On Nov 12, 2:46 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
If one represents interests of plug-in protector manufacturers, then
one must deceive.
To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." I haveno economic
interests in surge protection.


Those six engineers note how a plug-in protector can
even put a TV at 8000 volts - damage the TV - which is why the
standards don't recommend plug-in protectors.
Anyone with minimal reading skills can determine 8kV is part of a
description of how Surge Reference Equalizers work

Even a kid connecting
an Xbox to a TV can compromise plug-in protector protection -
contribute to TV damage.
A kid with an Xbox can read the IEEE and NIST guides and understand
them. Sorry about your disability.

Bud hopes you ignore what they say about a
protector without proper earthing.
The IEEE and NIST guides do not share your religious views on earthing.
Both say plug--in suppressors are effective.


Profits are too great.
The political trick again.

He hopes
you don't learn: no earth ground means no effective protection.
The statement of religious belief again.


Bud spins a technical discussion into a recommendation.
You have to be stupid to think IEEE and NIST guides intended for the
general public would waste a lot of space on "technical discussion'"
about a device the guides don't recommend.

The IEEE guide, chapter 6, "SPECIFIC PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2
examples of surge protection. Both use SREs. You have to be stupid to
say the IEEE guide does not recommend SREs.

But
recommendations are instead found in Standards such as IEEE Red Book
(IEEE Std 141):....
You also have to be stupid to say the IEEE guide, released to the
general public, would conflict with the IEEE color books.

No religion. Protection has always been about earthing.
And religious belief again. Clearly described, for those who can read,
in the IEEE guide - plug-in surge suppressors work primarily by
clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common
ground at the surge suppressor. Earthing is secondary.

Oh yes. He hopes you will ignore these scary pictures:
If you have no valid technical arguments maybe you could try pathetic
scare tactics.

http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
For those who can read, this link specifically references a revised UL
standard, effective in 1998, that requires thermal disconnect as a fix
for overheating MOVs.

http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
These links are the same. Both give guidelines for using plug-in
suppressors

None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.

http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
This link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.


UL1449 standards were created 25 years ago. Bud will try to claim
these failures did not meet UL1449.
It si not stated any of the suppressors were listed UL1449. But anyone
who can read the hanford link can determine UL1449 was modified,
(effective 1998), to require overheating MOVs be disconnected. w_
can't understand his own links.

But then he must say something to
protect those he represents.
The political trick again.


The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
And add your horror pictiure sites
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still zero
43,782,942 internet sites run by crackpots and not even they agree with
you?

--
bud--