w_tom wrote: > On Jul 28, 11:37 am, Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote: >> The only thing that changed was the UPS surge protectors were >> introduced. That was enough to prevent damage for years and years. >> That's good enough for me. > > Best protection also costs less money. One 'whole house' protector > (properly earthed) means an effective protector for about $1 per > protected appliance. . If you include light bulbs as appliances. . > Bud says protector circuits inside a typical UPS are inferior to those > in power strips. . Poor w_ is fond of inventing opinions. I say high specs are more readily available in plug-in suppressors. . > > A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. . w_'s religious mantra will keep him safe from doubt and the pagans that inhabit this newsgroup. . > Those who would deny this > probably also believed Saddam had WMDs. . w_ was chief advisor to W on Wmds. Note the corresponding complete lack of sources that agree with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do NOT work.
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?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
