w_tom wrote: > On Jul 27, 4:39 pm, Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> wrote: >> >> Because the IEEE and the NIST are members of the conspiracy. . Yes, it all makes sense now.
. > Bud - a plug-in protector sales promoter . 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. . > IEEE, NIST etc all > say earth ground is necessary for effective protection. . The IEEE and NIST both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Never explained: - 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"? . > Page 42 Figure 8 - the plug-in protector did not make surge energy > magically disappear as Bud claims. . If poor w_ could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE guide says in this example:
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it. - "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." - In the IEEE example, a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground wire from cable entry ground block to the power service ground that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." - A power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection. . > Bud must lie about what the IEEE and NIST say. . Because of his religious blinders poor w_ can’t understand what the IEEE and NIST say.
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?
Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug–in suppressors do NOT work.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
