recommend a good surge protector?

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> Anyone with more than 3 second retention can see that I did
> not "hype that as protection from all types of surges". Your veracity
> has evaporated, w_tom.

So explain what $25 or $100 protector is effective when protection
inside an appliance already provides that protection. An effective
protector is for surges that might overwhelm protection already inside
all appliances. Plug-in protector does not even claim such protection
- as missing numbers from Timothy demonstrate.

Where are numbers from the manufacturer? Anyone who uses three
seconds to be an expert could, at minimum, provide manufacturer spec
numbers for that protection. Where are those numbers? Why does Timothy
never once post any supporting facts or numbers? Why are each reply
just subjective accusations? Where are numbers from the manufacturer?
Numbers do not exist because manufacturer does not even make claims
that Timothy has speculated.

Timothy invents protection using word association and soundbytes
instead of science. He does not provide numbers because numbers do not
exist and because he does not know what to look for. Timothy even
assumes that is only one type of surge exists. Timothy forgets that
internal appliance protection makes plug-in protectors irrelevant - as
well as rediculously expensive. Timothy is classic of those who
recommend plug-in protectors - complete with accusatons about poop and
little knowledge of electricity. Poop is how plug-in protectors get
recommended. Even manufacturer numbers are not provided - and yet we
should believe? Exampled is how junk science scams are promoted.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

You're clearly a nut case on jihad, w_tom.
You and Kornball make a good pair.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> You're clearly a nut case on jihad, w_tom.
> You and Kornball make a good pair.

Timothy Daniels was asked to provide numbers for his speculations.
Again he posts insults. So typical of those who recommend plug-in
protectors. If plug-in protector manufacturers published numerical
specifications that defined protection, then Timothy and others could
provide those numbers. Numbers that define protection for a typically
destructive surge? Those numbers do not exist. Timothy can only post
insults as proof contrary.

Provided in earlier posts are effective and much less expensive surge
protection solutions.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:45:58 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels DeleteThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>You're clearly a nut case on jihad, w_tom.
>You and Kornball make a good pair.


Have a nice day Tim.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

w_tom wrote:
>
> Bud's IEEE paper proposes how SRE protection might work with a
> careful engineering analysis and without earthing. Even baseboard heat
> system must be integrated into that protection so as to not violate any
> of six ports. Clearly a kid will learn why not to route his Xbox
> wires that way.
>
> SRE protection without earthing is difficult - ineffective without
> careful engineering. Install a 'whole house' protector to even
> eliminate special child training.
>

"Careful engineering" is nowhere in the guides, or anything else I have
read, or in any of your links. Oh wait a minute, you don't have any
links. "Careful engineering" is willful stupidity back again.

>
> SRE protecton without earthing is insufficient. However Bud
> represents a plug-in protector industry.

To again quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger.."

>
> Clamping to what? Bud again posts half truths from a paper that only
> proprosed a concept.

The "IEEE guide for surge protection" wasted major space describing and
demonstrating use of a device it didn't recommend, but "only proposed a
concept"? Willful stupidity #2.


>
> What does a protector divert surges to? What must it clamp to?
> Single point earth ground. Where is the dedicated connection not
> provided by plug-in protectors? A shunt mode protector missing the
> necessary shunt (clamp) to earth is not effective.
>

It is explained clearly in the IEEE guide for those that can read and
think. Plug-in suppressors do not work by primarily by shunting. They
work primarily by clamping voltages on all wires at the SRE to the
common ground at the SRE. It is a local single point ground.

As I posted earlier, clamping violates w_'s religious principle that
"protection
is only as effective as its earth ground". He apparently can't read
and
understand the guides and then totally mischaracterizes what they say
(willful stupidity #1 & #2).

> Bud represents plug-in protector manufacturers.

Ho-hum. The political trick again.


The IEEE, NIST and Martzloff clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
52,483,208 web pages and you can't find one link that says plug-in
surge suppressors are not effective?

bud--
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"bud--" wrote:
> Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
> 52,483,208 web pages and you can't find one link that says
> plug-in surge suppressors are not effective?


Careful, there. Kornball will claim that "not effective" means
"not permanently and totally effective", and if the suppressor
is knocked out by the first lightning bolt, even if it protected the
appliance, it was "not effective" because the next lightning bolt
next month will get through. You can't have rational arguments
with these tinfoil hat guys.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:09:31 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels.RemoveThis@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"bud--" wrote:
>> Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
>> 52,483,208 web pages and you can't find one link that says
>> plug-in surge suppressors are not effective?
>
>
> Careful, there. Kornball will claim that "not effective" means
>"not permanently and totally effective", and if the suppressor
>is knocked out by the first lightning bolt, even if it protected the
>appliance, it was "not effective" because the next lightning bolt
>next month will get through. You can't have rational arguments
>with these tinfoil hat guys.


I'll claim that "effective" at preventing some surges from
going into equipment at high enough magnitude to cause
problems is true, BUT the equipment has to survive ALL
surges it sees.

Maybe you're lucky and never see medium to large surges.
Great, then you don't need much in the way of surge
protection.

Remember this basic fact-

When a surge protector claims protection, it always must
provide limitation statements to what it can actually
protect against. This is because "protection" is a
marketing term that must be qualified later, sort of like
when you see an add in the newspaper for a car that reads
"24,395 **". The two asteriks are important, because you
don't get what was first stated, it was only a marketing
tactic and there are additional details that mitigate it.

The same goes for "protection", even the manufacturers of
such devices to not just claim they "protect", they follow
with limitations to that statement. Similarly, if you only
write "protect", you are wrong to do so without
qualification, limiting statements that do reflect on use of
and intended purpose for the device. You could instead just
avoid the marketing BS and instead of claiming then
retracting with qualifiers, just state it more clearly up
front, but you lack the ability to distinguish marketing
from reality.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:09:31 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
> <TDaniels DeleteThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"bud--" wrote:
>>
>>>Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
>>>52,483,208 web pages and you can't find one link that says
>>>plug-in surge suppressors are not effective?
>>
>>
>> Careful, there. Kornball will claim that "not effective" means
>>"not permanently and totally effective", and if the suppressor
>>is knocked out by the first lightning bolt, even if it protected the
>>appliance, it was "not effective" because the next lightning bolt
>>next month will get through. You can't have rational arguments
>>with these tinfoil hat guys.
>
>
>
> I'll claim that "effective" at preventing some surges from
> going into equipment at high enough magnitude to cause
> problems is true, BUT the equipment has to survive ALL
> surges it sees.

Mankind is still searching for the perfect... well, perfect anything.

> Maybe you're lucky and never see medium to large surges.
> Great, then you don't need much in the way of surge
> protection.
>
> Remember this basic fact-
>
> When a surge protector claims protection, it always must
> provide limitation statements to what it can actually
> protect against.

And, btw, so do "whole house" 'protectors' and, for that matter, every
other manufactured device.

> This is because "protection" is a
> marketing term

It's just a word in the English language.

> that must be qualified later,

ALL devices 'must be qualified later'. That's why people write spec sheets.

> sort of like
> when you see an add in the newspaper for a car that reads
> "24,395 **". The two asteriks are important, because you
> don't get what was first stated, it was only a marketing
> tactic and there are additional details that mitigate it.
>
> The same goes for "protection", even the manufacturers of
> such devices to not just claim they "protect", they follow
> with limitations to that statement. Similarly, if you only
> write "protect", you are wrong to do so without
> qualification, limiting statements that do reflect on use of
> and intended purpose for the device. You could instead just
> avoid the marketing BS and instead of claiming then
> retracting with qualifiers, just state it more clearly up
> front, but you lack the ability to distinguish marketing
> from reality.

No offense Kony, but you're trying to thread an elephant through a needle.

Almost everything is first described in some 'common' terminology so the
'notion' of what it is gets conveyed. And is then, as you put it,
"qualified later." Or, as I put it, everything has a spec sheet.


The fact of the matter is there's no single device, be it "whole house" or
local surge protector, that can universally 'protect' (the way you define
the 'word') from all possible transients.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony <spam.TakeThisOut@spam.com> wrote
> Timothy Daniels <TDaniels.TakeThisOut@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
>> bud-- wrote

>>> Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
>>> 52,483,208 web pages and you can't find one link that says
>>> plug-in surge suppressors are not effective?

>> Careful, there. Kornball will claim that "not effective" means
>> "not permanently and totally effective", and if the suppressor
>> is knocked out by the first lightning bolt, even if it protected the
>> appliance, it was "not effective" because the next lightning bolt
>> next month will get through. You can't have rational arguments
>> with these tinfoil hat guys.

> I'll claim that "effective" at preventing some surges from
> going into equipment at high enough magnitude to cause
> problems is true, BUT the equipment has to survive ALL
> surges it sees.

No it doesnt. The risk of the worst surges is so low that
protecting the equipment against all possibilitys isnt necessary,
particularly when the insurance overs what isnt protected.

Its pointless spending heaps to cover very low risk events,
it makes much more sense to ensure that insurance covers
those and only have protection against the more common
events to minimise the hassle they will cause.

If you end up with the 22KV line dropping across the low
voltage lines down the street because someone has brought
a pole down, its only the most expensive protection that will
protect against that if the supply authority's system doesnt
cut the 22KV off quickly enough, and you'll lose most of the
stuff in the house thats plugged in, so its a complete yawn
if the PC gets killed too as long as the insurance covers that.

> Maybe you're lucky and never see medium to large surges.
> Great, then you don't need much in the way of surge protection.

And it doesnt make any sense economically to attempt to
cover rare events like direct lightning strikes on the mains
feed into the house, or that 22KV event above. The only
thing that makes any sense is decent backups that you
have to have anyway, and insurance to cover the very
unlikely events like a 747 crashing into the house etc.

> Remember this basic fact-

> When a surge protector claims protection, it always
> must provide limitation statements to what it can actually
> protect against. This is because "protection" is a
> marketing term that must be qualified later, sort of like
> when you see an add in the newspaper for a car that reads
> "24,395 **". The two asteriks are important, because you
> don't get what was first stated, it was only a marketing
> tactic and there are additional details that mitigate it.

Waffle.

> The same goes for "protection", even the manufacturers
> of such devices to not just claim they "protect", they follow
> with limitations to that statement. Similarly, if you only
> write "protect", you are wrong to do so without qualification,
> limiting statements that do reflect on use of and intended
> purpose for the device. You could instead just avoid the
> marketing BS and instead of claiming then retracting with
> qualifiers, just state it more clearly up front, but you lack
> the ability to distinguish marketing from reality.

More waffle.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"w_tom" wrote:
> Effective
> protection must accomplish two functions: equipotential and
> conductivity. Equipotential means voltages around or across the
> transistors are small - do not cause damage.
> [.......]
> 'Whole house' solution provides both equipotential and conductivity.
>
> Since we cannot provide sufficient equipotential, then we need
> superior conductivity. And since we cannot provide sufficient
> conductivity, then we also need equipotential. One 'whole house'
> protector with single point earthing provides both equipotential and
> conductivity. A plug-in protector does not provide effective
> conductivity. Therefore its manufacturer even avoids the entire topic
> and does not claim protection in his numerical specifications.
> [........]
> Responsible manufacturers such as Square D, Cutler-Hammer,
> Intermatic, Leviton, Siemens and GE manufacturer effective
> protectors...



So I Googled for Square D whole house protectors, and the 1st
hit was http://www.bobvila.com/TV_Showrooms/Square_D/index.html,
which says:

"The industry-leading Square D warranty provides 5-year, $50,000
protection for surge damage to appliances and electronics in homes
that use Surgebreaker Plus Whole House Surge Protector in
conjunction with point-of-use protection and a Square D QO® or
Homeline® Load Center. "

It sounds like whole house protectors need the plug-in protectors
to give overall protection. So much for "whole house protectors"
giving total protection.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> So I Googled for Square D whole house protectors:
> ...
> "The industry-leading Square D warranty provides 5-year, $50,000
> protection for surge damage to appliances and electronics in homes
> that use Surgebreaker Plus Whole House Surge Protector in
> conjunction with point-of-use protection and a Square D QO® or
> Homeline® Load Center. "
>
> It sounds like whole house protectors need the plug-in protectors
> to give overall protection. ...

Again Timothy plays word games. He again does not even post any spec
numbers for what he recommends. A plug-in protector does not even
claim to provide protection. Timothy posts what every Circuit City
salesman would claim - using same logic.

We have near 0% protection. So we install a 'whole house' protector.
Now we have protection from well over 90% of typically destructive
surges. If we spend more money on a plug-in protector, we might
increase that protection even a few percent more. Sure. If I was
selling protectors, then I too would also sell Timothy that plug-in
protector with its massive profit and commission. Timothy so easily
deceived by retail store propaganda that I too want to profit selling
to his naivety.

Square D does not recommend a plug-in protector alone. That would be
ineffective protection. First, a 'whole house' protector with proper
earthing is necessary - essential.

Timothy Daniels spins facts into lies. He intentionally distorts
what Square D says to repair his credibility. Without or without a
plug-in protector, the 'whole house' protector and earthing is
essential.

How profitable are plug-in protectors? Take a $3 (retail) power
strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 as a plug-in protector.
Massive profits when people such as Timothy Daniels spins myths.
Don't be fooled by those who don't even know how electricity works.
With or without the plug-in protector, an earthed protector (ie 'whole
house' protectors) is necessary. A 'whole house' solution that makes
most destructive surges irrelevant AND that costs tens of times less
money per protected appliance. Does so much more and costs massively
less.

Those such as Timothy who did not understand basic technology
demonstrates how one the naive misunderstand what Square D has written.
Notice fact after fact demonstrates that Timothy cannot grasp basic
technology. Earthing - via a 'whole house' protector creates a massive
increase in household appliance protection. Protection so effective
that even disconnecting appliances such as the dishwasher and smoke
detectors is not as effective. No earth ground means no effective
protection.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

Rod Speed wrote:
> Thats overstating it. Physically unplugging everything does.

Rod Speed recommends you unplug the dish washer, smoke detector,
dimmer switches, bathroom GFCIs (RCDs), clock radio, bugler alarm,
furnace controls, and everything else. Instead, the homeowner can
earth a 'whole house' protector. A homeowner need not replace wall
receptacles that are not rated for so many disconnections. A homeowner
need not unplug-in electronics essential to human safety. Same
electronics are most necessary (must be plugged in) during times of
surges. Why would anyone depend on unreliable humans to unplug? Why
would anyone disconnect human safety devices?

Properly earthing a 'whole house' protector means surges in your
lifetime should never result in appliance damage. This because
destructive surges are so rare (typically once every eight years) AND
because an effective protector (properly earthed) provides a massive
protection increase. A protector that costs less than $50 - is
effective protection. Protection that means electronics for human
safety remain connected and undamaged.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> Read the warranty paragraph again, Kone-head:
>
> Notice that it does NOT say the point-of-use protection
> must be a Square D product.

Timothy. When did you take years learning electricity and
electronics? Never. It demonstrates why you argue as a lawyer and not
as someone who comes from where the work gets done. Timothy - post
numerical specifications from that plug-in protector manufacturer that
claims such protection. Timothy - damning fact. You cannot. So now
you play spin games that only a lying lawyer would.

Let's see. If I am buying a 'whole house' protector from Square D,
then a plug-in protector from Square D would be adjacent. Meanwhile,
with the 'whole house' protector alone, I have massively increased
protection from near zero to in excessive of 90%.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A concept that
even Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752. Notice how lawyer Tim avoid
technical facts - such as Franklin. He must. He has no technical
grasp - may not even know what it was that Franklin demonstrated.
Reality? Timothy still cannot find a single plug-in protector that
claims protection in numerical specifications. No numbers because
effective protection does not exist with plug-in protectors. With or
without plug-in protectors, the homeowner still needs a 'whole house'
protector and proper earthing. This is too technical for a lawyer like
Timothy who would rather 'win' rather than learn technical facts. No
earth ground means no effective protection - as even Ben Franklin
demonstrated. But that is a concept taught in 2nd grade science.
Reality is irrelevant to lawyers when using half truth spin.

So Timothy Daniels - where is this missing numerical specification
from the plug-in protector manufacturer? Why can Timothy not find
these numbers? Because effective protection does not exist. Timothy
has a problem. He cannot post what does not exist. So he resorts to
lawyer spin.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector?