do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 27, 7:48 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:04 am, "bud--" wrote:

Ho-hum. Repeating yet again:
" For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the
revised UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal
disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the
US in 1998."

Those scary pictures show protectors then and currently failing the
same way and for same reasons. Those protector used same components
in the 1980s when PC Magazine demonstrated this problem in two
separate issues.
It is a lie that "scary pictures show protectors ... CURRENTLY
failing".
And the PC magazine articles in 1980 were 18 years before the new UL
standard in 1998.
This is pathetic.



Notice again how Bud posts a half truth. How were MOVs somehow
'fixed'? He sort of forgets to mention that part.
MOVs weren't fixed. The UL standard, as w_'s own hanford link
indicates, was changed in 1998 to eliminate the problem.


Those scary
pictures demonstrate why grossly understized protectors are dangerous
when located on a rug or on a desk adjacent to a pile of papers.
Scary pictures that he needs you to igno
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Undersized protectors is a red herring.
And the problem fixed in 1998 as w_'s hanford link indicates. w_ has
no technical arguments and only obsolete scare tactics. He is an
idiot.



How can this be when the protection cost tens of times more money
per protected apliance? Well someone has to pay for Bud. He also
forgets that part.
Ho-hum, repeating again: "It is an old political trick. When facts
cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger." I get no
pay in any way related to surge protectors. When something challenges
w_'s religious belief in earthing it has to be misinterpreted or
discredited. Here he is discrediting. What an idiot.



Meanwhile Bud posts so that you will ignore what everyone
(responsible) defines necessary for effective protection: earthing.
What does Martzloff actually say in his studies? Martzloff even
defines plug-in protectors as contributing to electronics damage. Bud
does not even challenge this quote:
etc
As shown previously, w_ ignores Martzloff's endorsement of surge
reference equalizers in these exact sources. He is misinterpreting the
conflicting source. And in 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide that
says plug-in suppressors are effective.



Bud will even confuse shunt mode protection with clamping.
Bullcrap. w_ just can't understand how plug-in suppressors work -
explained by the IEEE guide as clamping.



Even the IEEE says what is necessary for protection. Bud will then
reply with more wordy myths so that you will forget this reality - a
need for earthing:
The IEEE guide, published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are
effective.



Now Bud will reply with attacks because his income from plug-in
protectors is dependent on you not learning about earthing. Did he
also forget to mention that part?
"It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged
technically, then attack the messenger." How pathetic.



Meanwhile, Bud is also caught intentionally lying about the
relationship between joules and a protector's life expectancy. Why?
Notice that plug-in protectors typically use very few joules in actual
protection.
Leonard:
" Joule ratings are not necessarily reliable indicators for
comparison."

My response:
"The IEEE guide - linked to elsewhere - makes the same observation,
saying there is no standard for how to make energy measurements, so
measurements are not comparable."

Both comments related to COMPARISONS. Neither said anything about "the
relationship between joules and a protector's life expectancy."

In my 2nd response to Leonard I said:
"If a H-N suppressor rating is 10,000Joules, for an example, and the
suppressor only gets hit with 1,000Joule single events, the suppressor
can withstand *cumulative* hits of many times its 10,000Joule rating.
I think many suppressors have ratings that are far larger than a
likely hit, making failure quite unlikely, which makes a lifetime
warranty practical."
That very explicitly relates "the relationship between joules and a
protector's life expectancy."


If w_ studies real hard he might qualify as an idiot by 2008.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 27, 7:22 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:20 am, "bud--" wrote:

The comments apply to package surge suppressors - both service panel
and plug-in, not individual MOVs. Read the IEEE guide - it
specifically warns against comparing the energy ratings of different
suppressors because there is no standard for measuring the energy
withstand for suppressors.

Remember those scary pictures? MOVs from that dastsheet are inside
those plug-in protectors. Bud is lying. Bud now claims those MOVs
inside plug-in protectors are somehow different. Somehow when inside
a plug-in protector, then increased joules no longer increases
protector life expectancy? Bud must make this claim because he was
caught intentionally misrepresenting what the IEEE says.
w_ must have been on LSD when he wrote this post. My comments were
about COMPARISONS between surge protectors and accurately reflected
what the IEEE guide said (IEEE guide pages 25 and 40). My post said
nothing about "protector life expectancy".

See my response to his other rant.



At $25, they could easily increase the joules by ten times. But
having some protectors smoke then gets the naive to promote "replace
them every two years".
Plug-in suppressors are available with very high ratings and with
lifetime guarantees. A red hering.


Profits are more important which again
explains those scary pictures:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm
And the same pathetic scare tactics. w_'s own hanford link says the
problem of overheating MOVs was solved in 1998.


Intelligence has vanished from w_'s posts.


And the IEEE and NIST guides still both say plug-in suppressors are
effective.

--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 28, 1:55 pm, "bud--" wrote:
Intelligence has vanished from w_'s posts.

Does that mean Bud will stop trolling? Following me around
intentionally posting half truth to promote plug-in protectors? Don't
let him fool you. Joules ratings on plug-in protectors are
intentionally deceptive. Fewer joules actually get used for
protection. What is the only number for surge protection in their
numerical specifications? Only number they provide to *claim*
protection is not even accurate? Joules. Lying by telling half
truths.

Effective 'whole house' protectors are not only sufficiently sized.
They also use ALL joules in protection.

Joules is how we estimate a protector's life expectancy. But that
assumes the manufacturer provides an accurate and useful joules
number. A protector with and using too few joules can even create
these scary pictures:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm

Rather than acknowledge facts and numbers from an MOV manufacturer
datasheet, Bud misrepresents facts. Some protector manufacturers are
so irresponsible as to not even accurately define joules used during a
surge.

When a protector uses all joules during a surge, well, your
electrician will recognize every one of these names as responsible
manufacturers: Siemens, Square D, GE, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, and
Leviton. Joules from their 'whole house' protectors and other
responsible manufacturers is an accurate estimate of protector life
expectancy. Bud hopes you don't learn this so as to promote
ineffective and grossly overpriced plug-in protectors.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Feb 28, 7:54 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:55 pm, "bud--" wrote:

Intelligence has vanished from w_'s posts.

Does that mean Bud will stop trolling? Following me around
intentionally posting half truth to promote plug-in protectors?
Does that mean that w_will stop trolling? Google--group searching for
"surge" so he can post his misinfromation on plug-in surge
suppressors.

And I guess the IEEE and NIST guides contain half truths.


Don't
let him fool you. Joules ratings on plug-in protectors are
intentionally deceptive. Fewer joules actually get used for
protection. What is the only number for surge protection in their
numerical specifications? Only number they provide to *claim*
protection is not even accurate? Joules. Lying by telling half
truths.
What a crock. In w_'s last tirade I was lying for saying suppressors
weren't comparable by using Joule rating. Now w_ is saying Joule
ratings aren't accurate.

And now w_ says I am lying by pushing Joule ratings.

When you don't have technical arguments attack the opposition.



Effective 'whole house' protectors are not only sufficiently sized.
They also use ALL joules in protection.
Another crock. They use the same methods for reporting Joules as plug-
in suppressors. And the IEEE guide, guide page 25, says service panel
protectors can't be compared on Joule rating.


A protector with and using too few joules can even create
these scary pictures:

http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm
And lacking in technical arguments w_ reverts to pathetic scare
tactics yet again. His own link says overheating was fixed in 1998.

Still no links from w_ to sites that say plug-in suppressors are
effective. All he has is personal attacks based on misreading and his
own opinions.
Intelligence is still missing from w_'s posts.

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are
effective.


--
bud--

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Mar 1, 11:41 am, "bud--" wrote:
And I guess the IEEE and NIST guides contain half truths.

Bud spins the lies and half truths. Bud repeatedly forgot to
mention the part when Martzloff says a plug-in protector may even
contribute to appliance damage. Bud promotes myths and half truths
for a plug-in protector industry. Bud was even caught lying about the
relationship between joules and protector life expectancy. Why would
he do that? Can you really teach an old dog to be fully honest?

Manufacturers whose products do not even use all the joules hope you
don't understand what these scary pictures demonstrate-
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm

No wonder Bud also tried to claim no relationship between joules and
a protector life expectancy. He even twisted quotes to prove his
claim. However he could not dispute numbers directly from MOV
datasheets. So he is now trying to downplay even these scary pictures
- plug-in protectors that are typically located where fire can do the
most damage.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Just another fact
that Bud fears we might learn. A surge protector is only as effective
as its earth ground.

do I need a surge protector?
 

On Mar 1, 7:37 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:41 am, "bud--" wrote:

And I guess the IEEE and NIST guides contain half truths.

Bud spins the lies and half truths. Bud repeatedly forgot to
mention the part when Martzloff says a plug-in protector may even
contribute to appliance damage.
w_ tries to take 2 sources where Martzloff says plug-in suppressors
are effective an make them say the opposite. Perhaps if w_'s mind was
not constrained by his religious belief in earthing....

Bud promotes myths and half truths
for a plug-in protector industry. Bud was even caught lying about the
relationship between joules and protector life expectancy. Why would
he do that? Can you really teach an old dog to be fully honest?
Ho-hum, from w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

And w_ appears to still have no clue what I said about joules.



Manufacturers whose products do not even use all the joules hope you
don't understand what these scary pictures demonstrate-
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm
And having no technical arguments w_ uses the pathetic scare tactics
yet again - which his own hanford link says is obsolete unless your
suppressor is older than 1998.



No earth ground means no effective protection. Just another fact
that Bud fears we might learn. A surge protector is only as effective
as its earth ground.
And the required statement of religious belief in earthing. But as the
IEEE guide explains, plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING, not
earthing. If w_ was deprogrammed maybe he could think again. Then
again, maybe not.

And of course still no links that say plug-in suppressors don't work.
Only w_'s ranting.

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are
effective.

--
bud--