Somehow DanS assumes a 900 joule or 1600 joule MOV protector will
absorb what three miles of sky could not. DanS has so little grasp as
to assume a 100 amp transient is a typical surge. Surges are on the
order of 10,000 amps. Cited was a tiny 100 amp surge that wall
receptacle wire could not conduct DanS had little knowledge and then
assumed that was a good earthing ground. It could not even conduct a
tiny 100 amp surge which DanS assumed is a typical surge.

Somehow, DanS confuses 12,000 volts on 50 feet of wire inside wall
with 12,000 volts across a protector. Apparently done to deceive the
lurker. Electronics charged to 12,000 volts will simply leak
electricity destructively through other paths to earth ground because
that wall receptacle ground wire is too long, too many bends, bundled
with other wires, etc. A protector will not absorb voltage to earth
because protector has no connection to earth. Why? Wire is at 12,000
volts.

But again, DanS assumes that APC's undersized 900 joules will somehow
stop what three miles of sky could not. DanS does not even know what
'joules' measure. And yet he is an expert on surge protection?

DanS - both Monster Cable and sub-$100 protector use equivalent MOV
circuits in direct contradiction to what you have posted. Same circuit
as defined by numbers provided by you. Did you have insufficient
technical knowledge to understand the significance of those numbers?

Let's start by teaching what a surge protector does - Surge
Protector 101:
http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to ground.
Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning protection device
grounds the incoming signal connection point of the equipment
being protected. Thus, redirecting the threatening surge on a
path-of-least resistance (impedance) to ground where it is
absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of switching
circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow dissipation of the
surge energy.

Notice that surge and lightning protection are same thing. DanS
posted:
No, you are assuming that lightning arrestor = surge suppressor,
which is obviously not the case.
But as this industry professional demonstrates, surge protection is
about lightning protection - in direct contradiction to what DanS
posts.

So lightning of 50,000 amps dissipates maybe one million volts in
earth. That is maybe 1.5 million joules. How does a 900 joule
protector absorb that surge? It does not as taught in Surge Protector
101. Meanwhile effective 'whole house' protectors with short earthing
connections are rated for 50,000 amps - to remain functional. Don't
take my word for it. Learn about effective protectors. Read from boxes
in Lowes and Home Depot, or read internet posted specifications from
GE, Siemens, Cutler Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, and Leviton. DanS -
learn some facts before reiterating half truths from store shelves. You
did not even know a '900 joules' number until forcefully challenged.
You still don't know that 900 joules in that APC is woefully
undersized.

What do effective protectors provide? A dedicated wire for a 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth. What does your sub-$100 UPS and
Monster Cable both not discuss since neither even claims such
protection? Earthing.

Meanwhile DanS has just passively conceding that his recommendations
do not provide EMI / RFI protection. Concedes that the Monster Cable
and sub-$100 UPS have same protector circuit. Slowly he is being moved
to reality.

We should spend $100 to protect only one appliance? If not for
lightning, then what are we spending so much money to protect from?
DanS still will not say. Somehow there is this other mystery surge that
he will not define. Somehow spec numbers, literally based on timing
of lightning surges, are not really for lightning protection? But
again, we catch DanS speculating because he did not first learn spec
numbers.

Dan also believes a shunt mode protector will somehow operate in
series - to absorb surge energy. Again he is assuming without first
learning what MOVs do. They are shunt mode devices. Better MOVs that
conduct to earth are better shunt mode protection. They work by
shunting - not absorbing. Somehow DanS even assumes a protector will
somehow absorb 12,000 volts out of the 50 feet AC wire; confusing
voltage across a protector with voltage to earth ground.

If DanS really knew antennas, then he knew what industry
professionals say:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle
*direct lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some
planning and careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly
expensive. At WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning
strikes nearly every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime
from such strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went
down from a strike, it was due to a strike on the power
company's lines knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy
to go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than
just a low ohm DC path.

The lurker is cautioned about junk science experts who could not
bother to first learn the numbers, what numbers mean, and how a
protector really works (it shunts). DanS would have us believe shunt
mode protectors operate in series mode. That these devices do EMI/RFI
protection when their own numerical specs don't even make that claim.

Instead, protection is about earthing. Effective 'whole house'
protectors with responsible brand names also make that 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth. Somehow APC's undersized 900 joules will
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what DanS
claims. Be wary of 'experts' who could not even cite manufacturer's
numerical specifications and who did not know what numbers measured -
but somehow know that it works.

DanS wrote:
...
NO, you install a lightning protector to protect against lightning.
...

Yes, decades of experience on my part also, 20+ years of wireless
communications experience.....with actual lightning
ATTRACTORS....antennas.
...

No, I have not assumes that copper is an ideal conductor. AND, the DC
resistance of that will not change during a surge, what you are referring
to is most likely reactive inductance. Just like what happens when a
large motor is energized.
...

Well, I have provided you with numbers...the APC one, claiming around 900
joules, and I looked up the Monster item you keep speaking about. That
indicates 1600 joules. But apparently you do not read entire posts. Or
you just ignore anything you don't like.

So....let's do the math.
...
Therefore, your 12,000 volts at 100 amps for 1ms figures to be 1.2
millions watts. So, the Monster (suprisingly) would, IN THEORY, absorb
this, depending on how long it lasts. And let's face it, this is ALL
theory.
...

No, you are assuming that lightning arrestor = surge suppressor, which is
obviously not the case.

These terms are NOT interchangable.