IC does not "see" 15,000V.

* And the current from a surge is also very limited inside a building
once surges are properly earthed. *Of course Bud selected isolated
examples. *Why were maybe nine examples provided? *Plug-in protector
promoters fear an informed public. *All appliances contain surge
protection. *Protection that is overwhelmed if the typically
destructive surge is not earthed before entering the building.

* Meanwhile Bud again forgets to include all those facts. *15 ma if
continuous. *Massive amperes if the 15,000 volts is only a very short
term, microseconds transient. *Bottom line remains. *All appliance
contain surge protection. *Protection that is effective IF the
typically destructive surge is earthed before entering a building.

* Notice that Bud also posts insults and other disparaging remarks.
He is promoting myths. *Attack the messenger because Bud cannot
dispute the facts.

* Meanwhile, where is that plug-in manufacturer spec that even claims
surge protection. *Oh. *Again, the sales promoter just cannot seem to
find those spec numbers. *Why? *Even the plug-in manufacturer does not
claim the protection that Bud is promoting. *Again, Bud still cannot
provide specs that claim protection because those specs do not exist.



Maybe W_ would like to explain to us how it is that surge protection
INSIDE an appliance is usefull in preventing damages from surges, yet
a plug-in protector won't provide any protection. Both typically
use similar devices, ie MOV's and operate under the same limitations,
ie neither the appliance nor the plug-in has a short connection to
earth ground, without which W_ claims no protection is possible.

Of course this has been asked of W_ before, with no answer, just more
rants. And let me think. Which device would I rather have see a
surge and first deal with it? The protection inside the $2000 HDTV
or the one inside the $20 plug-in surge protector?

On Oct 5, 7:58*am, wrote:
Maybe W_ would like to explain to us how it is that surge protection
INSIDE an appliance is usefull in preventing damages from surges, yet
a plug-in protector won't provide any protection. *

If protection inside an appliance accomplishes what a plug-in
protector does, then why waste so much money on a plug-in protector?
Protection inside appliances assumes the surge will be earthed before
entering a building. Otherwise internal appliance protection may be
overwhelmed. The plug-in protector would do nothing. Worse, it may
even provide paths bypassing appliance protection (if the 'whole
house' protector is not installed). As demonstrated in previous
examples, a surge was even earthed destructively through a network of
powered off computers because plug-in protectors were used (without
the essential ‘whole house’ protector).

A plug-in protector provides nothing useful; may even make appliance
damage easier. But it sure is profitable. And the properly earthed
'whole house' protector is still required if or if not a plug-in
protector is installed.

Should we spend tens or 100 times more money for the plug-in
protectors - to only do what is already accomplished inside an
appliance? Or earth one 'whole house' protector so that all household
appliances are protected?

This answer was provided repeatedly. As stated by industry
professionals, science papers, and generations of experience - even
those who installed surge protection 100 years ago - a protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. One properly earthed 'whole
house' protector is essential so that protection inside all appliances
is not overwhelmed. Plug-in protector provides nothing useful, does
not even claim to provide that protection, AND can even contribute to
damage of adjacent appliances.

So that plug-in protector does not contribute to appliance damage,
earthing a 'whole house' protector is necessary. Once the 'whole
house' protector is properly installed, then protection inside each
appliance is not overwhelmed. Why would anyone spend tens or 100 times
more money for plug-in protectors? Because myths so often replace
simple science.

On Oct 3, 4:14 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:27 pm, bud-- wrote:

w_ is either stupid or dishonest (probably both). Read the data sheet.
The 15,000V is for ESD protection - Electrostatic Discharge. As in
shuffle across the rug and touch the wire. The source resistance is
very high -1 megohm - and current is very limited - 15mA, and short
period. The IC does not "see" 15,000V.

All appliances contain surge
protection.
..
Support for w_’s claim - zero.
People who agree with w_’s claim - zero.
People who disagree with w_’s claim - numerous.
..
Meanwhile Bud again forgets to include all those facts. 15 ma if
continuous. Massive amperes if the 15,000 volts is only a very short
term, microseconds transient.
..
If the village idiot knew what ESD was - static discharge - he would
know it was very short duration.

If the village idiot read his own sources he would know that the
energy in the ESD tests was 0.011J max and the duration of the
discharge is on the order of 100 nanoseconds.
..
Attack the messenger because Bud cannot
dispute the facts.
..
w_ has no facts.

--
bud--

On Oct 5, 4:54 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:58 am, wrote:

Maybe W_ would like to explain to us how it is that surge protection
INSIDE an appliance is usefull in preventing damages from surges, yet
a plug-in protector won't provide any protection.

If protection inside an appliance accomplishes what a plug-in
protector does, then why waste so much money on a plug-in protector?
..
Still never shown – that there is protection inside even a significant
percentage of appliances.

Still never answered - trader’s question above.
..
a protector is
only as effective as its earth ground.
..
And the required religious mantra.

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in]
protector"?
- Why does “responsible” manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every
appliance".

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

On Oct 3, 4:14 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:33 pm, bud-- wrote:

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

Again - no plug-in
protector will even claim to provide that protection. Bud must post
insults incessantly so that you will forget what he cannot post. A
spec that claims protection.
..
The lie repeated.
Along with the other lies.

But, what a surprise, still no link to another lunatic that agrees
with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Just w_’s
religious dogma.

And still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in]
protector"?
- Why does “responsible” manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every
appliance".

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

On Oct 6, 1:23*am, bud-- wrote:
Still never shown – that there is protection inside even a significant
percentage of appliances.

Posted repeatedly were many internal protections found in all
appliances. But when selling a $3 power strip with some ten cent
parts for $25 or $150, then Bud's job is to post myths, lies and
insults. Protect those sales.

No plug-in protector manufacturer claims protectin in numeric
specs. If those spec numbers existed, Bud would have provided
them. Bud makes numerous accusastions to avoid the only relevent
fact. Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide protection that
Bud can only imply with myths, lies, and insults. Bud wll never
provide a single plug-in protectors spec that claim protection. He
cannot. So Bud will even post insults. No earth ground in plug-in
protectors means no effective protecxtion.

As any industry professional has known even 100 years ago. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Telcos do not
waste money on Bud's plug-in protectors. Telcos need protectors that
are effective. Your telco switching computer, connected to overwhead
wires alll over town, must never be damaged by maybe 100 surges during
every thunderstorm. Everywhere, your telco earths 'whole house' type
protectors for effective protection.

On Oct 6, 9:01 am, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:23 am, bud-- wrote:

Still never shown – that there is protection inside even a significant
percentage of appliances.

Posted repeatedly were many internal protections found in all
appliances.
..
Posted *never* were internal protections found in all appliances.
..
If those spec numbers existed, Bud would have provided
them.
..
The lie repeated. Specs were posted in this thread (and numerous
others).
..
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
w__’s religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka
reality).

Still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in]
protector"?
- Why does “responsible” manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every
appliance".

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

On Oct 7, 11:56*am, bud-- wrote:
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

And again Bud posts the same half truths AND still never posts a
single plug-in protector spec that claims protection. Even plug-in
protector manufacturers do not claim protection from the typically
destructive surge. So again, Bud posts the same half truths and false
accusations.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - where surge
energy must be harmlessly absorbed. No earth ground means no
effective protection - which is why Bud cannot provide any plug-in
spec that claims protection. Bud's job is to say anything to protect
those obscenely profitable sales.

On Oct 8, 11:40*am, wrote:
W_Tomis a mental case.

Does salty@dog only post insults? Does he ever demonstrate technical
knowledge? Does he ever post something relevant to the topic or
helpful for an OP?

The subject is "thought about surge suppressors". Where does he
provide useful insight or even address the topic - here or in other
discussions?

On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, wrote:
As I pointed out very explicitly, w_tom is a mental case and there is
no reason for a sane person to engage him in a point by point
discussion.

Why will not engage in a "point by point discussion".
Also appreciate why routinely attacks other posters.
This messenger exposed for posting myths.
will not post 'point by point'. Last time he did that, then obvious
was he did not even know how electricity worked. Somehow
even forgot what was taught to 2nd grade science
students.

Does ever demonstrate technical knowledge? Does he
post something relevant to this topic or helpful for an OP? Of
course not. He only posts what he understands - disparaging remarks.

The subject is "thought about surge suppressors". Where does he
provide useful insight or even address the topic? He cannot and he
will not. He is still smarting from being identified as technically
naive.

Provided by others are answers to simple questions such as 'how does
that plug-in protector stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not stop?' Or 'where does all that energy get dissipated
harmlessly?' Or 'where is that manufacturer spec that claims to
provide protection?' Where does provide such
answers? He only posts what he understands - insults and personal
attacks.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:31:35 -0700 (PDT), w_tom wrote:

On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, wrote:
As I pointed out very explicitly, w_tom is a mental case and there is
no reason for a sane person to engage him in a point by point
discussion.

Why will not engage in a "point by point discussion".
Also appreciate why routinely attacks other posters.
This messenger exposed for posting myths.
will not post 'point by point'. Last time he did that, then obvious
was he did not even know how electricity worked. Somehow
even forgot what was taught to 2nd grade science
students.

Does ever demonstrate technical knowledge? Does he
post something relevant to this topic or helpful for an OP? Of
course not. He only posts what he understands - disparaging remarks.

The subject is "thought about surge suppressors". Where does he
provide useful insight or even address the topic? He cannot and he
will not. He is still smarting from being identified as technically
naive.

Provided by others are answers to simple questions such as 'how does
that plug-in protector stop or absorb what three miles of sky could
not stop?' Or 'where does all that energy get dissipated
harmlessly?' Or 'where is that manufacturer spec that claims to
provide protection?' Where does provide such
answers? He only posts what he understands - insults and personal
attacks.

Q.E.D.

On Oct 9, 5:31 pm, w_tom wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, wrote:

As I pointed out very explicitly, w_tom is a mental case and there is
no reason for a sane person to engage him in a point by point
discussion.

Why will not engage in a "point by point discussion".
..
Why won’t w_ answer simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say in that example "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug–in]
protector"?
- Why does “responsible” manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use."
- Where is the link to a 75,000A and 1475Joule rated MOV for $0.10.
- Why should anyone believe there is surge protection "inside every
appliance".

Why can’t w_ find anyone, even on the lunatic-filled internet, that
agrees that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--