UL1449 is all about surge protection.
Everything from UL is about human safety. Surge protection is not
about human safety. UL also lists vacuum cleaners. According to
Bud's logic, that other UL standard must also be about vacuum cleaner
performance?
Both vacuum and protector have a UL rating. Neither rates the
performance of vacuum cleaners or surge protectors as Bud would have
us believe.
Bud promotes plug-in protectors. Being honest would put profits at
risk. Bud would have us believe UL1449 was created in 1998. UL1449
was created 28 Aug 1985. Fire remains a problem. So UL created a
updated version. But still a fire risk exists as demonstrated by
pictures from fire departments AND even by a NC Fire Marshall. If Bud
admits to the problem in these scary pictures, then profits are at
risk:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
A protector can even fail during UL testing and still obtain UL
approval. UL is not testing for protector effectiveness. UL1449 is
testing for threats to human safety - ie fire. If it completely fails
and does not emit sparks and flames, then the protector can get UL1449
2nd edition approval. UL1449 does not rate surge protection. A
protector can even fail and get approved. UL1449 is about fire
protection.
Bud routinely posts half facts. For example, Bud cites François
Martzloff while forgetting what Martzloff says about plug-in (point of
connection) protectors. First conclusion in Marzloff's IEEE paper (on
the Upside Down house) says:
Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.
Yes, plug-in protectors may even contribute to damage of the
adjacent appliance as Martzloff says. Bud's IEEE guide further
demonstrates that problem with unearthed protectors. Page 42 (of 61
pages) Figure 8 shows a protector earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV. A protector without that short
connection to earth must earth that surge destructively inside the
building. As Martzloff also said, a plug-in protector can even
contribute to damage of adjacent appliances.
No protector absorbs or stops surge energy as Bud claims. An
effective protector connects where wires enter the building. An
effective energy earths surges before that energy enters the building
- ie 'whole house' protector. Or an ineffective protector promoted
by Bud is adjacent to the appliance - dissipating 8000 volts
destructively through an adjacent TV.
If Bud was honest, then Bud posts manufacturer specs for his surge
protection. No plug-in protector manufacturer claims such protection.
A sales promoter could easily post those specs if those specs
existed. Bud refuses to post specs for one simple reason. No plug-in
manufacturer claims such protection.
Same circuit is also in an APC UPS. Above posted specs only discuss
filtering. Specs make no claim of surge protection. Bud will post
anything to avoid the challenge. So Bud, where are those manufacture
specs that define surge protection? No specs make that claim.
Effective protectors mean surge energy gets dissipated harmlessly in
earth. No wonder telcos do not waste money on plug-in protectors.
Bud also forgets to admit that. Why is every telco computer not
damaged by 100 surges during every thunderstorm? Because telcos use a
significantly less expensive and far more effective 'whole house'
protector. Telcos also understand that plug-in protector may even
contribute to appliance damage.
Myth purveyors and retail store salesman who recommend ineffective
protector are numerous. However the IEEE only makes recommendation
in standards. Numerous IEEE standards are quite blunt about what
provides surge protection - and that is not Bud's protectors. From
IEEE Standard 141 (Red Book):
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.
Or IEEE Emerald Book:
It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
Or IEEE Green Book on 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding':
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage. Even this means is not positive,
providing only 99.5-99.9% protection. ...
Still, a 99.5% protection level will reduce the incidence of direct
strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per
6000 years ...
Why does Bud not provide such numbers for protection? Plug-in
protector manufacturers will not even claim such protection in their
spec sheets. Why did Bud forget to quote from IEEE Standards? That
would put profits at risk. Bud is not honest about why he is posting
half truths.
Eventually Bud will resort to disparaging remarks and other
insults. He does this when the half truths in his every claim are
exposed. Expect Bud to do here what Bud always does - post personal
insults because Bud cannot even provide a single plug-in manufacturer
specification that claims protection from typically destructive
surges.
