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. Every responsible source says earthing is required for surge protection. Bud's plug-in protectors have no earthing. So Bud says his plug-in protectors block or absorb surges by 'clamping to nothing'. His protectors will stop what three miles of sky could not? Only a sales promoter would promote that.
Bud's citation shows damage when a surge is not earthed; when only using massively profitable plug-in protectors. Bud's citation says why a 'whole house' protector is required even if using plug-in protectors. Page 42 Figure 8 - surge energy permitted inside a building must find earth ground. TV 8000 volts destroyed because a plug-in protector was too close and was too far from earth ground.
Plug-in protector does not claim protection from the typically destructive surge. Ask Bud for that plug-in protection spec. Why no specifications? No plug-in protector claims to protect from typically destructive surges. Bud must post insults to avoid that missing spec.
Effective protector *diverts* to earth before a surge can enter a building. Effective protector is about $1 per protected appliance. One unit protects everything. An honest Bud would have posted manufacturer specs that claim protection. No such specs exist. No plug-in manufacturer even claims to provide that protection. So Bud posts insults and mockery.
Surge energy not diverted - not dissipated in earth - enters a building to find numerous destructive paths inside that building. Bud cannot dispute this. So Bud posts mockery and insults. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
