Remote Desktop

My understanding is that proper point of use protection involves routing all AC-ground-signal lines through a single multiport protector. I quickly scanned that paper and it appears to me that the first test scenario demonstrated that such a device mitigated the problem buttociated with the less than ideal wiring. The second test scenario appears not to adhere to the single protector recommendation.

Not earthed suggests no path to earth. Are you saying the protector had no path or a poor path to earth? Was everything routed through a single protector? It seems to me the devil would be in the details and conceptually at least, the damage could be caused by improper facilities wiring and-or improper protector use. The risk of which would be worth noting, but frankly, I'm more interested in the risks when both of those things are proper.

That is pretty much a non-starter, obviously. Honestly, I can't recall the last time I was in an apartment where the computer was less than a 20' run to the box. As for homes, the runs were at least 30-40 feet. People put computers where they are most convenient to use, and always will.

I don't believe going from a N' earth to a N+1' earth is going to eliminate all protection. I would think that longer runs would mean reduced immunity, with the falloff being a function of surge current. The important question, to me, would be what can proper plugin protection (sans point of entry protection) protect you against given realistic earthing lengths. It has to be something, and I'm not talking about just internal building events. I'm sure somebody must have worked the numbers and then provided numbers for various types of power service faults, lighting strikes on things at different distances and what not. Got a link to something authoritative and illustrative?