Posted by Trevor on 02/11/06 23:20

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:58:07 -0500, Rick Merrill
<rickZERODOTmerrill@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>Trevor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:24:59 -0600, "Deke" <no spam@today.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>><felixcct@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1139413957.810444.161570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>w_tom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If his problem was solved by a surge protector, then nothing in the
>>>>>player would function. Furthermore, a surge protector "in series" is a
>>>>>myth. Plug-in protector promoted by people who don't even know what a
>>>>>surge protector does. A protector that 'looks' like it is between a
>>>>>VCR/DVD player and AC electric is really only in parallel. A
>>>>>destructive transient hits protector and player simultaneously. Since
>>>>>players already have internal protection, then a trivial surge may not
>>>>>damage the player - and yet fully vaporize the typically undersized
>>>>>protector. Trivial surge struck both equally and simultaneously. But
>>>>>only grossly undersized protector failed - provided ineffective
>>>>>protection.
>>>>
>>>>Actually this is not quite a correct version of how a surge protector
>>>>works.
>>>>
>>>>Real surge protectors typically have the following specifications:
>>>>1. Peak voltage allowed to pass
>>>>2. Response time to respond to over-voltage
>>>>3. Maximum energy sinked to ground before destruction
>>>>
>>>>When a voltage spike arrives at the surge protector, if it exceeds the
>>>>peak limit, the surge protector will drop to very low resistance and
>>>>begin diverting the current to ground. The response time is critical in
>>>>determining how much of the spike's energy will reach the protected
>>>>equipment. It's not the voltage of the spike that matters, it's the
>>>>total energy that gets through - i.e., voltage x current x time, with
>>>>the time being the critical factor that's up to the surge protector.
>>>>
>>>>Surge protectors also have a maximum energy capacity. If it is
>>>>exceeded, the surge protector will be destroyed, which may allow
>>>>additional energy to get through to the now-unprotected equipment (but
>>>>hopefully by then a line fuse or breaker in the current loop will have
>>>>opened). Many types of surge protectors are intended for one-time-use -
>>>>if they divert a surge, they are permanently affected, and need to be
>>>>replaced.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well said, and exactly correct. Its also why I use several surge protectors
>>>plugged one into another.
>>
>>
>> My assumption is that devices typically sold as "surge protectors"
>> offer little or no actual protection, other than some (misplaced?)
>> peace of mind. If that assumption is correct, what benefit would be
>> gained by daisy chaining several of them together? (The old 0+0=0
>> theory.) Am I wrong?
>>
>>
>>>And theres also Panamax's $25,000.00 replacement
>>>guarantee, altho I've never known anyone to use it. I have known of them
>>>replacing damaged protectors for free though. Thats why my local
>>>electronics shop sells them.
>>
>>
>> What if the local shop sells them simply because there's demand for
>> them, and not because they actually work? :)
>>
>
>In fact, if you "daisy chain" them you may actually wind up defeating
>the purpose (the way they are designed) and get LESS protection.

I think the point is that they don't provide any appreciable measure
of protection, daisy chained or not.

All I use so-called surge protectors for is to expand the number of
available outlets so that I have a place to plug in things like my
cable modem, router, switch, cordless phone, cellphone charger, etc. I
don't pretend there's any surge protection going on.

[Back to original message]