w_tom wrote: > On Jul 29, 4:11 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote: >> With no valid technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose >> him. To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be >> challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association >> with surge protectors is I have some. > > Bud again posts lies, insults, and half facts. . My lies and half facts come from the IEEE and NIST. And poor sensitive w_ is insulted by reality. . > A protector > is only as effective as its earth ground. . And the required religious mantra.
w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels - if you repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it. Too bad w_, it doesn’t seem to be working.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.
Of course 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"? - 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?
