So all that discussoin about six ports and that violation of any one port undermines protection - none of that is a careful engineering analysis? And the kid with an Xbox that destroys the protection - violates the six ports - also does not exist because they don't specifically say Xbox. Nonsense.
Effective protection is more than just equipotential. As even Bud's papers note with paragraphs such as:
Install one properly earthed 'whole house' protector; not up to one hundred plug-in protectors carefully wired only for equipotential protection. 'Equipotential only' protection can be violated even by a kid with an Xbox. Protect both the Xbox and both TVs. Install and earth one 'whole house' protector as even that conclusion notes as a superior solution.
Your reading comprehension of Martzloff's SRE paper with 6 ports seems to be as high as your comprehension of the IEEE and NIST guides. You seem to have no concept of what a SRE is.
**** You plug the Xbox and all the TV components into one SRE. If the Xbox/TV system has connections to phone or CATV those connections go through the SRE.
****
You are the only one here who thinks that constitutes a "carefull engineering analysis", unless there are some Chem Es lurking. Even the kid with the Xbox could figure it out.
A SRE protects a specific piece or set of equipment, not the room as you stupidly state in another thread.
The IEEE and NIST say plug-in protectors are effective and their illustrations show no engineering analysis.
Bud has a special relationship to manufacturers of ineffective protectors. Therefore he cannot admit to so many reasons why plug-in protector are not effective - including the threat of fire as demonstrates repeatedly in pictures.
Bud's SRE paper about six ports defines why plug-in protectors are not effective. Violate any one of those six ports, and a protector adjacent to electronics can even contribute to electronics damage. The paper he claims 'recommends' plug-in protectors, instead, shows how that type of protection is so easily compromised.
How is a port violated. One kid with one Xbox connected to a TV. Now that TV at 8000 volts (which Bud considers safe) can create a destructive circuit through TV to earth ground. Kid with an Xbox has compromised SRE protection - as that paper even demonstrates without specifically citing the Xbox.
No wonder that paper also moves on to instead recommend the superior solution - a 'whole house' protector.
Effective protection means a kid with an Xbox does not threaten a TV. That means good earthing AND that means a 'whole house' protector connected to that earthing. A protection system must be installed so that even a kid with an Xbox does not violate protection. Of course, that 'whole house' protector costs about tens of times less money per protected appliance, as well as sufficiently sized and more effective. This is not good for the manufacturers that Bud promotes. So he also posts insults. Insults - another reason that says Bud is promoting ineffective protection.
Informed homeowners do what professional locations used for protection even 50+ years ago - a technology that well proven and that effective. Professionals also do not use ineffective plug-in protectors. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Therefore your telco - connected to overhead wires everywhere in town - connect every incoming wire to earth ground. An earthing connection made using a 'whole house' type protector. A protector best located up to 50 meters seperated from the computer. Why the separation? That separation means protection is even more effective. Bud whould have you put a protector adjacent to electronics. Bud would have you install 100 such devices. We call that ineffective protection - and do so without posting insults.
IEEE, et al even define effective protection. Bud ignores these IEEE published statements so that the missing earth ground on plug-in protectors is ignored. IEEE Red Book (Std 141) recommends protection:
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.