Won't strike twice.

[John Doe]

Since many suffer damage using grossly undersized plug-in
protectors,

That's one of Tom's pet suggestions, that surge suppressors don't
work. He's been sternly corrected about the issue many times in his
posting history.

Protection from direct lightning strikes is routine when the human
learns about and installs effective earthing.

Someone else commented about Tom's use of the word "human". That is
an interesting example.

Taht also means every incoming utility wire in every cable should
make a 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth.

Speaking of needing a connection to earth...

 

[bhoover]

That's one of Tom's pet suggestions, that surge suppressors don't
work. He's been sternly corrected about the issue many times in his
posting history.


Someone else commented about Tom's use of the word "human". That is
an interesting example.

Ah ha! He is an alien! His mission? Obviously something to do with
electricity, our power grid maybe? Mmm. What could it be? He's
trying to direct all lightening strikes to Earth. We must think like
an alien. Why would an alien want to direct all lightening strikes to
Earth? Some sort of energy collection apparatus? Maybe they hate
worms. I don't know. But, there's something darned suspicious going
on here.

"Alien spacecraft are vulnerable to electrical storms. It is possible
that they were not designed to withstand lightening. The aliens'
spacecraft may have been disabled in a fierce electrical storm at
Roswell, New Mexico. Electrical storms did occur about the time of the
estimated crash. Current NASA videos from the space shuttle show alien
spacecraft entering into electrical storms. The aliens are possibly
studying electrical storms and have re-designed their spacecraft to
withstand them. "

http://www.aliensandchildren.org/Aliencapabilities&incapbilities.htm

It could be alien childhood trauma as a result of lightening strikes
suffered in early alien visitations to Earth. Because of this trauma,
the alien has an unhealthy obsession with lightening, manifestiing as
an uncontrollable compulsion to give lectures on the subject. The
alien will not only lecture when the subject happens to come up, but it
actually seeks out the subject via available technologies, such as
internet search engines, cell phone alerts, even such low tech as the
public library.

Still, an even more frightening hypothesis:

"A quick run in with a few survivors teaches Ray that the tripods are
being driven by an alien species: the lightening storms were actually
the alien's transporting themselves into the underground machines via
capsules. Much more to his dismay, Ray realizes that there isn't one,
but hundreds of tripods' the human race seems doomed."

http://www.homevideos.com/revnclas/233b.htm

 

[H. Seldon]

Protection from lightning was routine 50 years ago where humans
learned basic concepts. Why does a $multi-million telephone company
computer, connected to overhead wires everywhere in town, not shutdown
for every thunderstorm?

Now there's a really practical suggestion. Bring New York to a screeching
halt because of a thunderstorm? I'm sure you'd get that one by the city
fathers, not to mention business. For god's sake man, it's a very very
complex world compared to what it was 50 years ago.

Why do commercial radio and TV broadcasters atop the Empire State Building suffer
typically 25 direct lightning strikes and continue operation
uninterrupted?

They get struck very often because of the elevation of the antenna systems
(remember, the shortest path for lightning to ground) and they continue
operating because the antennas are all at "DC" ground potential. That is
the nature of the design of TV and FM transmit antennas. Only AM antennas
are not at "DC" ground and many tens of thousands of dollars are spent on
AM systems to protect them from lightning as best as possible. These
processes don't always work either as they depend so heavily on path and
ground conductivity.

Because protection from direct lighting strikes is well understood and
routinely avoided.

Sometimes that is so, especially when the planets are properly aligned and
the moon is in the seventh house.

Since many suffer damage using grossly undersized
plug-in protectors, so we have myths about protection not possible.
Instead we consult testimony from professionals:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Bullshit. If you knew your job, your degree of certainty regarding
lightning protection would not be so absolute.

Of course you do.

Of course it is, as was explained earlier in this response. You're in
broadcasting and you don't understand why TV and FM systems take multiple
hits and don't go off the air?? The only TV/FM transmitters I have ever
seen go down because of lightning strikes are those where the lightning
entered the transmitter system through the AC distribution system,
not the antenna. The antennas *are* at DC ground.

God help your employer if you don't have a handle on simple shit like that.

Nobody said there was "no" protection just that it is certainly not
fool-proof.

Some pray. Others learn well proven science.

Those who understand the beast fully, realize that controlling it is part
science and part "black magic". Hence the 'finger-crossing and pray'
factor. You know, like the fudge factor called ether.

If you suffer damage, then learn where your earthing is insufficient or where wires enter the
building without first a short connection that that earthing - either by direct wire or via a
'whole house' type protector.

WTF are you trying to say??

Protection from direct lightning strikes is so routine as to be
considered human failure. If damage occurs, the human should learn from
and correct that human created mistake. Earthing is so essential to
effective transistor protection that Ufer grounds are routinely
installed in new buildings with effective protection. How did an Orange
County FL stop suffering damage from lightning? They repaired defective
earthing:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Single case concerning *obviously* lousy grounding.

Protection from direct lightning strikes is routine when the human
learns about and installs effective earthing. Taht also means every
incoming utility wire in every cable should make a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth. A concept originally demonstrated by Ben Franklin
in 1752.

Theoretical solidity but not practically feasible in most cases.


--
________________________________________________________
H. Seldon

I wish there was an "Intelligence" control on the TV set.
There's a "Brightness" control, but it doesn't work.

VectorLinux SoHo 5.1

 

[smart2006go]

Avoid typing the same text again and again
Stop wasting your time on mouse movements
Open favorite web pages with a single hotkey press
Record keystrokes and play them back with a single hotkey press

 

[w_tom]

That's one of Tom's pet suggestions, that surge suppressors don't
work. He's been sternly corrected about the issue many times in his
posting history.

John Doe loves hyperbole. He posts personal insults and never posts
technical facts. Is being insults also called sternly corrected? Of
course not. Meanwhile, effective protection has always been about
earthing.

Another somehow confused lightning with DC voltages. Again, this is
the nonsense that some will post to recommend what they never really
understood - plug-in protectors.

Reality - effective protection means the facility has installed a
single point earth ground. Every incoming wire (including TV antenna)
makes a connection to that earthing before entering the facility. In
the tradition of providing professional citations - which others who
disagree cannot do - which is why he posts insults rather than
technical facts:
http://www.ipclp.com/html/aud_ho_faq.html

A properly installed lightning protection system intercepts the lightning
bolt between cloud and earth and harmlessly conducts it to ground
without damage.
Yes, in addition to the lightning protection system consisting of air
terminals, conductor cables, clamps, fasteners, 10 foot grounds, etc.,
a secondary lightning suppressor is installed on your electric service
entrance panel to prevent current fluctuations (called lightning surges)
during a thunderstorm.
http://www.eham.net/forums/Articles/40885
At least one poster correctly noted the wisdom of tying ground electrodes
together OUTSIDE the premises.
Think of NEC and other codes as a MINIMUM requirement. There is NO
conflict between electrical codes and good RF grounding! Nothing in NEC
prevents us from adding 500 ground electrodes and 100 km of copper
around our premises as a ground system AS LONG AS WE BOND ALL
GROUNDS TOGETHER.

Of course no one is advocating all that is necessary. He is making a
point that post 1990 National Electrical Code is necessary but not
necessarily sufficient for surge protection.

http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_TD1003.aspx

An adequate ground system, designed for lightning fast rise time current
pulses, is essential for long term equipment survival.

Those who know and appreciate direct lightning strikes without damage
also know that Polyphaser is an industry benchmark in protection.
Polyphaser repeatedly discusses THE most essential component in
protection - earthing. Those whose income would be at risk if you
learned this also would not admit who they work for as they deny the
need for earthing. So what would they post? Insult because they know
some are influenced by insults - not technical fact. But facts remains
- a protector without a short connection to earth just is not
effective. So that you forget about the need for earthing, others such
as John Doe would post insults.

Sternly corrected? John did not know the difference between resistance
and impedance. Who got so sternly corrected that he now always posts
insults?

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe loves hyperbole. He posts personal insults and never posts
technical facts. Is being insults also called sternly corrected? Of
course not. Meanwhile, effective protection has always been about
earthing.

We're all still waiting for you to explain avionics 'effective protection'
and their "earthing."

<snip>

 

[John Doe]

A lying troll crying foul and trying to support his arguments with
links to commercial web sites as if they were authoritative.

 

[John Doe]

We're all still waiting for [w_tom] to explain avionics 'effective
protection' and their "earthing."

At least Tom has motivated my reading on the subject.


Message-ID: <4731c7Fdp72aU1 individual.net>

"I found it particularly funny that [w_tom] mentioned a paper by Dr.
Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of suge
equilization type plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the
hall from me...
Charles Perry P.E."

 

[Bud--]

The lurker is warned about those such as John Doe who repeatedly post
without a single technical fact. He cannot dispute a direct quote from
IEEE Red Book for reasons that others note. Again, he posts insults
and not one technical fact.

The IEEE and the NIST both say plug-in surge protectors are effective.

The best paaper I have seen on surge protection is at
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- this a paper YOU originally provided a link to
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
power and cumunication circuits"
- it was published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers in 2005
- the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US
- the 5 authors have broad experience with surge suppression

Another reference is
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home"
- it is published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the US government agency formerly called the Bureau of Standards
- it was published in 2001
- it was writen by your favorite - Francois Martzloff - the NIST guru on
surges and lightning

Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public to
explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE was targeted at
people who have some (not much) technical background.

Both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.

I believe that constitutes technical facts. And hard to find more
reputable sources.

You, in the meantime, have provided no links - technical facts - that
say plug-in surge suppressors are not effective.

bud--

 

[Geoff]

If lightning is so well understood and predictable, how did this happen?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060612/us_nm/energy_glenpool_tankfire_dc_1

-g

 

[H. Seldon]

If lightning is so well understood and predictable, how did this happen?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060612/us_nm/energy_glenpool_tankfire_dc_1

-g

Lightning is *fairly* well understood. We know where it comes from, how
it's generated what its electrical values may be in a given instance.
Further, we have numereous methods of protection against damage, which we
use every day. However, just because we have an understanding of such an
event means nothing if we cannot *control* the event and we are not even
close to being able to do that. To the engineer, the path lightning
follows, in any given discharge, is *not* predictable simply because in
any given discharge, all the data concerning path characteristics are not
available (finger-crossing and prayer factor). Secondly, the magnitude of
the discharge is not predictable and therefore it is virtually impossible
to protect against all possibilities. However in general, for the computer
user, the commercially available and reputable surge protection systems
work just fine. The random factors cannot be accounted for. So, keep in
mind, no matter which system you use, how much it costs, what its
specifications are, shit still happens when it comes to trying to protect
against the effects of a lightning discharges. Lightning has been studied
from the time it was first observed to the present day and our ability to
*control* it is only slightly more sophisticated today than it was in the
beginning. However, our ability to protect against its effects is light
years ahead of what it was, even "50 years ago".

When it comes to lightning, people always seem to confuse *protect* with
*control* .


--
________________________________________________________
H. Seldon

I wish there was an "Intelligence" control on the TV set.
There's a "Brightness" control, but it doesn't work.

VectorLinux SoHo 5.1

 

[H. Seldon]

John Doe loves hyperbole. He posts personal insults and never posts
technical facts. Is being insults also called sternly corrected? Of
course not. Meanwhile, effective protection has always been about
earthing.

Another somehow confused lightning with DC voltages. Again, this is
the nonsense that some will post to recommend what they never really
understood - plug-in protectors.

Reality - effective protection means the facility has installed a
single point earth ground. Every incoming wire (including TV antenna)
makes a connection to that earthing before entering the facility. In
the tradition of providing professional citations - which others who
disagree cannot do - which is why he posts insults rather than
technical facts:
http://www.ipclp.com/html/aud_ho_faq.html

Of course no one is advocating all that is necessary. He is making a
point that post 1990 National Electrical Code is necessary but not
necessarily sufficient for surge protection.

http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_TD1003.aspx

Those who know and appreciate direct lightning strikes without damage
also know that Polyphaser is an industry benchmark in protection.
Polyphaser repeatedly discusses THE most essential component in
protection - earthing. Those whose income would be at risk if you
learned this also would not admit who they work for as they deny the
need for earthing. So what would they post? Insult because they know
some are influenced by insults - not technical fact. But facts remains
- a protector without a short connection to earth just is not
effective. So that you forget about the need for earthing, others such
as John Doe would post insults.

Sternly corrected? John did not know the difference between resistance
and impedance. Who got so sternly corrected that he now always posts
insults?

I don't know from insults and I don't want to get into an argument with
any self righteous shill whose references are to commercial self interests
only.
Instead of a proliferation of half-baked notions and personally invented
theories, reference some of the practical and professional papers and
writings that are readily available. Case in point:

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lhm/lpts.html


--
________________________________________________________
H. Seldon

I wish there was an "Intelligence" control on the TV set.
There's a "Brightness" control, but it doesn't work.

VectorLinux SoHo 5.1

 

[w_tom]

John Doe has attributed quotes to Charles Perry that are actually
from Bud. Dr Mansoor does demonstrate how SREs could work. To work,
all six ports must be integrated into a protection system. That is
only possible if the room is specially constructed; ie a Faraday cage.
The paper on SRE makes that obvious which is why the SRE paper then
also recommends 'whole house' type protection.

.. John Doe hopes you ignore such technical facts. He hopes that by
insulting another, you will consider him credible. Hell, he cannot even
attribute his quotes to a proper source - he misrepresents reality.
His purpose is revenge. To attack because previously he was exposed for
not being technically knowledgeable. He was caught inventing facts
rather than learning them. John Doe cannot even attribute a quote to a
correct person.

 

[w_tom]

H Seldon cites another good source on lighting protection. That
paper notes:

The grounding system must address low earth impedance as well
as low resistance. ...

A single point grounding system is achieved when all equipment
within the structure(s) are connected to a master bus bar which
in turn is bonded to the external grounding system at one point
only. Earth loops and differential rise times must be avoided. The
grounding system should be designed to reduce ac impedance
and dc resistance.

Some factors that make 'whole house' protection effective. Short
connection is necessary for a low impedance connection. All utilities
connected to that same earth ground achieve the 'one point only'
requirement.

Homeowners can achieve a rather effective solution using 'whole
house' protectors from a variety of manufacturers such as Siemens,
Cutler-Hammer, Polyphaser, Intermatic, Leviton, or GE. They are sold
in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses.

Making that necessary earthing requires, at minimum, earthing that
meets post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. That is minimal
but not necessarily sufficient earthing. Richard Kithil's NLSI is but
one of many sources on effective protection and corresponding
discussions. But again, lightning protection is about earthing.
Earthing via a low impedance connection which is why effective
protectors have dedicated earthing wires and make that earthing
connection so short to a common earthing electrode.

Ineffective plug-in protectors such as APC, Tripplite, Monster Cable,
and Belkin avoid the entire discussion in a hope you will assume the
surge protector and surge protection are same. No earth ground means
no effective protection. Such protectors hope a reader never learns
the essential purpose of earthing.

 

[w_tom]

Bud repeatedly cut and pastes this same post that conveniently forgets
to include the conclusions. Because effective proetction using plug-in
protectors is so difficult to achieve, then his many citations note how
plug-in protectors can contribute to adjacent appliance damage AND that
'whole house' protectors are a better solution. He ignores these
quotes that were cited so many times previously:
1993 Paper on surge reference equalizer (SRE) from Martzloff, et al :

High-current surges ... are best diverted at the
service entrance of the premises. While such a
protection is not mandated at present, trends
indicate growing interest in this type of surge
protection.

Martzloff Key in 1994 wrote in "Surging the Upside-Down House: Looking

into Upsetting Reference Voltages" :

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.

And then the IEEE Green Book (Std 142) discusses conditions for
effective protection:

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 Red Book (Std 141) says:

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.

Provided previously are many responsible manufactures of effective
'whole house' protectors. Not listed were manufacturers who avoid all
discussion about earthing and who sell ineffective plug-in protectors.

IEEE and Bud's own authors declare earthing as necessary for
protection AND even suggest damage to adjacent appliances from plug-in
protectors.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe has attributed quotes to Charles Perry that are actually
from Bud.

Bud was quoting Charles Perry too, Tom.

Dr Mansoor ... also recommends 'whole house' type protection.

Do/did you benefit from the sale of whole house lightning protection
systems, Tom? Just curious.

Message-ID: <4731c7Fdp72aU1 individual.net>

"I found it particularly funny that [w_tom] mentioned a paper by
Dr. Mansoor. I can assure you that he supports the use of suge
equilization type plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down
the hall from me...
Charles Perry P.E."

 

[Bud--]

Bud repeatedly cut and pastes this same post that conveniently forgets
to include the conclusions. Because effective proetction using plug-in
protectors is so difficult to achieve, then his many citations note how
plug-in protectors can contribute to adjacent appliance damage AND that
'whole house' protectors are a better solution.

W_tom repeatedly cuts and pastes his bull whenever "surge" appears.
He is not able to read the guides from the NIST and IEEE and figure out
that they both clearly recognize plug-in surge suppressors are
effective. He is not able to look at chapter 6 of the IEEE guide
"SPECIFIC PROTECTION EXAMPLES" and see that in both examples multi-port
plug-in surge suppressors provide the protection.

W_tom has provided NO links to reputable sources that say that plug-in
surge supperssors are not effective.

Where are your links???

bud--

 

[H. Seldon]

H Seldon cites another good source on lighting protection. That
paper notes:


Some factors that make 'whole house' protection effective. Short
connection is necessary for a low impedance connection. All utilities
connected to that same earth ground achieve the 'one point only'
requirement.

Homeowners can achieve a rather effective solution using 'whole
house' protectors from a variety of manufacturers such as Siemens,
Cutler-Hammer, Polyphaser, Intermatic, Leviton, or GE. They are sold
in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical supply houses.

Making that necessary earthing requires, at minimum, earthing that
meets post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements. That is minimal
but not necessarily sufficient earthing. Richard Kithil's NLSI is but
one of many sources on effective protection and corresponding
discussions. But again, lightning protection is about earthing.
Earthing via a low impedance connection which is why effective
protectors have dedicated earthing wires and make that earthing
connection so short to a common earthing electrode.

Ineffective plug-in protectors such as APC, Tripplite, Monster Cable,
and Belkin avoid the entire discussion in a hope you will assume the
surge protector and surge protection are same. No earth ground means
no effective protection. Such protectors hope a reader never learns
the essential purpose of earthing.

Reading and article and salvaging the points that fit with your slant on
things constitutes an invalid assessment. In point form:

1.. Many people cannot avail of wholehouse protection schemes as they
live in apartment complexes or rented single family dwellings. Unless the
landlord either agrees to or has already implemented a wholehouse
lightning protection system, it's a non-starter.

2.. Wholehouse protection is a costly undertaking that many cannot afford.

3.. Most people neither have the knowledge nor the authority to implement
such a system themselves.

4.. Many of the brand name off-the-shelf lightning protection systems are
quite effective under most conditions.

5.. Most importantly the SUMMARY in the article provided says it all:

"Summary
It is important that all of the above subjects be considered in a
lightning safety analysis. ***There is no Utopia in lightning protection.
Lightning may ignore every defense man can conceive.*** A systematic
hazard mitigation approach to lightning safety is a prudent course of
action."

Now, ask yourself how much you're *willing* to shell out for
'non-guaranteed' protection from lightning.

 

[w_tom]

Where are your links???

Funny Bud. I quote your own citations that say plug-in protectors
may even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance:

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.

And of course, we demonstrated same. Plug-in protectors simply
shunted a lightning strike into a network of computers. Why? Plug-in
protector had no dedicated earth ground. Why did lightning find earth
ground via those powered off computers? Because that is what plug-in
protectors do? Shunt to earth. Either shunt to an earth ground 'less
than 10 feet' away (effective 'whole house' protectors); or shunt
destructively through two TVs. Why are those two TVs in your other
citation at 8000 volts? Because the adjacent plug-in protector was not
effective. It had no short connection to earth ground. It simply
shunted the transient - 8000+ volts - into two adjacent TVs. Another
paper cited by Bud that demonstrates how plug-in protectors can cause
damage.

Bud's citations even demonstrate why plug--in protectors can
contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. But again, I am only
reposting for about the 12th time the same response to his same false
accusation. Next week, he will post the same accusation and I will
again repost these examples of failed plug-in protectors. Plug-in
protector without that essential and short connection to earth - only
connected to a three prong wall receptacle - can even put TVs at 8000
volts.

A shunt mode protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Earthing is what effective protectors do. Earthing defines
effectiveness of a shunt mode protector. Ineffective plug-in
protector manufacturers avoid discussing earthing - to sell ineffective
products. No earth ground means no effective protection. So plug-in
manufacturer remain silent - and don't even claim to provide protection
in their own numerical specifications.

 

[w_tom]

Let's see. We put a $20 protector on each household appliance for
thousands of dollars. Or we get a 'whole house' protector from Home
Depot or Lowes for less than $50. Of course protection is only be as
effective as its earth ground which means house earthing must be
upgraded to post 1990 NEC requirements. But then that earthing may
need be upgraded anyway for human safety issues and for a plug-in
protector to work.

So where is this major expense for 'whole house' protection? Plug-in
protectors cost tens of times more money per protected appliance. Why
does H Seldon misrepresent the numbers? The consumer is advised to
learn these numbers in Home Depot or Lowes.

There is no way around a basic fact. Shunt mode protector earth
surges. No low impedance connection to earth means no effective
protection. So plug-in protectors that cost tens of times more money
(per protected appliance) also don't have that low impedance earthing
connection? What kind of protection is that? Protection promoted by
half truths - that forget to mention why earthing is so important.

Defined is same protection that the plug-in manufacturer also claims
in his numerical specs. Where does he actually claim protection from
each type of surge. Plug-in manufacturer hopes consumer never looks at
those numbers. Why no protection in those specs? Maybe because he
would have to discuss earthing? Maybe the consumer would learn that no
earth ground means no effective protection. Better sales come from
less information. Plug-in protectors are promoted by myths.

H Seldon somehow claims 'whole house' protection is vastly more
expensive - promoting more myths. Nonsense. Only manufacturers of
ineffective protectors would make that bogus claim. Responsible
manufacturers such as Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Siemens, Intermatic, and
GE make effective protectors that costs so little AND that have that so
essential and dedicated earthing wire. What does a plug-in protector
not provide - the dedicated earthing wire.

Apartment dwellers can learn from 'whole house' techniques. Buy the
plug-in protector of highest joules. Cut off the power cord as short
as possible (remember distance to earth must be as short as possible).
Plug it into a wall receptacle closest to breaker box and therefore
closest to earth ground. It becomes a kludge 'whole house' protector.
At least it will provide some protection - at least the protector has
some earthing.

They are called shunt mode protectors. They shunt. Either they shunt
a transient to earth (safely) or they shunt the transient into an
adjacent appliance (potentially destructive).

No, there is no utopia in lightning protection. So we earth and
install a 'whole house' protectors to make well over 90% of surges
irrelevant. Others will instead hype this into 'woe is me; nothing can
protect'. Bull. Commercial broadcasters, 911 response centers, and
telephone switching stations need 100% protection. So they do this
same concept,but so large as to spend $thousands. IOW they spend that
much more to get a few more digits of better protection. That is what
Orange County FL did to stop all lightning damage. Did they buy
plug-in protectors? Of course not. They fix the problem. They
earthed:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

For less money is effective protection for everything in the house -
smoke detectors, furnace, clock radio, dishwasher, computers -
everything gets effective protection. Or spend more money for numerous
ineffective plug-in protectors.

Get trivial protection from a power strip, get massive improvement by
spending less money per appliance for 'whole house' protection, or
spend $thousands to do same 'whole house protection in high reliability
facilities. What is not used in those high reliability facilities?
Plug-in protectors. The other and effective protection methods put
protectors adjacent to earth ground - not adjacent to appliances. More
effective protection even costs less money.