Re: MOVs and surge suppressors

On Aug 31, 1:57 pm, craigm <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A lot of words, but none respond to my comments. Sure, a whole house
protector is a good idea, but that is not viable for everyone. (Think about
apartment dwellers or those who rent their home.)

For some folks, point of use protectors may be sufficient.

Where does a 'point of use' protector make that short connection to
earth? If a plug-in protector is protection, then your post makes
sense. However the protector is not protection. It is only a
connecting device to protection. Lots of word repeatedly demonstrate
why plug-in protectors would appear to be a complete solution but
don't even claim to be protection. It only claims to be a protector..

In an apartment, modify a plug-in protector to act more like an
effective 'whole house' protector. First, cut its power cord as short
as possible. Every foot on that power cord means diminished
protection. Find a wall receptacle that is electrically closest to
the breaker box - minimum number of splices, shortest distance, etc..
Plug that 'short power cord' protector into that receptacle.
Hopefully a breaker box earth ground exists. What makes a protector
better? Increased distance between the protector and electronics.
Decrease a connection length to earth ground.

A protector without earth ground does nothing sufficient. It is
only a protector - a connecting device to protection. A protector
without connection to protection does nothing useful.

If a 'magic box' was sufficient, then it would claim such protection
in spec sheets. Why no such claim? Why is a 'magic box' that does
not even claim to provide protection also called sufficient? The plug-
in protector without earthing is not sufficient for anyone. The
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Or do we know it
is protection only because it is called a protector?

.

Quantcast