wrote:
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.

The village idiot still can't find what Christopher posted. Or refuses
to find.

w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat the lies often
enough, people will believe it.

w must keep posting to get the last reply. His religious belief in
earthing is at risk

But his beliefs can’t answer 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- How would w's favored service panel suppressors provide any
protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why do w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

And still never seen - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

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

--
bud--