On Sun, 10 May 2009 09:48:36 -0700 (PDT), westom
wrote:

On May 10, 1:47*am, bud-- wrote:
Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....].

Which is why all those incoming utilities must be properly earth -
ie 'whole house' protectors. Did he forget to mention phone lines
already have a 'whole house' protector install for free at every
home? And that is point. Every incoming wire must be earthed. AC
electric is the missing protection and the source of most all surge
damage.

Numbers from the IEEE Standards. A properly earthed 'whole house'
protector provides 99.5% protection. From that IEEE Standard:
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...

Massive protection at $1 per protected appliance using a 'whole
house' protector. For an additional 0.2% protection, bud recommends
spending $5000 on obscenely profitable plug-in protectors. bud even
forgets what his sources also say: Page 42 Figure 8. Without that
'whole house' protector, the 0.2% protecton can, instead, contribute
to appliance damage.

Without a 'whole house' protector and upgraded earthing, a $25 or
$150 power strip protector can even earth a surge 8000 volts
destructively through adjacent appliances. Page 42 Figure 8. Why
does bud avoid that fact? Profits at risk.

Where is this power strip spec that claims protection? Why does
bud, whose income is promoting these devices - why does he still not
provide those numeric specifications? Because no plug-in protector
claims that protection.

"Protectors in series" assumes protectors will somehow stop and
absorb what three miles of sky could not even stop. So many long half
truths from bud combined with insults .... and he still cannot find
even one numeric specification that actually claims protection.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Either
surge energy is absorbed harmlessly in earth OR it finds destructive
paths to earth via appliances. "Protectors in series" will stop what
three miles of sky could not? Nonsense. Even power strips connected
three miles in series will stop what three miles of sky could not
stop. A protector is only as effective as its connection to earth.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Page 17 his NIST
citation:
The best surge protection in the world can be useless
if grounding is not done properly.

No earth ground means no effective protection - no matter how many
scam protectors are connected in series.

Cue twilight Zone theme music...

westom wrote:
On May 10, 1:47 am, bud-- wrote:
Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But from the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable or....].

"Protectors in series" assumes protectors will somehow stop and
absorb what three miles of sky could not even stop.

Because of his religious blinders poor w can't figure out how plug-in
suppressors work. As the IEEE guide explains for anyone that can think,
it is by clamping.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
No earth ground means no effective protection

w's religious mantras protect him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

w just repeats the same drivel, as if repetition makes it true.

Still never seen - anyone that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors
are effective. (Because no one agrees with w.)

Still never answered - 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why do your "responsible manufacturers" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible" manufacturer SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use"?
- Where is a source that says protection is "inside every appliance"?
- How do you protect airplanes from direct lightning strikes? Do they
drag an earthing chain?

And (with some overlap):
1 - Do appliances and electronics typically have some built-in surge
protection, eg MOVs? Yes or no.
2 - If the answer to 1 is yes, which we all know to be the case, then
how can that surge protection work without a direct earth ground?
3 - How can aircraft be protected from surges, caused by lightning or
static in the air, since they have no direct earth ground?

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

--
bud--