Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ?

On Dec 8, 10:52 pm, Paul <nos....RemoveThis@needed.com> wrote:
> Generally speaking, a breaker would trip, if something on the load
> side exceeds the rating (15A or whatever). If a MOV clamps the line,
> and continues to clamp after the transient disappears, then the
> breaker (or another fuse device inside), may open.
> ...
> In some surge strip designs I've read about, the MOV devices are supposed
> to have some free space around them. When they blow (fail while protecting
> your equipment), they need room so the exploding bits can get out of the
> way.

Surge protectors do not operate as posted. First, breaker will not
open due to MOV clamping. MOVs inside plug-in protectors are a fire
threat. Therefore MOVs have their own thermal fuse to disconnect only
MOVs on a tiniest current - to completely disconnect MOV protectors
leaving a surge connected to the appliance. Oh! MOVs disconnect fast
and early? Yes, because the protector is typically undersized and
because the disconnected MOVs (what the status light reports) will get
the naive to buy more undersized protectors.

Why must MOVs disconnect so quickly? 'Scary pictures' demonstrate a
problem with some current technology (and undersized) surge
protectors:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html :
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPR...OR%20FI
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

In one zerosurge.com picture, MOV (the protectors) are completely
removed. Status light says protector is OK. Status light can only
report a defective protector (only due to catastrophic, unacceptable
failure) AND cannot report a good protector. Just because a light
implies OK does not mean the protector is OK. But yYou might learn a
'blowing' protector is completely unacceptable - means no effective
protection. So they remain mute - leaving the naive convert
speculation into facts as Paul has done.

"Scary pictures" are but another reason why a protector is best
switched off when not in use.

Second, MOVs must never protect by 'blowing'. That catastrophic
failure, common in plug-in protectors, is completely unacceptable to
MOV manufacturers. No manufacturer numbers exist for operation by
'blowing' (catastrophic failure). Blowing exceeds manufacturer's
Absolute Maximum Parameters - is unacceptable. MOV protectors must
shunt (earth) a surge AND remain operational. Manufacturers even
provides charts for normal operation by defining current, length of
surge, and number of surges. Number of surges may be 10, 100, 1000,
10000, etc. Yes, effective protectors are not a 'one shot' devices
despite popular myth.

When is the MOV degraded? Degraded - not catastrophically
destroyed. When its voltage changes 10%. It must remain completely
functional and only degrad. Status lamp will not indicate
degradation. Status lamp only indicates a catastrophic (unacceptable)
failure.

An effective protector earths a surge and remains operational.
Human should never know a surge even existed. But properly sized
protectors would not have the naive promoting myths. Grossly
undersized protectors that 'blow', instead, are promoted by myth
purveyors as 'one shot' devices.

A common myth is, "My protector sacrificed itself to save my
computer". What really happened? A surge too small to overwhelm
protection already inside the computer, instead, catastrophically
destroyed the grossly undersized protector. Surge struck both
protectcor and computer simultaneously. Better is to undersized a
protector the naive will promote myths. If a protector was effective,
the myth purveyor would not know a surge even existed and would not
recommend that protector to friends.

Any protection attached to its power cord is already inside the
computer and other household appliances. Protection already inside
the appliance makes a small surge irrelevant. But that same 'so
small' surge catastrophically and unacceptably destroys an undersized
protector - as statud light indicates.

Third, protection inside all appliances means a surge must be
earthed before entering the building. Surges must be earthed (not
stopped or absorbed) by a protector. Energy that was not stopped by
three miles of sky must be dissipated somewhere. An effective
protector connects a surge *to* protection. An effective protector
connects that energy to earth where surge is harmlessly dissipated.
But if the protector has no dedicated earthing wire, then where does
that energy get dissipated? Destructively inside household appliances
or destructively inside a grossly undersized protector.

How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
earthing wire. 2) Manufacture avoid all discussion about earthing.

Effective protector remains functional after every surge. Status
light must not report a failure. But grossly undersizing a protector
gets the naive to recommend these products and increases a massive
profit margin. Sometimes a backup safety circuit does not work. Then
'scary pictures' occur. An effective protector is identified by a
dedicated, short (less than 10 foot) connection to earth. Plug-in
protectors have no such earthing connection. No problem. It will
blow on a surge too small to harm the computer anyway. Resulting
myths will promote more profits. Profit - not protection - are its
function.

Scary pictures demonstrate why turning off the protector is advisable
(as staff is probably doing). Protectors do not operate as Paul has
posted. Paul has read popular myths rather than manufacturer data
sheets. Exploding MOVs are unacceptable operation. Breaker does not
trip as Paul states.
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

> posted. Paul has read popular myths rather than manufacturer data
> sheets. Exploding MOVs are unacceptable operation. Breaker does not
> trip as Paul states.

I am talking about the external on-off switch only. does it trip ?ie
does it go from an on position to an off position ?
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

On Dec 9, 7:29 pm, blackboab <blackb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am talking about the external on-off switch only. does it trip ?ie
> does it go from an on position to an off position ?

First, if switch tripped as Paul has suggested, then that switch is
a circuit breaker and would have a current rating on it. MOVs also
would not trip a circuit breaker.

Second, if switch was a circuit breaker, then another 15 amp circuit
breaker would not exist. All power strips must have a circuit breaker
(or fuse) for human safety reasons. (However some power strips don't
which might then be a reason to dispose of that power strip).
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

w_tom wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:52 pm, Paul <nos....DeleteThis@needed.com> wrote:
>> Generally speaking, a breaker would trip, if something on the load
>> side exceeds the rating (15A or whatever). If a MOV clamps the line,
>> and continues to clamp after the transient disappears, then the
>> breaker (or another fuse device inside), may open.

MOVs are intended to protect from surges. A surge is by definition a
very short duration event. Very unlikely a breaker would trip from
clamping a surge. Breakers are to protect from too much load plugged
into the strip. I suspect the breaker was switched off.


>> In some surge strip designs I've read about, the MOV devices are supposed
>> to have some free space around them. When they blow (fail while protecting
>> your equipment), they need room so the exploding bits can get out of the
>> way.

As noted below, for many years plug-in suppressors have been required by
UL to have thermal disconnects for failing MOVs. In the US, only listed
suppressors should be used.

>
> Surge protectors do not operate as posted. First, breaker will not
> open due to MOV clamping. MOVs inside plug-in protectors are a fire
> threat. Therefore MOVs have their own thermal fuse to disconnect only
> MOVs on a tiniest current - to completely disconnect MOV protectors
> leaving a surge connected to the appliance. Oh! MOVs disconnect fast
> and early? Yes, because the protector is typically undersized and
> because the disconnected MOVs (what the status light reports) will get
> the naive to buy more undersized protectors.

“Undersized” and “disconnect early” - only with an incompetent
manufacturer. A competent manufacturer carefully matches the protection
to the MOVs.

For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

>
> Why must MOVs disconnect so quickly? 'Scary pictures' demonstrate a
> problem with some current technology (and undersized) surge
> protectors:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. w_ has no
links that say overheating is a problem under the UL standard in effect
since 1998.

> In one zerosurge.com picture, MOV (the protectors) are completely
> removed. Status light says protector is OK.

This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see
if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.


> Status light can only
> report a defective protector (only due to catastrophic, unacceptable
> failure) AND cannot report a good protector.

MOVs fail by conducting at too low a voltage resulting in thermal
runaway. That causes the thermal disconnects to open. Status lights
indicate if the MOVs have been disconnected, and conversely if the MOVs
are OK.

>
> Second, MOVs must never protect by 'blowing'. That catastrophic
> failure, common in plug-in protectors

The NIST guru on surges has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge."

In fact a plug-in suppressor with high ratings is very unlikely to fail.
That is why manufacturers can offer warranties on not only the
suppressor but connected equipment.

> Better is to undersized a
> protector the naive will promote myths. If a protector was effective,
> the myth purveyor would not know a surge even existed and would not
> recommend that protector to friends.

w_ appears to believe all plug-in suppressors are undersized. Plug-in
suppressors with very high ratings are readily available and relatively
inexpensive.

>
> Any protection attached to its power cord is already inside the
> computer and other household appliances. Protection already inside
> the appliance makes a small surge irrelevant. But that same 'so
> small' surge catastrophically and unacceptably destroys an undersized
> protector - as statud light indicates.

Complete nonsense.

> Energy that was not stopped by
> three miles of sky must be dissipated somewhere. An effective
> protector connects a surge *to* protection. An effective protector
> connects that energy to earth where surge is harmlessly dissipated.
> But if the protector has no dedicated earthing wire, then where does
> that energy get dissipated?

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport
suppressors are described in both guides.

>
> How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
> earthing wire. 2) Manufacture avoid all discussion about earthing.

With minimal reading skills w_ could find in the IEEE guide that plug–in
suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

Never answered:
- 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"?

–
bud--
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

bud-- wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 10:52 pm, Paul <nos....RemoveThis@needed.com> wrote:
>>> Generally speaking, a breaker would trip, if something on the load
>>> side exceeds the rating (15A or whatever). If a MOV clamps the line,
>>> and continues to clamp after the transient disappears, then the
>>> breaker (or another fuse device inside), may open.
>
> MOVs are intended to protect from surges. A surge is by definition a
> very short duration event. Very unlikely a breaker would trip from
> clamping a surge. Breakers are to protect from too much load plugged
> into the strip. I suspect the breaker was switched off.
>
>
>>> In some surge strip designs I've read about, the MOV devices are
>>> supposed
>>> to have some free space around them. When they blow (fail while
>>> protecting
>>> your equipment), they need room so the exploding bits can get out of the
>>> way.
>
> As noted below, for many years plug-in suppressors have been required by
> UL to have thermal disconnects for failing MOVs. In the US, only listed
> suppressors should be used.
>
>>
>> Surge protectors do not operate as posted. First, breaker will not
>> open due to MOV clamping. MOVs inside plug-in protectors are a fire
>> threat. Therefore MOVs have their own thermal fuse to disconnect only
>> MOVs on a tiniest current - to completely disconnect MOV protectors
>> leaving a surge connected to the appliance. Oh! MOVs disconnect fast
>> and early? Yes, because the protector is typically undersized and
>> because the disconnected MOVs (what the status light reports) will get
>> the naive to buy more undersized protectors.
>
> “Undersized” and “disconnect early” - only with an incompetent
> manufacturer. A competent manufacturer carefully matches the protection
> to the MOVs.
>
> For reliable information on surges and surge protection try:
> http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
> - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
> for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
> communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
> dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
> And also:
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
> appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
> Standards and Technology in 2001
>
> The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
> NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
>
>>
>> Why must MOVs disconnect so quickly? 'Scary pictures' demonstrate a
>> problem with some current technology (and undersized) surge
>> protectors:
>> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
>
> w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
> model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
> UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. w_ has no
> links that say overheating is a problem under the UL standard in effect
> since 1998.
>
>> In one zerosurge.com picture, MOV (the protectors) are completely
>> removed. Status light says protector is OK.
>
> This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
> steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see
> if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.
>
>
>> Status light can only
>> report a defective protector (only due to catastrophic, unacceptable
>> failure) AND cannot report a good protector.
>
> MOVs fail by conducting at too low a voltage resulting in thermal
> runaway. That causes the thermal disconnects to open. Status lights
> indicate if the MOVs have been disconnected, and conversely if the MOVs
> are OK.
>
>>
>> Second, MOVs must never protect by 'blowing'. That catastrophic
>> failure, common in plug-in protectors
>
> The NIST guru on surges has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS
> [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
> unusually large surge."
>
> In fact a plug-in suppressor with high ratings is very unlikely to fail.
> That is why manufacturers can offer warranties on not only the
> suppressor but connected equipment.
>
>> Better is to undersized a
>> protector the naive will promote myths. If a protector was effective,
>> the myth purveyor would not know a surge even existed and would not
>> recommend that protector to friends.
>
> w_ appears to believe all plug-in suppressors are undersized. Plug-in
> suppressors with very high ratings are readily available and relatively
> inexpensive.
>
>>
>> Any protection attached to its power cord is already inside the
>> computer and other household appliances. Protection already inside
>> the appliance makes a small surge irrelevant. But that same 'so
>> small' surge catastrophically and unacceptably destroys an undersized
>> protector - as statud light indicates.
>
> Complete nonsense.
>
>> Energy that was not stopped by
>> three miles of sky must be dissipated somewhere. An effective
>> protector connects a surge *to* protection. An effective protector
>> connects that energy to earth where surge is harmlessly dissipated.
>> But if the protector has no dedicated earthing wire, then where does
>> that energy get dissipated?
>
> w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
> must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
> well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
> suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
> to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
> primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains
> earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
>
> Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
> plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
> suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
> the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents
> damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport
> suppressors are described in both guides.
>
>>
>> How to identify an ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated
>> earthing wire. 2) Manufacture avoid all discussion about earthing.
>
> With minimal reading skills w_ could find in the IEEE guide that plug–in
> suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
>
> The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
> whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
> plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
>
> There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
> and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
> effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
> in earthing.
>
> Never answered:
> - 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"?
>
> –
> bud--
>
Also the OP was in a hotel room. NO possibility for "earthing".
Eric
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

On Dec 10, 9:16 am, Eric <m....DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote:
> Also the OP was in a hotel room. NO possibility for "earthing".
> Eric

Bud's citations warn that a protector without proper earthing may
earth that surge, 8000 volts destructively, through electronics. Page
42 Figure 8 shows an adjacent plug-in protector earthing a surge
destructively through an adjacent TV. The protector was too far from
earth ground AND too close to electronics. Protector's numeric specs
do not even claim to provide protection. So Bud posts half-truths.

Bud promotes for plug-in protectors. He disparages posts that
accuracy describe his protectors. He posts technical citations that,
if not technically understood, may appear to promote his protectors.
His plug-in protector does not even claim to provide protection.
Where are the numbers? Bud will provide no numbers AND will routinely
avoid this question. Why? Profits are too high. Protector does not
claim to provide protection. And then we have those 'scary pictures';
what happens to current technology protectors including a building
last September in Boston

Grossly undersizing plug-in protectors maximize profits AND get the
naive to promote protection myths. Protectors that don't even claim
to provide protection are promoted by Bud. Those 'scary pictures' are
why hotel staff would be encouraged to switch off such power strip
protectors. 'Scary pictures' because undersizing a protector
increases profits. Bud's job: to promote more myths.

So where do plug-in protector spec numbers actually claim to
protect? They don't.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as Bud's
citations bluntly state. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Where does that energy get dissipated when the protector has no
earth ground? Page 42 Figure 8 - destructively through adjacent
electronics. The effective protector connects a surge to earth long
before that surge can get near to computer. Effective protector is
located distant from the computer and at the earth ground.

Since a plug-in protector does not even claim to provide protection,
then undersizing it increases profits and promotes more sales.
Unfortunately, undersizing may also create those 'scary pictures' if a
safety thermal fuse fails.

Protector circuits do not turn off the power switch despite what
another suggested. Recommended is to switch off that protector when
not in use - as the hotel staff may be doing to reduce a fire threat.
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

w_tom wrote:
> On Dec 10, 9:16 am, Eric <m....TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote:
>> Also the OP was in a hotel room. NO possibility for "earthing".
>> Eric

Yes - nice point.

>
> Bud's citations warn that a protector without proper earthing may
> earth that surge, 8000 volts destructively, through electronics. Page
> 42 Figure 8 shows an adjacent plug-in protector earthing a surge
> destructively through an adjacent TV.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at 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. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector”.

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.

>
> Bud promotes for plug-in protectors.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.

>
> Grossly undersizing plug-in protectors maximize profits AND get the
> naive to promote protection myths.

Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized
suppressor. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available for
relatively low cost.

>
> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as Bud's
> citations bluntly state.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide
says plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.

Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

> From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

Then read w_’s sources - oops - he still hasn’t found another lunatic
that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

Still no answers to simple 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

bud-- wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 9:16 am, Eric <m....DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote:
>>> Also the OP was in a hotel room. NO possibility for "earthing".
>>> Eric
>
> Yes - nice point.
>
>>
>> Bud's citations warn that a protector without proper earthing may
>> earth that surge, 8000 volts destructively, through electronics. Page
>> 42 Figure 8 shows an adjacent plug-in protector earthing a surge
>> destructively through an adjacent TV.
>
> The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
> service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
> suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.
>
> Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
> the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
> that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
> at 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. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
> effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector”.
>
> Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
> he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.
>
>>
>> Bud promotes for plug-in protectors.
>
> To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
> challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
> with surge protectors is I have some.
>
> With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
>
>>
>> Grossly undersizing plug-in protectors maximize profits AND get the
>> naive to promote protection myths.
>
> Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized
> suppressor. Suppressors with very high ratings are readily available for
> relatively low cost.
>
>>
>> A protector is only as effective as its earth ground as Bud's
>> citations bluntly state.
>
> The required statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide
> says plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
>
> Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
>
>> From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24) of
>> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
>
> What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
> They are "the easiest solution".
>
> The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is
> whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
> plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.
>
> Then read w_’s sources - oops - he still hasn’t found another lunatic
> that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
>
> Still no answers to simple 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"?
> - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
> IEEE example, pdf page 42?
>
> Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
> Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
> Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
> Attempts to discredit opponents.
> w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
>
Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.
Eric
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

On Dec 11, 11:38 am, Eric <m....RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote:
> Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
> automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.
Why does Bud cut and paste same replies everywhere - like a bot.
Why does Bud post incessantly so that only Bud gets the last reply?
Who is the troll? One who discusses many electrical subjects (besides
protectors) to deflate popular myths? Or Bud who cut and pastes myths
to promote for plug-in protectors? Why, Eric, do you ignore Bud who
posts same myths everywhere? Ask Bud for numbers that define
protection. A bot cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. A plug-
in protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Did Eric
notice that fact - or instead attack the messenger?

According to Bud's citations, a hotel power strip protector cannot
protect:
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

How does it 'divert to ground' when, as Eric notes, no earth ground
exists? Where would a surge go without an earth ground? Page 42
Figure 8. Surge was dissipated 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. Effective protectors are (as Bud's citations note) close
to earth ground (not in a hotel room) where surge energy is harmlessly
dissipated.
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

w_tom wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:38 am, Eric <m... DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>> Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
>> automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.

Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups
for "surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens.

w_ never posts a link to a site that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. I wonder why?

w_ never answers 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

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

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

w_tom wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:38 am, Eric <m... DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>> Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
>> automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.
> Why does Bud cut and paste same replies everywhere - like a bot.
> Why does Bud post incessantly so that only Bud gets the last reply?
> Who is the troll? One who discusses many electrical subjects (besides
> protectors) to deflate popular myths? Or Bud who cut and pastes myths
> to promote for plug-in protectors? Why, Eric, do you ignore Bud who
> posts same myths everywhere? Ask Bud for numbers that define
> protection. A bot cannot post spec numbers that do not exist. A plug-
> in protector does not even claim to provide that protection. Did Eric
> notice that fact - or instead attack the messenger?
>
> According to Bud's citations, a hotel power strip protector cannot
> protect:
>> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
>> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
>> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
>> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
>
> How does it 'divert to ground' when, as Eric notes, no earth ground
> exists? Where would a surge go without an earth ground? Page 42
> Figure 8. Surge was dissipated 8000 volts destructively through an
> adjacent TV. Effective protectors are (as Bud's citations note) close
> to earth ground (not in a hotel room) where surge energy is harmlessly
> dissipated.
No attack from me.. I have no disagreement really. Your posts just
seem..artificial somehow. You seem to be on a crusade of sorts..
Probably pearls before swine for the most part. Why not just forget the
whole thing?
Eric
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

bud-- wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 11:38 am, Eric <m... DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote:
>>> Is w_tom a real person or some bot? Funny how he pops up almost
>>> automatically on the mention of surge suppressors.
>
> Being evangelical in his belief in earthing, w_ trolls google-groups
> for "surge" to paste his religious tract to convert the heathens.
>
> w_ never posts a link to a site that agrees with him that plug-in
> suppressors are NOT effective. I wonder why?
>
> w_ never answers 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"?
> - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
> IEEE example, pdf page 42?
>
> For accurate information read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
> suppressors are effective.
>
> Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
> Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
> Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
> Attempts to discredit opponents.
> w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
>
Maybe he worships the Earth Mother..
Eric
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ? 

On Dec 12, 11:13 am, Eric <m....RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote:
> No attack from me.. I have no disagreement really. Your posts just
> seem..artificial somehow.

Feelings are irrelevant when discussing science. Is a perception
relevant; or do we bluntly go after the facts? Facts were provided
the only way I know how - with numerous supporting sources, numbers,
citations, etc. And with myths bluntly exposed. Is that a crusade OR
seeking an irrefutible fact in direct contradictionm to popular myth?

Contrary to what was posted, a protector does not operate by
tripping a circuit breaker, fuse, or switch. Even millisecond verses
microsecond numbers prove that does not happen. But then a plug-in
protector also has another problem - trying to do something useful.

An effective protector has a short connection to earth. A grossly
undersized and obscenely profitable protector could even be a fire
hazard - 'scary pictures'. Protector is best switched off or
unplugged when left in the hotel room - which may be what the hotel
staff is doing to reduce fire risk.
 >> Stay informed about: Belkin Surgemaster : How does it operate ?