w_tom wrote: > On Jul 29, 4:20 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote: >> Poor w_ is fond of inventing opinions. I say high specs are more readily >> available in plug-in suppressors. >> ... >> w_'s religious mantra will keep him safe from doubt and the pagans that >> inhabit this newsgroup. > > A protector > is only as effective as its earth ground. . Ho-hum - the same religious mantra. The same drivel.
But of course still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_???
And of course still no answers to 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"? - Why does the IEEE guide say in the example above "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the example above? Why can’t you answer simple quesitons w_???
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
