Klusu wrote: This is why I mentioned PFC. Seems to me you were the first to write about PFC. ... Is not it 80kV? ...The main reason is cheap manufacturers want to save those 5 cents. Better manufacturers still use MOVs.
Defined was how a power supply works and why it already is protection superior to any of those silly plug-in devices. Klusu used wild speculation to assume that power supply operation was PFC. Described (and exampled) were power supplies even without PFC. With basic power supply knowledge, then that would have been obvious. Apparently what PFC does is even unknown.
Provided were schematics for a typical power supply (without PFC). And again irrelevant questions about PFC continue. PFC was not in that example of effective protection and was never relevant to the entire topic.
So, rather than apologize not even reading those schematics (the example), instead he now accuses me of mentioning PFCs. When guilty as hell and technically naive, then blame others.
Electronics, before an IBM PC existed, would withstand 600 volts without damage. Repeatedly defined and from datasheets are voltage numbers that electronics can withstand. Even low voltage interface semiconductors were rated to withstand 2000 or 15,000 volts.
A typically destructive surge can be 20,000 amps. Basic electrical concepts says hearsay is just plain wrong. Surges are a current source. That means no voltage exists when something foolishly does not try to 'block' that current. An obstruction means voltage increases as necessary so that current continues to flow. That 20,000 amps may create 100 volts if a low impedance connection exists, 8000 volts when a plug-in protector connects that current to earth via a TV in a next room, or even higher voltage if the 'blocking' device break down voltage is that high.
Protection is not about voltage. Protection is about current. Franklin demonstrated this over 250 years ago. A church no longer conducted lightning (destructively) when a lightning rod connected lightning to earth on a better conductive device - a wire. Then no destructive voltage exists. Then earth ground protects that church steeple.
This concept was taught in math. Voltage is a dependent variable. Current is an independent (relevant) variable. Effective protectors are rated by the independent variable (numbers of amps that connect harmlessly to earth).
Informed consumers spend about $1 per appliance for a 'whole house' solution that is at least 50,000 amps. Any protector that fails on a surge is ineffective - probably only contains five cent protector parts to increase profits. An effective protector puts money into the protector - not into advertising, propaganda, hyping myths, and an inflated profit margin.
No protector does protection - not one. Effective protector (that costs tens of times less money) always has a low impedance (ie less than 10 foot) hardwire connection to single point earth ground. Because protection is defined by quality of and connection to that ground - where hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly 'absorbed'.
Nothing is new. All this has been described repeatedly. And is the best answer for our OP. Posted again because it was ignored. Anyone with basic electrical knowledge would know why a potentially destructive surge is defined by its current (ie 20,000 amps) and not by a voltage (ie 80Kv). Since that concept was even demonstrated by Franklin over 250 years ago.
If hardware protection is known, then one knew why MOVs are so useful in a 'whole house' solution. And why near zero joule (five cent) MOVs in expensive plug-in protectors even cause this:
http://imgur.com/hwCWHMW
Price of a protector says nothing about quality. The most expensive plug-in protectors are inferior to a 'whole house' solution costing $1 per protected appliance. Reasons why with numbers posted previously.
Informed consumers always ignore a recommendation that does not say why using basic electrical concepts and that is not tempered by numbers. Unacceptable damage to expensive plug-in protectors is obvious with basic electrical knowledge combined with specification numbers.
Any effective solution will always say where hundreds of thousands of joules are harmlessly 'absorbed'. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground - today and over 100 years ago in facilities that could not have damage. Basic knowledge is that well understood and proven. And so often unknown by many who only deny without one honest reason why.
Electronics can be more robust than expensive, near zero joule protectors. Described were circuits without any mention of PFC. Described are how surges (that can overwhelm superior existing protection) are routinely earthed so that even direct lightning strikes cause no damage - to anything inside the building. No damage even to a protector.
All that was described using basic electrical concepts and with perspective - numbers. It has not changed. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Having said that, only a 'secondary' protection layer has been discussed. Not yet discussed is a 'primary' protection layer. Obviously plenty more to learn. But that cannot happen when urban myths and speculation have invented fictional accusations.
Obvious is who did not know how a power supply works. And then used wild speculation to assume those well over 300 volt radio frequency spikes were in an active PFC circuit. Apparently, even passive PFC was unknown.
Best protection for the OP means properly earthing a 'whole house' solution. An IEEE Standard says that should do 99.5% to 99.9% of the protection. Even an IEEE Standard makes recommendations with numbers. So that recommendation has credibility.