On Jan 6, 11:00 am, bud-- wrote:
The village idiot repeats the lie.

So again Bud posts denigrating replies rather than ... where is that
numeric spec that claims protection? Oh. No number exists. No wonder
those who actually need protection - every telco in the world - don't
use Bud's recommendation.

Even Bud's own citations show why his recommendations are not used.
Page 42 Figure 8 of that IEEE guide - the adjacent TV is damaged
because the protector did not and could not earth the spike.

NIST (Adobe page 19 of 24) says:
A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Even the manufacturer will not claim plug-in protectors provide
effective protection. No wonder Bud again refuses to provide those
spec numbers. No wonder Bud's only proof is to belittle others. But
that is Bud's purpose. Protect those massive profit margins on
ineffective plug-in protectors. Lie, deceive, and malign to protect
obscene profits; as any good sales promoter would do.

When effective protection is required, the protector connects short
(ie 'less than 10 foot') to earth ground. A protector is only as
effective as what provides the protection - what dissipates energy -
earth ground.

My troll Bud (who follows me everywhere) must keep posting to get
the last reply. Obscene profits are at risk. So where are those
manufacturer numbers that claim protection? Never provided. Buf
cannot provide what never existed.