Phone line surge protection?

[Arno Wagner]

No relationship was made between the type of transistor and that
surge path. Arno made assumptions and now takes offense at being
caught posting in error. That PNP transistor is a standard component
for a modem's off hook relay. PNP tells the informed where damage
occurs in a modem.

The two possible types of bipolar transistors are PNP and NPN.
You seem not to know what these terms mean.

BTW, typical Relais drivers are low-side and use NPN transisters,
also because NPN transistors have better switching properties.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

Which is his usual modus operandi.

Oh yes. Next he will start accusing all who oppose him of trying
to cover up their mistakes...

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Oh yes.
Next he will start accusing all who oppose him of trying to cover up their mistakes...

Which, as we all know, is a completely alien concept to you, isn't that right, babblebot?

 

[w_tom]

The two possible types of bipolar transistors are PNP and NPN.
You seem not to know what these terms mean.

That transistor is PNP. Arno demonstrates no comprehension of the
many reasons why a PNP transistor is located there.

Of course, it is irrelevant to the OPs question and to the answer
provided. Demonstrated by Arno is that those so in denial also don't
even know standard circuit designs; but somehow know why a modem is
damaged.

Modems are typically damaged by surges that enter via a most common
incoming source - AC electric. Surge is outgoing to earth ground on
phone line because phone lines have a properly earthed protector,
installed free by the telco. PNP transistor is in that path. Most
common solution to modem and broadband damage is to complete the
protection system. Also install and earth a 'whole house' protector
on AC electric (and verify cable company has properly earthed their
cable).

Those who learn and install surge protection know THE most critical
component of a protection 'system': single point earth ground.
Curious. Franklin even demonstrated that in 1752. And yet many deny
well proven science having been educated by boxes on retail store
shelves.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Or as demosntrated
by page 42 Figure 8 in Bud's posts - the plug-in protector may earth a
surge, 8000 volts destructively, through TVs. Protection inside the
TV overwhelmed by 8000 volts because a plug-in protector was too close
to electronics and too far from earth ground.

 

[w_tom]

View page 42 Figure 8. Protector is too far from earth ground and
too close to electronics. Therefore 8000 volts punches through and
destroys TV. Bud claims that earthing is not necessary. But as
figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even destroy
the TV.

[The diagram shows a surge on the CATV cable and 2 TVs, TV1 has a plug-
in suppressor.]
For those with minimal reading and thinking ability, the text says "to
protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required".

And one for each smoke detector. And one for the furnace. And one
for each clock radio. And one for the alarm system. And one for every
telephone appliance. Well having spend $3000+ - and still a kid with
an Xbox can completely compromise the protection. Bud, who follows me
everywhere, says you must teach your kid how not to connect his Xbox
to a TV since that also can compromise the protector.

Instead we install and earth one 'whole house' protector. A surge
that does not enter the building will not put 8000 volts through that
TV. A protector that does not require the kid to become an engineer
when connecting his Xbox to a TV.

Responsible manufacturers instead provide effective solutions.
Products from GE, Siemens, Square D, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer,
Leviton and other responsible manufacturers are found in Lowes, Home
Depot, and electrical supply houses. Bud will lie incessantly in
fear. He will deny that some of these sufficiently sized products can
be obtained in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. He fears you
might discover how much less expensive the effective solution is.

Bud will also say anything so that these current technology
realities are also ignored:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

No earth ground means no effective protection. One 'whole house'
protector earthed where utilities enter the building (service
entrance) means even a kid with an Xbox need not be trained as an
engineer. We call that protection that was installed even 100 years
ago - we call it less expensive, simpler, and effective. And it does
not enrich Bud who fears you understand why the plug-in protector
damages a TV on Page 42 Figure 8.

 

[Arno Wagner]

That transistor is PNP. Arno demonstrates no comprehension of the
many reasons why a PNP transistor is located there.

Hehe, as there are no such reasons. In fact the ''standard design''
for a relais driver uses an NPN low-side driver for the reason that
it is cheaper and works better. As I said before. But obviously
you have no idea what I am talkling about. Funny, a simple relais
driver is usually something you do very early when learing
electronics.

Arno

 

[Bud--]

He will deny that some of these sufficiently sized products can
be obtained in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.

In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at internet sites and found:
Lowes had NO ‘whole house’ suppressors.
Home Depot had no ‘whole house’ suppressors near $50. The 2 suppressors
available had no specs available from Home Depot or the manufacturer.
Sufficiently sized? No specs.

It is a lie to say these devices are available for $50 unless you can
provide a link to a source.

Bud will also say anything so that these current technology
realities are also ignored:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about
"some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised
US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as
a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998. But
w_ can't read.

It is a lie to say these picutres are "current technology reaalities".

No earth ground means no effective protection.

And the required religious mantra.


The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.

There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_
can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

How come people in this newsgroup don't seem to like you w_?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

In a thread a few days ago 2 people looked at internet sites and found:
Lowes had NO ‘whole house’ suppressors.
Home Depot had no ‘whole house’ suppressors near $50. The 2
suppressors available had no specs available from Home Depot or
the manufacturer. Sufficiently sized? No specs.

They looked in the wrong places. They should have looked under
"Building Demolition" for whole house suppressors.

It is a lie to say these devices are available for $50 unless you can provide
a link to a source.

[.........]
There are 98,615,938 web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

<LOL>
I think w_ ignores scale. He thinks in terms of nearby lightning
strikes, but surges and spikes come in all sizes and they originate
inside the house as well as outside, and something scaled large
enough to withstand and re-direct a lightning bolt won't necessarily
handle a bad fluorescent ballast or sparky motor in a refrigerator or
an air conditioner. I think plug-in strips, etc. are good for the small
stuff and sufficient if you live in a low building among tall buildings.
If you live in central Florida, you ought to also think about the big
stuff.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

But
w_ can't read.

Oh, w_tithead can read, but he's *very* selective about what he chooses
to comprehend. He's even more selective in his quoting, using it to
twist and distort the original meaning, as you've already found in this
thread.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

I think plug-in strips, etc. are good for the small
stuff and sufficient if you live in a low building among tall buildings.
If you live in central Florida, you ought to also think about the big
stuff.

I agree. That's taking a sensible and pragmatic view of surge
protection: assessing the location, the electrical installation, the
risk and taking appropriate precautions. Unlike w_'s "one size fits
all" panacea. And he still hasn't told us for which manufacturer he
sells whole-house surge protectors.

 

[w_tom]

I think w_ ignores scale. He thinks in terms of nearby lightning
strikes, but surges and spikes come in all sizes and they originate
inside the house as well as outside, and something scaled large
enough to withstand and re-direct a lightning bolt won't necessarily
handle a bad fluorescent ballast or sparky motor in a refrigerator or
an air conditioner. I think plug-in strips, etc. are good for the small
stuff and sufficient if you live in a low building among tall buildings.

If thinking on a small scale, then use pathetic power strip
protectors - and pay many times more money. Those who think on all
scales - who want real world protection - ie commercial radio and TV
stations, emergency response centers, etc - don't use ineffective plug-
in protectors. They install protection for direct lightning strikes.
Since protection must be more reliable, how do they enhance
protection? Enlarge and improve earth ground. Why? Earthing ground
is the protection. A plug-in protector is ineffective. They need real
world protection: a 'whole house' type protector connected short to
earthing. That is the 'big scale' solution even installed in Orange
County after thunderstorms caused electronics damage:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

One bad fluorescent ballast causes electronics damage all over the
house. Smoke detectors and furnace controls are destroyed. Oh. They
are not? Why not? Where is the plug-in protector? Transients from a
sparky motor in a refrigerator, et al made completely irrelevant by
protection even in dimmer switches and kitchen GFCIs. No wonder a
bad ballast does not damage every digital clock. Even digital clocks
contain protection from such trivial transients.

Why do household appliances create destructive surges? Because plug-
in manufacturers desperately need mythical problems to justify their
product.

Nearby lightning strikes are but a secondary concern. The big
picture: worry about direct lightning strikes to overhead utility
wires. That is a direct lightning strike to household appliances.
What do the informed install? One 'whole house' protector - just like
commercial radio stations and emergency response centers - with proper
earthing. Same protector also makes a sparky motor and bad
fluorescent ballast also irrelevant. Internal protection already does
what a plug-in protector might do. One 'whole house' protector
(properly earthed) means transients do not overwhelm protection inside
appliances. And then a protector installed for direct lightning
strikes - one 'whole house' protector - makes those other transients
irrelevant again.

Scary pictures are exactly what a plug-in promoter denies to hype
more ineffective but so profitable protectors. These scary pictures
are standard technology plug-in protectors - just another problem:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

What happens when a direct lightning strike arrives at a plug-in
protector? Bud's citation page 42 Figure 8 shows a failure created by
plug-in protectors. That failure when a typically 'big picture
problem' occurs. Plug-in protector may earth a direct lightning
strike 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud's
reply? Buy $2000 or $3000 of plug-in protectors for everything. What
does he forget to mention? Install one 'whole house' protector -
don't waste money on plug-in protectors - and don't create damage on
page 42 Figure 8.

How do we protect from the big one - how to see the big picture?
Same solution makes other surges irrelevant? Install one 'whole
house' protector and confirm / upgrade the earthing. Solution
manufactured by the responsible such as Intermatic, Leviton, GE,
Cutler-Hammer, Square D, and Siemens. A 'whole house' protector even
available in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.

Is Bud still denying those protectors are available even at less
than $50? Maybe he finally went to Lowes to see for himself what a
real protector looks like?

 

[chrisv]

Is Bud still denying those protectors are available even at less
than $50? Maybe he finally went to Lowes to see for himself what a
real protector looks like?

Why don't you point one out for us? You've been asked repeatedly.

 

[Bud--]

Scary pictures are exactly what a plug-in promoter denies to hype
more ineffective but so profitable protectors. These scary pictures
are standard technology plug-in protectors - just another problem:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Lacking any technical arguments w_ repeats the pathetic scare tactics.

What happens when a direct lightning strike arrives at a plug-in
protector? Bud's citation page 42 Figure 8 shows a failure created by
plug-in protectors.

Already covered. No failure was created by a plug-in suppressor. The
plug-in suppressor installed at the 1st TV reduced the surge at the 2nd
TV from 10kV to 8kV. The point of the illustration for the IEEE and
everyone but w_ is that "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector
located at TV2 is required".

A 'whole house' protector even
available in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.

Is Bud still denying those protectors are available even at less
than $50? Maybe he finally went to Lowes to see for himself what a
real protector looks like?

The $50 lie repeated. Incomprehensible why w_ would repeat this.


The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Both have excellent information on surges and surge protection.

And still never seen - a link to a site that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Could it be nobody agrees with you w_? Where are
your links? And include your link for $50 ‘whole house’ suppressors.

 

[w_tom]

The $50 lie repeated. Incomprehensible why w_ would repeat this.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Both have excellent information on surges and surge protection.

He cannot deny those scary pictures - what happens when typically
undersized protectors are used and those protectors remain connected
too long - actually try to provide protection. Fire threat is a
problem that has existed for 20 years. Meanwhile, effective 'whole
house' protectors are properly sized to earth such surges without
damage - remain fictional after the direct lightning strike.

Problem with 'whole house' protectors? They earth surges so that
the homeowner does not even know those surges existed. Properly
sized and installed 'whole house' protector earths that surge, remain
functional, and do not create fire damage to a wall to wall rug or to
a pile of desktop papers.

Bud knows because he saw it on the web. 'Whole house' protectors
from responsible manufacturers have sold in Lowes and Home Depot for
less than $50 for years now. Bud knows that cannot be true because he
did not see it on the web. If he actually did this stuff, then he
might discover 'whole house' protectors - some selling for less than
$50. But that would harm sales of ineffective plug-in protectors.
Easier is to lie and deny.

Even Bud's own citation Page 42 Figure 8 shows a plug-in protector
earthing the surge - 8000 volts destructively - via an adjacent TV.
But even IEEE Standards instead define what is necessary for
protection - earthing. Bud admits his plug-in protectors have no
earthing. Page 42 Figure 8 shows how that plug-in protector earthed,
destructively, through a TV. 8000 volts destructively.

But then another of Bud's citations also warns of what plug-in
protectors can do - besides cost tens of times more money -

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.

Did we also mention those plug-in protectors don't even claim to
provide protection from the typically destructive type of surge? Yes,
they claim protection from a surge that typically does not do damage.
What is necessary to protect from surges that typically do damage?
Earthing. So where are those numeric claims for protection? Bud's
protectors don't even claim such protection in its numerical specs.
Just another little fact he forgets to mention when plug-in protectors
are so profitable.

No earth ground means no effective protection. What does IEEE
states as necessary for protection? Earthing. Who should we believe -
IEEE Standards (Red Book, Emerald Book, etc) or Bud who cannot even
deny those scary pictures. Yes Bud is the troll who follows me
everywhere to promote his grossly overpriced (so profitable)
products. He will not even admit why he promotes them.

 

[Bud--]

w_tom wrote:

No earth ground means no effective protection.

The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do
not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE
guide explains they primarily work by clamping.

Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say
plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite.
Amazing what someone will do to protect their religious beliefs. w_
still can’t find the mythical $50 ‘whole house suppressor’ - if they
exist provide a link - why should anyone believe they exist.

And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective - except w_.

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Anyone can read these sources.


No sources.
Distort opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Arno Wagner]

w_tom wrote:

The religious belief in earth ground - because plug-in suppressors do
not work by earthing, for w_ they cannot possibly work. But the IEEE
guide explains they primarily work by clamping.

Actuyally I have a high-quality power-strip supressor and it
does both: Short to ground and short against each other. It also
includes a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor, so that if
they start to leak after several surges, the device will fail
instead of stopping to protect.

It is a good idea to short both lines against each other anyways,
because, guess what, the neutral line (N) is typically grouned
anyways! In fact in installations here, three phases are deliverd
to the house and the N line is created by connecting it to
the house grounding. So in most cases a simple non-grounded
suppressor actually shorts to ground anyways.

Nothing new - the same drivel. Attempts again to take 2 sources that say
plug–in suppressors are effective and make them say the opposite.
Amazing what someone will do to protect their religious beliefs.

Hey, look at some of the religious dictatorships in the world,
e.g. Iran or Northern Korea (yes, socialism taken that far is
religion), and you can see that w_tom is by far not alone in his
disregard for reality andf facts.

w_ still can’t find the mythical $50 ‘whole house suppressor’ - if they
exist provide a link - why should anyone believe they exist.

And no links to sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
That is because no one in the known universe thinks plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective - except w_.

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Anyone can read these sources.

IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
reasoning with their recomendations.

No sources.
Distort opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.

Does not answer counterarguments.

w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

Yes, definitely. One of these people that make the world a
worse place.

Arno

 

[Bud--]

Actuyally I have a high-quality power-strip supressor and it
does both: Short to ground and short against each other. It also
includes a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor, so that if
they start to leak after several surges, the device will fail
instead of stopping to protect.

It is a good idea to short both lines against each other anyways,
because, guess what, the neutral line (N) is typically grouned
anyways! In fact in installations here, three phases are deliverd
to the house and the N line is created by connecting it to
the house grounding. So in most cases a simple non-grounded
suppressor actually shorts to ground anyways.

The (US) UL standard (1449) requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G. w_
is right that the impedance back to the panel is too high for really
effective earthing to occurr. But they work by clamping.

UL 1449 has required a thermal disconnect for leaking MOVs since 1998.
As noted in both guides the protected equipment may be connected across
the MOVs and be disconnected with them, or it can be connected to stay
live (and unprotected) if the MOVs are disconnected.

Hard to imagine 3-phase residential.

Hey, look at some of the religious dictatorships in the world,
e.g. Iran or Northern Korea (yes, socialism taken that far is
religion), and you can see that w_tom is by far not alone in his
disregard for reality and facts.

I have heard w_ is a science advisor for George.

IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
reasoning with their recomendations.

Sure would be nice to get at the IEEE treasure trove of information.
Hey, maybe you could post your membership number.

 

[Arno Wagner]

The (US) UL standard (1449) requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G. w_
is right that the impedance back to the panel is too high for really
effective earthing to occurr. But they work by clamping.

UL 1449 has required a thermal disconnect for leaking MOVs since 1998.

Sensible. Don't know whether VDE/SVE/... requires them.

As noted in both guides the protected equipment may be connected across
the MOVs and be disconnected with them, or it can be connected to stay
live (and unprotected) if the MOVs are disconnected.

Hard to imagine 3-phase residential.

Well, this is Europe. Pretty standard here. Also standard is
that the transformers are larger ones for a series of houses.

I have heard w_ is a science advisor for George.
Hehe.

Sure would be nice to get at the IEEE treasure trove of information.
Hey, maybe you could post your membership number.

Sorry, the I found the digital library option too expensive. ;-)

Arno

 

[w_tom]

The (US) UL standard (1449) requires protection from H-N, H-G, N-G.
w_ is right that the impedance back to the panel is too high for really
effective earthing to occurr. But they work by clamping.

UL 1449 has required a thermal disconnect for leaking MOVs since 1998.
As noted in both guides the protected equipment may be connected across
the MOVs and be disconnected with them, or it can be connected to stay
live (and unprotected) if the MOVs are disconnected.

UL1449 is a safety standard; says nothing about electronics
protection. A power strip protector can fail during UL testing and
still obtain UL 1449 approval. Underwriters Laboratories does not
care if a protector stops providing protection - if its fuse
disconnects protector parts. UL 1449 only cares about things that
might threaten human life.

How can one obtain UL 1449 approval? MOVs connect to AC mains via a
tiny fuse. Wrap that fuse with the MOV so that heat causes that fuse
to blow faster. Now the grossly undersized protector will trip a fuse
long before too much heat creates explosive vaporizations. Fuse is so
tiny as to not power or disconnect appliance.

MOV disconnects from surges faster - less transistor safety but more
human safety. Since power strip protectors are not effective for
transistor safety, then disconnecting an MOV faster actually promotes
sales among the naive (see 6 paragraphs down).

Undersized protectors that meet UL 1449 simply disconnect protection
faster; leaving protection inside the appliance to protect that
appliance. MOVs can disconnect during UL 1449 testing - stop providing
any transistor protection - and still the power strip gets a UL 1449
approval sticker.

Human knows MOVs disconnected because a power strip's light says
"failure". Human then assumes that power strip provided protection.
Reality - power strip disconnected from a surge as fast as possible;
leaving the appliance to fend for itself. That same fuse is described
by Arno as "a thermal fuse on each MOX resistor". That fuse
disconnects MOVs ASAP while leaving appliance connected to surges.
That is called protection?

Sometimes that UL 1449 protector does not disconnect the MOVs fast
enough. Again the scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
What does that light report? This picture shows a protector saying it
is OK even when MOVs are removed:
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

No MOVs inside a power strip and still that light says it is OK?
Yes, because MOVs were removed manually; did not fail by being too
undersized and blowing that fuse.

UL 1449 said nothing about electronics protection. But to promote
myths, some will intentionally confuse UL 1449 with claims of
protection. Some will even claim the protector meets C62.41 which is
only testing waveforms. Some will claim UL 1449 defines protection.
Reality: UL 1449 is about human safety. To meet UL 1449, grossly
undersized power strip protectors may provide even less transistor
safety. It may disconnect MOVs during surges too small to overwhelm
protection already inside household electronics. Disconnecting faster
- providing less transistor protection - even promotes ineffective
protectors to the naive.


In an April 1990 article, Martzloff defined two types of surges.
" ... transients with low amplitudes (less than 1000 volts) are
buffered by the computers' power supply but might still couple into
circuits and cause glitches". These surges may be sufficient to blow
that fuse; disconnect MOVs inside the grossly undersized power strip.
A naive human then assumes that "my protector has sacrificed itself to
protect my computer". But as Martzloff notes, protection already
inside appliances provided the protection.

Same surge struck appliance and power strip simultaneously. Surge
could not overwhelm 1000 volt protection inside appliances. Some
computers define that internal protection at 2000 volts. But grossly
undersized power strip also had to meet UL 1449 human safety
requirements - disconnected to protect itself - not the computer.

Effective protectors must earth direct lightning strikes and still
remain functional. Responsible manufacturers provide a 'whole house'
protector that clamps (shunts) surges to earth. A product even
available in Lowes and Home Depot for under $50. UL1449 says nothing
about transistor protection. UL1449 is about human safety because
those scary pictures - threats to human life - are most dangerous in
power strip protectors.

Those with IEEE access and a few decades of engineering design
experience also know that UL approval is about human safety - does not
define transistor safety.

 

[w_tom]

IEEE and NIST are both highly respected and highly competent
organizations. Both are also pretty immune to politics (caveat:
I am an IEEE member) and usually deliver the complete technical
reasoning with their recomendations.

Which is why Bud must post selectively from those publications. IEEE
recommendations are not found in papers. IEEE recommendations are in
Standards. IEEE Standards are quite specific what is required for
protectcion.
IEEE Red Book (Standard 141):

In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

IEEE Green Book (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.

IEEE Emerald Book (Standard 1100) entitled "Powering and Grounding
Sensitive Electronic Equipment":

It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and
bonding connections exist among the telephone and data
equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding
system, and the building grounding electrode system. ...
Failure to observe any part of this grounding requirement may
result in hazardous potential being developed between the
telephone (data) equipment and other grounded items that
personnel may be near or might simultaneously contact.

So where is this required earthing in a plug-in protector?
Ignored? Forgotten? Or are IEEE Standards lying? Those power strip
protector manufacturers would have you believe earthing is not
required for protection. IOW they must pervert what the IEEE demands
for protection.

Martzloff in his IEEE paper also notes that a 'whole house'
protector is necessary to protect plug-in protectors:

For large current values such as those associated with "lightning
remnants", i.e. surge entering the house when a lightning stroke
occurs near the house, one can expect currents in the order of
1000 to 2000 A. These would produce a voltage of 800 to 1000 V
across the varistor. However, as we will see, the presence of an
HLP device at the service box, ahead of the varistor, will limit the
current flowing toward the varistor to a lower value, by diverting the
current through the HLP ...

HLP - Home Lightning Protector
Even 'whole house' protectors sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less
than $50 are rated at about 50,000 amps making a 2000 A surge
trivial. But a 2000 A surge can cause plug-in protector damage?

Look at voltage on a varistor when those 1000 A surges occur - and no
HLP? Viewing any varistor datasheet: 800 and 1000 volt is where
performance curves end and where MOV vaporization (destruction)
begins. So what happens to plug-in protectors when a 10,000 A surge
occurs - if only 1000 A surges are so destructive to plug-in
protectors? Well that is why plug-in protector thermal fuses
disconnect MOV protector so fast - leaving appliance to fend for
itself.

We install a 'whole house' protector because plug-in protectors are
not sufficient even for 1000 A surges? 'Whole house' protector rates
at 50,000 amps and with better earthing means 1000 volt internal
appliance protection is not overwhelmed.

As his IEEE paper notes, a plug-in protector can be overwhelmed even
with 1000 A and 2000 A surges. Install a 'whole house' protector for
50,000 A - even as low as $50 in Lowes or Home Depot - and upgrade the
earthing. Then grossly undersized plug-in protectors will be
protected. Imagine that? Pay $100 for a power strip protector from
Circuit City ... and need a $50 'whole house' protector from Lowes to
protect it ... and everything else in the building.

One of us has learned this stuff from IEEE, manufacturer
datasheets, and from experience many decades ago. Protection is
defined by earth ground - not by some 'magic box' promoted by Bud.
IEEE Standards are quite blunt about it. Protection is provided by
earth ground.