The lie repeated.
The 2nd TV suffers 8,000V because a surge comes in on a cable service. Without a surge suppressor at the TV1 the voltage would have been
10,000V. The suppressor at TV1 causes no damage to TV2.The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service 'ground' is too long (a common problem). The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."
The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard, recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device.
The required statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. So does sparky?s quote from the Federal Citizen Information Center.
In answer to the OP - look at the 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide. One of them is for a TV and related equipment and uses a plug-in suppressor.
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"?