Provided is data from bud's citations that show how plug-in protectors can contribute to electronics damage. And data from numerous other professional sources who also state what provides protection. Why do you waste bandwidth with false accusations? Even the NIST is quite blunt about what provides protection:
Could that be any simpler even for an English major? Why do you ignore what professional after professional state?
You claim telco surge protection is unimpressive? Every telco CO everywhere in the world is connected to overhead wires all over town. A typically thunderstorm means about 100 surges. So how many times has your town been without phone service for four days while they replace that computer? How often does this damage occur everywhere in the world? You call that 'less than pleasing'? Where is your grasp of reality? Telco switching computers everywhere in the world can suffer maybe 100 surges during every thunderstorm and must never suffer damage even from direct lightning strikes. But somehow you
*know* a plug-in protector (that costs tens or 100 times more money) is somehow better? Amazing how some *know* without first learning.Read what Norma saw (and we have seen this often). On 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage":
Or numerous examples of potential house fires (scary pictures) because plug-in protectors are doing only what their specs claim:
Most every fire company has seen this threat. And yet you otherwise? More *knowledge* without first learning?
bud even misrepresents Martzloff. A point so important that Martzloff defines plug-in (point of connection) protectors in a first conclusion of his 1994 IEEE paper:
Plug-in protectors even contributing to damage of the adjacent electronics? How curious. bud's IEEE citation Page 42 Figure 8 also shows a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. But you *konw* otherwise by not first learning? At what point do you deal with the science rather than attack the messenger?
We learned this stuff even by tracing surge damage and replacing damaged semiconductors. We traced surge current through a network of powered off computers by replacing damaged ICs. Damage because two plug-in protectors earthed a surge destructively through those computers. How many surge damaged electronics have you fixed by first
*learning* how damage occurred? There is a difference between two of us. I did this stuff. You somehow *know* without even a single fact, experience, or citation.Telcos earth 'whole house' protectors and waste no money on plug-in protectors. Telcos have effective protection - despite your false accusation. Why? A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. That plug-in protector with no earthing ... it claims protection in its numeric specs? Of course not as you demonstrated. Having trouble with facts? Then reply with those numeric specs that define protection? You did not because you cannot.
While posting false accusations, you did not even answer the OP's question. Define the speed of MOVs. To know which surge protectors are effective means you can easily answer the OP's question. With insufficient technical knowledge, you did not even answer the OP=92s question.
MOVs are so fast that impedance in its 2 inch lead can affect that measurement. Of course, you know why? Impedance explains why effective protectors make that less than 10 foot connection to earth. But again, another technical fact. When do you post even one?
Another post chock full of hard data. How will you respond? Obviously not with any supporting facts and numbers. Where is that plug-in protector spec that claims protection? You were asked for only one simple fact. You could not even provide that? As usual, the technically naive must attack the messenger. Where is that spec? How do you *know* when even the manufacturer will not make that claim? Junk science is alive and well. bud needs you to protect those profit margins.