w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:54 am, bud-- <remove.budn... DeleteThis @isp.com> wrote:
>> - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
>> protection by installing plug-in TVSS [surge suppressor] devices at the
>> point of use." Why does SquareD also want plug-in suppressors??
>
> "... electronic equipment *MAY* need..."
..
Why would electronic equipment ever need plug-in suppressors - which are
not well earthed and can not possibly work???
>
> No earth
> ground means no effective protection
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels - if you repeat the lie often enough,
people will believe it. Too bad w_, it doesn’t seem to be working.
As always, *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
As always *NEVER* answers to 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud--
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
