Does a MOV shunt current or equalize voltage?

Zzzzzz. Hunh. Ah, you are still spouting your spew. I can safely ignore your ignoratia.

Did Bud forget to mention 'drivel' has been 'industry standard' protection for the past 100 years? Oh. Engineers would know this stuff. A sales promoter for plug-in protectors must lie and deny it. So Bud again posts insults - and not one technical fact.

An honest Bud would post manufacturer specs. Why does Bud never post those specs? No plug-in protector claims to protect from all types of surges. No plug-in protector claims to protect from typically destructive surges. If it did, then Bud would post those specs. So Bud posts deceiving and irrelevant questions.

Why no specs? All those plug-in protectors ... and not one spec? Bud cannot post what does not exist. So Bud posts insults.

What provides same protection as a $150 plug-in protector? A $10 protector sold in the grocery store. Profit margins are that massive.

MOVs can divert surge energy harmlessly in earth (if connected short to earth). Something must dissipate all that energy. A plug-in protector, without earthing, dissipates that energy where? 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV? How curious. Bud's citation says that can happen on Page 42 (of 61) Figure 8. Plug-in protector does not even claim such protection. Bud's citation shows why. Since one 'whole house' protector was not installed, then a plug-in protector earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent appliance.

Bud obfuscates facts. So he forgot to provide manufacturer specs (that do not exist) or mention Page 42 Figure 8.

Posted are facts even from Bud's IEEE guide. A protector is as effective as its earth ground -as all Bud citations also demonstrate. No wonder Bud never posts plug-in manufacturer protection specs. No plug-in protector claims that protection.

. An intelligent w_ would have seen specs posted in this thread already. They were ignored, as usual. .

. Poor sensitive w_ is insulted by the real world. .

. It is one of w_'s favorite lies.

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 (a common problem). In that case the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector."

- w_'s favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection. .

. w__'s religious mantra protects him from evil thoughts (aka reality).

Still never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still never answered - embarrassing questions:

- Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors?

- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?

- Why does SquareD say "electronic equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."

- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug?in] protector."

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective.