What you are doing is probably quite safe. Unfortunately that may not
count.
From the UL White Book:
"Relocatable power taps are not intended to be series connected (daisy
chained) to other relocatable power taps or to extension cords."
No reason is given but some likely ones are in this thread.
Chaining violates the UL listing and the fire marshal can legitimately
complain. Your problem of many devices to plug-in is common. You could ask
the fire marshal what his suggestion is. You could use one strip that is
switched and one that is not switched with each plugged into half a duplex
outlet. But then you need strips that have enough outlets.
Wiremold makes surface wiring channels and boxes that can be used to
pretty easily add outlets. Or you could permanently add lengths of
plug-mold - Wiremold with outlets every 6 inches. This is probably what a
fire marshal would like. They probably would have to be installed by an
electrician. Like letterman I have a cord connected length of plugmold on
my work bench. The fire marshal probably wouldn't like it.
And from the White Book:
"Relocatable power taps are not intended to be permanently secured to
building structures, tables, work benches or similar structures ...."
I remember when outlet strips had mounting holes.
========================================
Unfortunately Joerg said the magic work "surge" and attracted the
troll-formerly-know-as w_tom.
For reliable information on surges and surge protection read a guide from
the US NIST at:
<
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf>
Or a more technical guide from the IEEE:
Meanwhile, that surge protector did not provide and does not claim
to provide surge protection.
Complete nonsense.
Effective protection has
always been at the breaker box where surges are earthed before
entering the building.
Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
What does the NIST guide say?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to
power AND phone or cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of
two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but
that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service
entrance is useless."
Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltage between power and
phone/cable wires. The NIST guide suggests most equipment damage is caused
by high voltage between power and signal wires.
Because of that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the
same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through the
suppressor.
Will that silly little power strip stop what three miles of sky
could not? Of course not. And yet that is what the power strip must
do.
w has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must directly use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which
are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains
plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING (limiting) the voltage on all wires
(signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing or
magic). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide
starting pdf page 40).
And finally, scary pictures of another problem seen by most
fire departments:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
The village idiot ignores what his own hanford link says. It is about
"some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a
revision to UL 1449 that required thermal disconnects. That was 1998.
There is no reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a
problem with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in
effect since 1998. None of these links even say a damaged suppressor had a
UL label.
Responsible companies such as
Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer (Eaton), Square D, and GE
provide these effective solutions.
And all make plug-in suppressors except SquareD.
For it's "best" service panel suppressor SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in [surge
suppressor] devices at the point of use."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w can't find another lunatic that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
And w can not answer simple questions:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- Why do w's "responsible companies" make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does "responsible company" SquareD say "electronic equipment may
need additional protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the
point of use"?