Lightning protection

kony wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:31:41 -0500, Bud--
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 03:05:13 -0500, Bud--
wrote:


w_ is fond of making up what others claim. I repeat what the IEEE guide
says - plug-in suppressors work by clamping not earthing. The guide says
earthing occurs elsewhere.

No, it says they can be effective. It's like saying a steak
knife can be effective at driving off a burglar, but don't
be surprised if you happen upon a burglar that sees it and
laughs at you instead.

Everything I have read is that suppressors with high ratings will
protect against lightning induced surges short of a near direct strike.
The surge current to a plug–in suppressor is greatly limited by the
impedance of the supply wiring.

So is the return path to ground. Remember that when there
is this higher impedance to ground, a larger % of the surge
ends up going through the equipment. Always "some" of the
surge does but with this raised impedance the % is more
significant.


The IEEE guide shows an example of how plug-in suppressors work,
starting pdf page 40. The voltage on all wires - power and signal - is
clamped to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage difference
between wires connected to the protected equipment is clamped low enough
to not cause damage to the equipment. Surges do not go through the
equipment.

As explained at the bottom of page 40, connecting the surge to earth
does not primarily occur through the plug-in suppressor. In the example,
the “vast majority” of the surge current goes through the bond wire from
a CATV entry block to the power service earth connection. The guide says
further that the (US) NEC intends the bond wire to be the path to earth,
not the path through the plug-in suppressor. The current that does flow
through the suppressor goes from the CATV entry block, through the CATV
shield to the suppressor, through the ground and neutral wire to the
power service. The protected equipment is not in the path.

A shorter version of this was included in both my responses to w_.

One of the most useful applications for plug-in suppressors is when the
protected load connects to both power and phone, CATV, ... wires. The
suppressor prevents ground reference differences between the power and
signal wires at the protected equipment, as illustrated in the example .
According to the NIST guide, US insurance information indicates
equipment most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by surges causing high voltage between power and
signal wires.
The 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide, both using plug-in
suppressors, are for a computer with phone connection and a TV system
with CATV, phone and satellite connections.

I think you have complained in the past that the ground reference level
at the plug-in suppressor is elevated. If the protected equipment has a
metal enclosure it is likely to be connected to a 3 wire plug. If the
enclosure has a path to a ground at a different potential, the ground
reference level at the equipment and suppressor would be shifted, but
the voltages would be clamped to the new reference level. If insulation
is in the path, a surge is a very short event and the voltage withstand
is much higher than normal. There are other possibilities, but in quite
a bit of reading no one has raised this as a practical problem.

And the same concern can be raised with a "whole house" protector.
Assume the power system is earthed with only a ground rod. If you have
a very good rod-to-earth resistance of 10 ohms and a modest 1,000A surge
earth current, the voltage from the power ground bar to `absolute' earth
is 10,000V. As a general rule, 70% of the voltage drop from a ground rod
is in the first 3 feet. From the power/signal ground system to earth
beyond 3 feet will be 7,000V or more. This can show up, for instance, in
basements. Or as the IEEE guide notes, at outside pad mounted
compressor/condenser units.

--
bud--

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:40:43 -0500, Bud--
wrote:


The IEEE guide shows an example of how plug-in suppressors work,
starting pdf page 40. The voltage on all wires - power and signal - is
clamped to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage difference
between wires connected to the protected equipment is clamped low enough
to not cause damage to the equipment. Surges do not go through the
equipment.


Wrong. Because your ground is at a relative impedance away
from earth ground, it does present a risk to equipment and
this is why more serious surge prevention does not only rely
on these plug-in protectors.

kony wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:40:43 -0500, Bud--
wrote:


The IEEE guide shows an example of how plug-in suppressors work,
starting pdf page 40. The voltage on all wires - power and signal - is
clamped to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage difference
between wires connected to the protected equipment is clamped low enough
to not cause damage to the equipment. Surges do not go through the
equipment.


Wrong. Because your ground is at a relative impedance away
from earth ground, it does present a risk to equipment and
this is why more serious surge prevention does not only rely
on these plug-in protectors.


You have not detailed the exact risk, in your view.

You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

"Not only" - OK if combined with power service surge protection?

Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?

Why do the only 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors (note this is "how to protect your house")?

Why did the NIST surge guru, writing in the NIST guide say:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

Do you have a source that supports your view?


Protection is always a trade-off of - degree of risk - value of what you
are protecting - and cost of protection.

If I lived in very high lightning areas, like some areas of Florida USA,
I would use all the tricks - attention to the connection to earth,
"single point ground" for power and signal services, power service
suppressors, and plug-in suppressors for expensive high risk equipment,
like wide screen TVs.

--
bud--

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:55:36 -0500, Bud--
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:40:43 -0500, Bud--
wrote:


The IEEE guide shows an example of how plug-in suppressors work,
starting pdf page 40. The voltage on all wires - power and signal - is
clamped to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage difference
between wires connected to the protected equipment is clamped low enough
to not cause damage to the equipment. Surges do not go through the
equipment.


Wrong. Because your ground is at a relative impedance away
from earth ground, it does present a risk to equipment and
this is why more serious surge prevention does not only rely
on these plug-in protectors.


You have not detailed the exact risk, in your view.

You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

I don't play the "must be for home users and they aren't
important" game. If you accept that home use doesn't need
as much protection to make your argument, you must
simultaneously concede these are not effective protection
else there would be nothing "more serious" that is warranted
otherwise.

On Jun 10, 2:55 am, Bud-- wrote:
...
You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

"Not only" - OK if combined with power service surge protection?

Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?

The only person disagreeing with the IEEE is Bud. Simpler, less
expensive and far more protective solution is found even in banks
because effective protection is necessary - as is required in homes.
Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection. And
then Bud completely ignores the one thing that the IEEE demands for
protection - earthing.

Bud's speculations might be true if things inside the building such
as wood, linoleum, concrete etc were not conductive. Those
conductive materials are why equipotential provided by earthing is
essential. Bud completely ignores equipotential - pretends it does
not even exist - to misrepresent reality and to promote plug-in
protectors.

Effective protectors make a short connection to earthing as
demonstrated even in 1930s research papers by GE and Westinghouse.
They don't even try to claim a protector becomes ground. Neither does
IEEE - in direct contradiction to what Bud posts. IEEE states quite
specifically - earthing provided the protection.

Bud spins and twists the guide to claim the plug-in protector on
Page 42 Figure 8 really did not put 8000 volts destructively through
the TV. Why does 8000 volts find earth ground destructively via the
TV? Because the protector did not have earth ground to shunt (clamp,
divert, connect) to.

Bud pretends that clamping to nothing is protection. Again he spins
a myth. Electricity requires a complete path. The surge must have a
path to earth. Clamping to nothing means electricity must find
another (and destructive) path to earth. Therefore Page 42 Figure 8
clamps destructively through a TV. Clamping to nothing, as Bud
claims, is why plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide that
protection.

However clamping to earth ground - to shunt, connect, divert - is
how protection is achieved as in IEEE Green Book (IEEE Standard 142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' :
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

Will clamping to nothing provide a path? Of course not. Shunting
(clamping, diverting, connecting) to earth ground must create a path
which will "not result in damage". Therefore a surge on Page 42
Figure 8 will not find earth ground 8000 volts destructively through
the TV.

What happens when the plug-in protector is not properly earthed?
Bud's citation describes the problem in text on Page 42:
Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors that
does not fully protect against lightning damage because of this effect.

Then we have Figure 7:
Even with coax cable grounding that meets code requirements, if
the coaxial line enters far away from the building ground, the long
grounding wire A-B can develop very large voltages which can
damage the TV set.

Long wire means high impedance. Same earthing connection that Bud
claims is not necessary, must be short according to Bud's citation.
Otherwise "very large voltages which can damage the TV set" exist
because an earthing wire that is too long - excessively high
impedance.

Bud claims a wire that is as long as possible - also called non-
existent - provides sufficient protection. Somehow clamping to
nothing is protection. The highest impedance or non-existent wire is
not what IEEE Standards demand for protection. Earthing is necessary
for both conductivity and equipotential. Bud claims neither is
necessary for protection.

kony wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 01:55:36 -0500, Bud--
wrote:

kony wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:40:43 -0500, Bud--
wrote:


The IEEE guide shows an example of how plug-in suppressors work,
starting pdf page 40. The voltage on all wires - power and signal - is
clamped to the common ground at the suppressor. The voltage difference
between wires connected to the protected equipment is clamped low enough
to not cause damage to the equipment. Surges do not go through the
equipment.

Wrong. Because your ground is at a relative impedance away
from earth ground, it does present a risk to equipment and
this is why more serious surge prevention does not only rely
on these plug-in protectors.

You have not detailed the exact risk, in your view.

You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

I don't play the "must be for home users and they aren't
important" game. If you accept that home use doesn't need
as much protection to make your argument, you must
simultaneously concede these are not effective protection
else there would be nothing "more serious" that is warranted
otherwise.

As I said “protection is always a trade-off of - degree of risk - value
of what you are protecting - and cost of protection”. Home users
certainly do not need as much protection as a bank customer database.

And “more serious” are your weasel words. I asked what YOU meant. You
didn’t answer.

Or what you meant by “not only”.

And:
Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?

Why do the only 2 examples of surge protection in the IEEE guide use
plug-in suppressors?

Why did the NIST surge guru, writing in the NIST guide say:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

Do you have a source that supports your view (whatever your view is) ?

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
On Jun 10, 2:55 am, Bud-- wrote:
...
You start with an absolute "wrong" then add weasel words:

"More serious" - OK for normal home use? Not for a bank customer database?
(It is unlikely anyone would recommend a plug-in suppressor for a bank
database. Discussion in newsgroups, in general, and this thread, in
particular, is home use.)

"Not only" - OK if combined with power service surge protection?

Do you disagree with the IEEE explanation of how plug-in suppressors work?


Plug-in protectors do not even claim to provide that protection.

Only for people who can’t read.

And
then Bud completely ignores the one thing that the IEEE demands for
protection - earthing.

w_’s religious belief in earthing again.
Repeating:
“The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40).”


Bud's speculations might be true if things inside the building such
as wood, linoleum, concrete etc were not conductive. Those
conductive materials are why equipotential provided by earthing is
essential. Bud completely ignores equipotential - pretends it does
not even exist - to misrepresent reality and to promote plug-in
protectors.

The 6 EEs experienced in surge protection also ignore “things inside
buildings”. But of course they aren’t as smart as w_.

And I promote only accurate information against the drivel from w_. Find
out what works and use what is appropriate. Read the sources.


Bud spins and twists the guide to claim the plug-in protector on
Page 42 Figure 8 really did not put 8000 volts destructively through
the TV. Why does 8000 volts find earth ground destructively via the
TV? Because the protector did not have earth ground to shunt (clamp,
divert, connect) to.

Spins and twists? The plug-in suppressor protected the TV connected to
it. It reduced the surge voltage at a distant TV from 10kV to 8kV. The
suppressor does not damage the 2nd TV, it partially protects it. The
point of the illustration is “to protect TV2, a second multiport
protector located at TV2 is required". Because he has no valid technical
arguments w_ repeats this lie several times in his post.


Bud pretends that clamping to nothing is protection. Again he spins
a myth. Electricity requires a complete path. The surge must have a
path to earth.

If w_’s thinking was not blocked by religious fanaticism, he could read
in the IEEE guide surges do have a path to earth. It is just not
primarily through plug-in suppressors. In the illustration in the guide,
the path to earth is thorough a bond wire from a CATV entry block to the
power service. The guide further says this is the path the NEC/CEC code
writers intended.


However clamping to earth ground - to shunt, connect, divert - is
how protection is achieved as in IEEE Green Book (IEEE Standard 142)
entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection Grounding' : ...

The IEEE guide was published by the IEEE. The IEEE guide says plug-in
suppressors are effective*.

And repeating:
“And the "IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Sensitive
Electronic Equipment" (the Emerald book), an IEEE standard, recognizes
plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most
appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.”


What happens when the plug-in protector is not properly earthed?
Bud's citation describes the problem in text on Page 42:
Figure 8 shows a very common improper use of multiport protectors that
does not fully protect against lightning damage because of this effect.

Gee - the IEEE thought the improper use was “One multiport protector has
been used in an attempt to protect two TV sets.” And "to protect TV2, a
second multiport protector located at TV2 is required" w_ is either
stupid or dishonest (or both).


Then we have Figure 7:
Even with coax cable grounding that meets code requirements, if
the coaxial line enters far away from the building ground, the long
grounding wire A-B can develop very large voltages which can
damage the TV set.

Long wire means high impedance. Same earthing connection that Bud
claims is not necessary, must be short according to Bud's citation.
Otherwise "very large voltages which can damage the TV set" exist
because an earthing wire that is too long - excessively high
impedance.

The illustration shows a CATV service point distant from the power
service - not a “single point ground”. That requires a long bond wire
which allows a large voltage drop. Many houses have signal entry points
distant from the power service allowing this hazard. In this case the
IEEE guide says “the only effective way of protecting the equipment is
to use a multiport
protector”. w_ is stupid/dishonest.


Read the sources. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective*.

* - for kony - subject to qualifications elsewhere in this thread.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

Never explained:
Why the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
Why the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Why IEEE Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective surge
protection device.


--
bud--

On Jun 11, 11:37 am, Bud-- wrote:
Only for people who can't read.
....
w_'s religious belief in earthing again.
Repeating:
"The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40)."

Yes IEEE talks about clamping, also called shunting, connecting,
diverting, or bonding. And then they also define what it must be
clamped, shunted, diverted to. Earth ground.

Bud would even lie what EEs say because he must promote plug-in
protectors. And so he even 'half truths' what the IEEE says. A
protector must clamp that surge current to what? Bud forgets that
'what' is earth ground.

Meanwhile people with decades of experience will provide full
truths. For example:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such strikes
is almost non-existant. The last time we went down from a strike,
it was due to a strike on the power company's lines knocking
*them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously to
educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct strikes.
The belief that there's no protection from direct strike damage is
*myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have a
single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops. And
you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy to go.
That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than just a
low ohm DC path.

Meanwhile Bud discloses his background by replying to Kony with
insults such as 'weasel words'. IOW Bud cannot defend his claims with
technical facts. Even two posted sources demand earthing for
protection - as it also defined in IEEE Standards.

And that NIST Guru he refers to even says plug-in (point of use)
protector may even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance. The
very first conclusion in Martzloff's 1994 paper entitled "Surging the
Upside-Down House: Looking into Upsetting Reference Voltages" :
Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

But again Bud made a claim that forgets what the NIST Guru noted. A
protector is as effective as its earth ground. Earthing is the
protection. Protectors without earth ground have nothing to clamp
to. So they clamp surges destructively through the adjacent TV - Page
42 Figure 8 of Bud's citation.

Bud telling half truths. Protector does clamp because it is a shunt
mode device. They connect a surge into a non-destructive path. IOW
they must clamp to what lightning seeks - earth ground. Bud
repeatedly cited the clamping. Since his plug-in protectors have no
dedicated earthing connection, then he must get you to ignore earthing
- the most essential component in any effective protection system.
Bud repeatedly caught telling half truths to promote for plug-in
protector manufacturers.

w_tom wrote:
On Jun 11, 11:37 am, Bud-- wrote:
Only for people who can't read.
....
w_'s religious belief in earthing again.
Repeating:
"The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40)."

Yes IEEE talks about clamping, also called shunting, connecting,
diverting, or bonding. And then they also define what it must be
clamped, shunted, diverted to. Earth ground.

Because of his religious belief in earthing w_ can’t understand what I
wrote above, or the same explanation of how plug-in suppressors work in
the IEEE guide. Everyone is for earth grounds. The IEEE guide explains
that is not primarily how plug–in suppressors work and that earthing
occurs elsewhere.


Meanwhile people with decades of experience will provide full
truths. For example:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

If you plan on erecting a high lightning rod (aka. tower antenna) in
your yard and connecting it to electronic equipment in your house this
may be relevant. w_ has a fetish about tower antennas.


And that NIST Guru he refers to even says plug-in (point of use)
protector may even contribute to damage of an adjacent appliance. The
very first conclusion in Martzloff's 1994 paper entitled "Surging the
Upside-Down House: Looking into Upsetting Reference Voltages" :
Conclusion: ...

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." When he wrote the paper
multiport suppressors were very new. In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST
guide that says plug-in suppressors are effective*.


A
protector is as effective as its earth ground. Earthing is the
protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.


Protectors without earth ground have nothing to clamp
to. So they clamp surges destructively through the adjacent TV - Page
42 Figure 8 of Bud's citation.

The lie repeated.

Bud repeatedly caught telling half truths to promote for plug-in
protector manufacturers.

Ho-hum - repeating:
"To quote w_: 'It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

w_’s post is the same pathetic drivel as usual. The issue is not
grounding - everyone is for it. The ONLY question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

Read the sources. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective*.

* - for kony - subject to qualifications elsewhere in this thread.

Then read w_’s sources. Never any that say plug-in suppressors do NOT
work. Why no sources w_?

And still never explained:
Why the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
Why the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
Why IEEE Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective surge
protection device.

Or why Martzloff said in the “surging” paper "One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor].”


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.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.


--
bud--

On Jun 12, 11:05 am, Bud-- wrote:
w_'s religious belief in earthing again
...
The lie repeated.
...
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
...
Ho-hum - repeating:
...
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

Numerous attacks and still Bud fails to cite one numerical
specification from a plug-in protector that claims protection from the
typically destructive type of surge. Junk science means no numbers.
Numbers demonstrate why (how) a plug-in protector easily becomes
ineffective. Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates 8000 volts
destructively through a TV because the protector is too far from earth
ground and too close to that TV. Numbers from his citation that he
hopes you don't understand. His own citation even defines an
ineffective protector. Bud will post anything to deny technical
reality and the numbers.

What did the protector clamp to? IEEE and other papers are very
specific about what a protector must clamp to: the single point
earthing electrode. That protector on Page 42 Figure 8 clamped a
surge - 8000 volts destructively - through the TV to earth ground.

Bud says 'clamping to nothing' is protection.

More facts that Bud must spin myths to deflect. 'Scary pictures'
are typically of surge protectors that for twenty years have UL1449
approval:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

How great is their deception? They will not even describe what the
"OK" light reports. In a last set of 'scary pictures', protector
components (MOVs) were removed and still the light said protector was
"OK". Obviously not"OK". The light does not report a protector as
good. It can only report one type of failure created when that
protector was grossly undersized. And sometimes that failure creates
those 'scary pictures'.

Of course, Bud must reply. He cannot have you comprehend reality in
those 'scary pictures'. His objective is to dilute or confuse
issues. There is no way around what the NIST, IEEE, Martzloff, 1930s
GE and Westinghouse papers on lightning protection, what is installed
everywhere that damage is not acceptable, what is demanded in US Air
Force wiring practices, what is routine in Ham radio installations as
defined by the ARRL .... protection is defined by shunting
(clamping, connecting, diverting) a surge to earth. Earthing as even
Franklin demonstrated in 1752.

Bud claims we can clamp to nothing. He calls that protection. It
protects profit margins - not electronics. No earth ground means no
effective protection. Which type of protectors don't have that
necessary (and low impedance) earthing connection? Protectors that
Bud promotes. Bud will reply with more attacks rather than technical
numbers. Bud hopes you don't understand why his citations (Page 42
Figure 8) even shows damage created by a plug-in protector to
household appliances. Protector too far from earth ground AND too
close to electronics.