w_tom said:
When outright and intentional lies and myths are posted, nobody
cares who attacks the liar. Bud is the worst example.
Perhaps w_ could learn English.
Follow the discussion and see who is lying.
I encourage people to read the sources - the IEEE and NIST guides.
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. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs
elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40).
Reality is that IEEE Standards are where recommendations are made.
And IEEE Standards are blunt about it. Earthing is the protection -
not a protector. For example IEEE Red Book (Standard 141) says"...
w_ has to discredit anything that challenges his religious belief in
earthing.
But you have to be really stupid to say the recommendations of the IEEE
are not in the IEEE guide considering the IEEE guide (pdf page 4) says
the guide was peer-reviewed and represents the views of the IEEE.
And the "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive
Electronic Equipment" (the Emerald book), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics
Bud
claims no protector need earthing.
w_ is fond of making up what others claim. I repeat what the IEEE guide
says - plug-in suppressors work by clamping not earthing. The guide says
earthing occurs elsewhere.
Page 42 Figure 8 in his
first standard contradicts Bud. A plug-in protector has shunted (also
called clamping, connecting, bonding, diverting) a surge to earth
ground. Problem is the protector was too far away from building earth
ground - the protection. So it shunted that surge 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV.
Lacking technical arguments w_ has to lie about sources that contradict
his dogma.
The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop.
There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor
protects the TV connected to it. It reduces the voltage at a distant TV
from 10,000V to 8,000V. It does *not* contribute to damage of the second
TV, which is distant, not adjacent. The point of the illustration is "to
protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required".
This lie is repeated numerous times is w_’s rant.
Bud hopes you will not look
at Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud hopes you will read the IEEE guide. Start at pdf page 40.
But also hopes you never review his other citation Page 8 of 24
(paper page 6):...
What does the NIST guide actually say about plug–in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
How can this be? Bud who avidly promotes for plug-in protector
manufactures would not lie?
w_ has to discredit anyone who challenges his dogma.
I can only agree with w_ when he said "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.
No earth ground means no effective protection. The protectors that
have no earthing - Bud promotes them.
The statement of religious belief in earthing. Everyone is for earthing.
The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work.
And I don’t promote them. I only promote accurate information. I say
they are effective, not that I recommended them.
Others have simply used word
association to know plug-in protectors must work: surge protector
sound likes surge protection. Therefore it must be true.
Geez - and those idiots at the IEEE and NIST fell for it.
Those who did not like being exposed in error may even post attacks
on this poster rather than cite science.
w_ doesn’t like being exposed in error (as is evident) and posts attacks
on this poster rather that cite science. I cite science - links to 2
reputable sources that say plug-in suppressors are effective. Try to
find a source from w_ that says anything about plug-in suppressors.
Meanwhile Bud's knowledge apparently comes from the Internet. He
could not even get off his ass to visit any Lowes or Home Depot where
'whole house' protectors are sold - some for less that $50.
w_ requires others to post specifics. But he is immune. There is no
reason to believe the mythical $50 suppressor exists.
Bud usual reply is to ignore how those citations say earthing is
necessary for protection.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. But the only question is whether
plug–in suppressors work.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
And the final statement of religious belief in earthing. The IEEE guide
explains plug-in suppressors work by clamping, not earthing.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Read them for yourself.
Never seen - a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Where is a link w__? Could it be that no one agrees with you?
And never seen - an explanation why the only 2 examples of protection in
the IEEE guide use plug-in suppressors.
Or why the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Or why Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective surge
protection device.
All you get is a hysterical rant with w_'s opinions based on his
religious belief in earthing.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Misattributes views.
Distorts and tries to discredit opposing sources.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
