do I need a surge protector?

On Feb 26, 9:00 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:
Joule ratings are not necessarily reliable indicators for comparison.

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.

Why do MOV manufacturers provide charts that list joules in relation
to length of surge, size of surge, and number of surges? Why do MOV
manufacturer numbers say directly opposite what Leonard has just
posted? We had this conversation before when I discovered Leonard
did not learn how MOVs work nor read manufacturer datasheets. Well,
here is a datasheet. As joules increase, a line for life expectancy
moves up the chart. The lurker can take numbers from charts for each
MOV; see that Bud and Leonard have just posted deception. Joules is
the measure of protector life expectancy:
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/CA.pdf

Let's take an example: multiple 10,000 amp surges for a typical 30
microseconds. A 330 joule MOV (V251CA32) will shunt twice before
degrading (not vaporize as happens with intentionally undersized
protectors). The 880 joule MOV (V251CA60) will shunt 10. With 2.7
times more joules, then life expectancy increase exponentially to 5
times longer.

Notice how joules determine life expectancy.

Same 330 joule protector will shunt a ten thousand 300 amp surges. A
370 joule MOV is rated for 60,000 surges. And the 880 joule MOV has a
life expectancy of 100,000. 2.7 times more joules mean a life
expectancy of about 10 times longer. Again, more joules mean an
exponentially increasing life expectancy.

These numbers contradict what both Bud and Leonard have posted. But
again, they are promoting plug-in protectors. Accurate numbers are
not what plug-in protector promoters will provide. Do those numbers
yourself. Joules is a good indicator of surge protector life
expectancy. Joules listed in a plug-in protector spec are
intentionally deceptive. After all, they are not selling effective
protection. They are selling myths without accurate numbers at
massively higher profits.

Panamax is not the responsible manufacturer as Leonard would have
you believe. Responsible manufacturers have names such as GE,
Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Square D, and Siemens. Where is
that Panamax 'whole house' protector? Panamax sells myths that
Leonard promoted:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812120408
or
http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...il&id=249&ly=v
Where are the numbers that claim protection? These are Leonard's own
citations. Where are the numerical specs that list each type of surge
AND cite protection from that surge? Why are no such numbers
available? And how many joules are actually used in protection? Why
a shortage of facts and deceptive numbers?

Provided is an MOV manufacturer datasheet. Do those numbers
yourself. If the protector is an effective type, then joules IS a
measure of protector life expectancy. Leonard and Bud misrepresented
facts to promote ineffective plug-in protectors. Don't take my word
for it. Do the numbers yourself. See how they have deceived you.
w_tom provided a Littelfuse MOV datasheet. w_tom posted using
engineering facts and a few generations of experience. MOVs are a
measure of protector life expectancy - when the protector is
constructed to provide protection - not to promote myths.

Leonard - do the numbers yourself. You have posted some accurate
citations that agree with what I have posted. But Bud promotes for
the plug-in industry and will not even be honest about it. Therefore
he will even hype the deception about joules - because his products
often have too few joules. Too few joules and the resulting smoke
sells more ineffective products to the naive. Joules is the ballpark
measurement of protector life expectancy - when a protector
manufacturer is being honest. Honesty is in short supply among plug-
in protector manufacturers and their promoter.

On Feb 26, 3:33 am, "bud--" wrote:
"Six-ports" is in none of my citations.

Six-ports is in a Martzloff paper where he talks about surge reference
equalizers (aka multiport surge suppressors), which were new at the
time of the paper. He said:
"The surge reference equalizer combines the protective function for
both system ports [power and signal] in the same enclosure. The device
is plugged in the power receptacle near the equipment to be protected,
with the communications system wires (telephone or data link) or the
coaxial cable (TV) routed through the enclosure. A common, single
grounding connection equalizes the voltages of the two paths that
return the surge through the grounding connection of the 3-prong power
line plug, as shown in Figure 4.

And then he goes on to explain how anything - such as a kid with an
Xbox - completely violates that protection. Any one port not covered;
then damage may result. Attach an
Xbox to the TV and a port have been violated - damage can result.

Bud hopes you take that SRE paper as a recommendation. Martzloff
demonstrates how it might work and how it can fail. But forgets to
mention that to promote plug-in protectors.

Meanwhile Martzloff then moves on to explain that 'whole house'
protectors are the better solution. What good is a protector that is
compromised even by an Xbox? Well, Bud now tries to avoid discussing
that six port problem to avoid the Xbox problem and to avoid
discussing why that TV is put at 8000 volts by the plug-in protector.

Bud wants you to forget he is the big advocate of only part of that
paper - to intentionally promote myths.

Meanwhile those protectors use current technology in the scary
pictures. Bud will do anything to deny that reality. In one
picture, they even removed all MOVs (the active component) and its
lights still said the protector was good. Even those lights are
promoting half truths. They removed the entire protection circuit and
its light said it was OK? What kind of protection is that?
Protection promoted on myths and half truths:
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

Why not just put a whole house surge protector in at the panel? It's a
little more than a single plug-in surge protector and most likely less
expensive if using more than one plug-in surge protector. You get the
benefits of every piece of electrical equipment being protected in the
house.


"bud--" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 26, 12:08 am, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:19 am, "bud--" wrote:

What happens to "connected to the same plug-in suppressor"
electronics when a kid attaches his Xbox to the TV? Protection is
completely compromised - as Bud's own citations note when discussing
'six ports'.
"Six-ports" is in none of my citations.

Six-ports is in a Martzloff paper where he talks about surge reference
equalizers (aka multiport surge suppressors), which were new at the
time of the paper. He said:
"The surge reference equalizer combines the protective function for
both system ports [power and signal] in the same enclosure. The device
is plugged in the power receptacle near the equipment to be protected,
with the communications system wires (telephone or data link) or the
coaxial cable (TV) routed through the enclosure. A common, single
grounding connection equalizes the voltages of the two paths that
return the surge through the grounding connection of the 3-prong power
line plug, as shown in Figure 4.
"Such a solution is particularly attractive as an element of 'whole-
house protection', a concept that has been recently introduced by some
electric utilities."

Martzloff recommends surge reference equalizers in the paper, just
like he does in the NIST guide. But w_ can't understand how they work.
A kid with an Xbox can.



In one post, Bud recommends earthing so that 8000 volts does not
damage a TV. In another, Bud claims "surge reference equalizer" does
not require earthing. Which is it?
w_ is forced to misrepresent information that conflictes with his
beliefs.. What I have said, and what the IEEE guide says, is that plug-
in surge suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all
wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the suppressor. They
do not work PRIMARILY by earthing. 8kV is part of the IEEE guide
explanation of how plug-in suppressors work. Since it does not work
primarily by earthing it violates w_'s religious beliefs and he is not
able to understand the IEEE description.



He hopes you will not notice this. No plug-in protectors
manufacture claims to provide such protection in their numerical
specifications. If they did, then they could be sued.
This may be the stupidest thing w_ says. Specs are readily available,
along with protection guarantees for many devices.



Why does Bud intentionally distort what even the IEEE recommends in
standards? Remember IEEE does not recommend in papers. IEEE
recommends in standards. And IEEE standards repeatedly define
earthing (what 'whole house' protectors do) as essential to
electronics protection.
Why does w_ refuse to acknowledge that the IEEE Emerald book, an IEEE
standard, includes plug-in suppressors (surge reference equalizers)
as an effective protection device?

Why is w_ stupid enough to say the IEEE would publish a guide for the
general public that is not consistent with IEEE standards?



Bud just forgets to mention that Martzloff recommends "service
entrance" protection - also called a 'whole house' protector.
From the NIST guide, written by Martzloff, [who was the surge guru at
the NIST]:
"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, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power
AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of
two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO -
but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service
entrance is useless."


But then who does he promote for?
I agree with w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only interests
in surge protectors are that I have two.


Bud would even hope you believe current technology protectors did
not create these scary pictures:
Lacking technical arguments w_ tries scare tactics.


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
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. w_ can't understand his own links

None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL
labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with
suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors
shouldn't be used. The links do give info on how to use plug-in
suppressors.

And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective -
just w_'s ranting.

But both the IEEE and NIST say plug-in suppressors are effective. As
does Martzloff in a new source above.

--
bud--

"FDR" wrote in message
...
Why not just put a whole house surge protector in at the panel? It's a
little more than a single plug-in surge protector and most likely less
expensive if using more than one plug-in surge protector. You get the
benefits of every piece of electrical equipment being protected in the
house.

Depends on the hit.
Our home theater got hit when our chimney took a direct bolt that hit the
fireplace insert, that had a fan... that vaporized.

And the bolt entered the house wiring in the same room as the theater, about
50 ft from the service panel.

Fortunately, I had built my own multistage protector with huge MOV's backed
up with flashover tubes... it took kilojoules and save much of the equipment
on the power line.

Unfortunately, my cable TV coax was attached to the chimney... and the
lightning came in that way too.

On Feb 26, 2:08 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 26, 3:33 am, "bud--" wrote:

"Six-ports" is in none of my citations.

Six-ports is in a Martzloff paper where he talks about surge reference
equalizers (aka multiport surge suppressors), which were new at the
time of the paper. He said:
"The surge reference equalizer combines the protective function for
both system ports [power and signal] in the same enclosure. The device
is plugged in the power receptacle near the equipment to be protected,
with the communications system wires (telephone or data link) or the
coaxial cable (TV) routed through the enclosure. A common, single
grounding connection equalizes the voltages of the two paths that
return the surge through the grounding connection of the 3-prong power
line plug, as shown in Figure 4.

And then he goes on to explain how anything - such as a kid with an
Xbox - completely violates that protection. Any one port not covered;
then damage may result. Attach an
Xbox to the TV and a port have been violated - damage can result.

It is yet another source w_ can't understand. The title is: "AN
IMPORTANT LINK IN WHOLE-HOUSE PROTECTION: SURGE REFERENCE EQUALIZERS".
As is apparent from the title, it describes how surge reference
equalizers - SREs - can protect equipment connected to both power and
signal wiring. It was written in 1993 when SREs were quite new. The
only ports on almost any household equipment are power and signal. The
point was both are protected by a SRE. And any kid with an Xbox is a
lot smarter than w_.


Bud hopes you take that SRE paper as a recommendation. Martzloff
demonstrates how it might work and how it can fail. But forgets to
mention that to promote plug-in protectors.
Bullcrap. w_ can't figure out how plug-in surge suppressors work. The
IEEE and NIST guides, along with the 6 ports paper say plug-in
suppressors work.



Meanwhile Martzloff then moves on to explain that 'whole house'
protectors are the better solution.
More bull crap. Martzloff, describing SREs in the 6 ports paper says
"Such a solution is particularly attractive as an element of 'whole-
house protection',"



Bud wants you to forget he is the big advocate of only part of that
paper - to intentionally promote myths.
w_, being unable to comprehend how SREs work. misinterprets
conflicting information and creates myths not supported elsewhere in
the known universe.


Protection promoted on myths and half truths:
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
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."

And another link w_ can't understand.

And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are not effective.
There are 97,463,861 web sites, including 12,587,333 by lunatics, and
w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are not
effective.

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

--
bud--

On Feb 26, 6:55 pm, "FDR" wrote:
Why not just put a whole house surge protector in at the panel? It's a
little more than a single plug-in surge protector and most likely less
expensive if using more than one plug-in surge protector. You get the
benefits of every piece of electrical equipment being protected in the
house.

Damn - an actual good question. After w_ I am almost out of practice.

As you have probably noted I recommend reading the IEEE guide on
surges and protection at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
And a similar NIST guide at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide says the following are effective - used together as
appropriate:
earthing of the power system
single point grounding
surge suppressor at the power service
plug-in surge suppressors - particularly surge reference
equalizers (mltiport suppressors)

The NIST guide recommendation are the same or similar. I agree with
those recommendations.

Earthing is basic - every system will be earthed.

Single point grounding is where the phone, CATV, ... protectors are
near to, and connected with short wires to the earthing wire at the
power service. Not using a single point ground can cause equipment
damage to equipment connected to both power and signal wires as
illustrated in the IEEE guide - guide page 31. The illustration
continues to show how a SRE can provide protection when there is not a
single point ground. Single point grounds are often not established.
My house had the phone NID connected to the water pipe, which was a
common practice but did not provide a short interconnection. And it is
not uncommon to have the signal service points distant from the power
service point (in that case the signal wires can be run to a second
protector adjacent to the power service and a second protector
installed - with signal distribution from that point).

Power service surge protectors are a real good idea. Some reason why
they might not be installed:
rental property
cost, if installed by an electrician
lightning risk is relatively low
not much equipment needs to be protected

Plug-in surge suppressors, which should include all interconnected
equipment and external signal wires, will provide protection if some
of the above are not present. They are also extra insurance for high
value equipment - HDTV being a prime example. I have a plug-in
protector on my computer, not so much because of its value but the
value of the data and hassle of setting up a new one.
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, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power
AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of
two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO -
but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service
entrance is useless."

Looking at SquareD power service protectors - the best one has ports
for phone and CATV. The $ protection warranty doubles if plug-in
suppressors are present.
The $ protection warranty for the next best one does not include
electronics equipment like audio, TV, computer, microwave.
A lot of plug-in protectors have $protection warranties that cover
connected equipment.

Finally, my comments responding to w_ are almost always that plug-in
suppressors are effective, not that I recommend them. My
recommendation is to read the guides and decide what is appropriate
for you situation.

--
bud--

On Feb 26, 1:55 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
On Feb 26, 9:00 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:

Joule ratings are not necessarily reliable indicators for comparison.

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.

Why do MOV manufacturers provide charts that list joules in relation
to length of surge, size of surge, and number of surges? Why do MOV
manufacturer numbers say directly opposite what Leonard has just
posted?
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.


We had this conversation before when I discovered Leonard
did not learn how MOVs work nor read manufacturer datasheets. Well,
here is a datasheet. As joules increase, a line for life expectancy
moves up the chart. The lurker can take numbers from charts for each
MOV; see that Bud and Leonard have just posted deception.
What Bud just posted is exactly what the IEEE guide says. Leonard says
the same thing.


Let's take an example: multiple 10,000 amp surges for a typical 30
microseconds. A 330 joule MOV (V251CA32) will shunt twice before
degrading (not vaporize as happens with intentionally undersized
protectors). The 880 joule MOV (V251CA60) will shunt 10. With 2.7
times more joules, then life expectancy increase exponentially to 5
times longer.
If you had a clue you would have seen me make this argument several
times.



These numbers contradict what both Bud and Leonard have posted. But
again, they are promoting plug-in protectors.
Geez Leonard - you made it to the big time.

Accurate numbers are
not what plug-in protector promoters will provide.
If that applies to Leonard and me you just destroyed your rant. The
quotes at the start from both fo us is that numbers on energy ratings
are not comparable. Your stupidity is increasing.

Honesty is in short supply among plug-
in protector manufacturers and their promoter.
Intelligence is in increasingly short supply in w_'s posts.

--
bud--

On Feb 26, 8:00 am, "Leonard Caillouet" wrote:

I would rather have it clamp to a lower voltage and be safer. Small surges
that would fall between 330V and 600V are going to be tolerated by modern
MOVs repeatedly. With the units that offer a lifetime warranty and a vendor
that is quick to replace them,
Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

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.


I'll take the risk of damaging the MOVs and
protecting the equipment. You always know when an MOV is shot because they
fail with a dead short, causing the breaker to open.
I don't believe MOVs reliably trip circuit breakers on plug-in surge
suppressors before damage is caused by the overheating of the MOV on
its path ot a short..

In any case, the 1998 revision to the UL standard required protection
that disconnects overheating MOVs. I believe that is implemented by
fuses or similar devices immediately adjacent to the MOVs to
disconnect them. It is likely the MOVs will be disconnected without
tripping the breaker, so the unit is still powered.

The IEEE guide describes that the protected load may be connected
across the MOVs and be disconnected when they are disconnected, or the
load may stay powered with no protection. Manufacturers are required
to indicate which method is used. Disconnecting the load sounds like a
good idea.


None of the ratings are a perfect
representation of the best TVSS. I think you have to look at the whole
picture and use common sense. That is where I came up with the two
recommended units that I have posted previously and below. If you have any
better suggestions, I would be very interested to see how you sort out what
is available.
The one I recently bought was a Belkin. There a lot of protectors with
high ratings that should be perfectly good. I would use one with a
recognized name.


I like the first because it is cheap and has more outlets
and after taking them apart, I find that it has comparable protection to the
Panamax for the a.c. and what I consider adequate protection on the signal
lines. I like the second because of the similar protection, reputation of
the company, the over/under voltage cutoff feature, and slightly better
info, and perhaps clamping, on the signal line protection.

To summarize, my suggetions for best value in surge protection a

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16812120408
Interesting, it does not provide surge current ratings on this page.
But ratings are on a linked manufacturer page. I'm also surprised the
manufacturer $ protection warranty is not on the first page

http://www.panamax.com/products.cfm?...il&id=249&ly=v
Fairly spendy but includes over/under voltage protection. I had read
that is available but hadn't seen a protector with it before. The
manufacturer has a hidden $ protection warranty for this one too.



And thanks, Bud, for debunking w_tom and his foolishness.

w_ is evangelical in his beliefs about plug-in suppressors and he
searches google-groups "surge" to find heathens, like Jane, to
convert. Alas, Jane, and you, are still pagans.

--
bud--

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. Plug-in
protectors claim more joules than actually protect. Why? Numerous
reasons. One: undersizing - having some protectors smoke - actually
promotes more sales.

Bud claims no relationship between joules and MOV life expectancy.
MOV manufacturer specs - view those datasheets yourself at
http://www.littelfuse.com/data/en/Data_Sheets/CA.pdf
- show increased joules exponentially increases protector life
expectancy.

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". 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

Sell a $3 power strip with some ten cent protector parts for $25 and
$125. Bud promotes for these manufacturers. Bud does not promote
for responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Square
D, Siemens, or Cutler-Hammer. Ask any electrician. Those latter six
manufacturer are all well respected. Therefore Bud must spin myths
so that you waste good money on more ineffective plug-in protectors.

When it smokes, Bud claims there is no relationship between joules
and protector life expectancy. Well the MOV manufacturer datasheet
proves he was lying.

Again, little relationship between a plug-in protector's joules and
life expectancy. Their joules number is intentionally deceptive.
Deception from a plug-in protector manufacturer? Oh my! Just
another example of why responsible manufacturers such as Square D,
Siemens, GE, et al make 'whole house' protectors - with the necessary
and dedicated earthing connection.

Bud claims plug-in protectors use different MOVs. Well look at the
MOVs removed in this scary picture - same MOVs:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Remember when Bud said those protectors are not current technology?
Then why are the MOV manufacturers still selling the same MOVs today?
Or did he spin another myth?

Just more reasons why Bud hopes you will not view those scary
pictures of past and current protectors.

Numbers taken from that datasheet:
A 330 joule MOV (V251CA32) will shunt twice before degrading
(not vaporize as happens with intentionally undersized
protectors). The 880 joule MOV (V251CA60) will shunt 10.

As joules increase, then protector life expectancy increases
exponentially. This is valid when you install a protector from
responsible manufacturers - not purchased a plug-in protector. When
using a plug-in protector, those 'claimed' joules in numeric
specifications is not the joules actually used in protection. Why do
they (and Bud) forget to mention that? Just another reason why plug-
in protector are not effective. No wonder they have Bud obfuscating
even this reality: a protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

Bud was caught lying again to promote grossly overpriced (highly
profitable) plug-in protectors.

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.

Notice again how Bud posts a half truth. How were MOVs somehow
'fixed'? He sort of forgets to mention that part. 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

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.

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:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These
occur even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices
are present at the point of connection of appliances.

Martzloff again because Bud misrepresents what Martzloff says.
Martzloff says one 'whole house' protector is the better solution:
High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
service entrance of the premises.

Best? Well Martzloff was discussing plug-in protectors - then
recommended a "best" solution. So Bud avoids that and other Martzloff
conclusions.

Bud will even confuse shunt mode protection with clamping.
Shunting, clamping, or as Martzloff says - "best diverted" - each
defines shunting a surge to earth ground.

A list of professionals who discuss real world protection are in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS unit
needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe":
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

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:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...

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?

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. The only number in a numerical specification sheet - and
that number is deceptive? See the numbers posted 26 February at:
http://tinyurl.com/22g9du
followed by more of Bud's denials.