ShadowTek <FAKE@email.address> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in news:ga63rd$mne$2
> @reader1.panix.com:
>
>> A UPS that can run for 3 seconds before shutting down is pretty useless.
>
> But that's all I need it for. As I said, the main power supply around here
> is pretty stable, and I only need something for those occassional few
> seconds of power interruption.
3 seconds is far from a minute or so that you needed before.
Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in news:ga9blf$1ap$2
@reader1.panix.com:
> 3 seconds is far from a minute or so that you needed before.
I only really need something that will last through a short flicker of
power. 3 seconds is a little short, but 10 seconds would be good enough for
my typical needs.
On Sep 10, 12:15 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
> I never said anything about a surge protector being able to protect against
> a direct lightning strike. The idea that I did is, apparently, -your-
> belief.
The purpose of a surge protector is to protect from direct lightning
strikes. You asked about a "good" surge protector - your adjective -
and then listed protectors that don't protect from typically
destructive surges.
Suggested protectors even fail during direct lightning strikes. A
surge too small to overwhelm protection inside an appliance can also
damage these protectors. What kind of protection is that? A protector
was damaged by a surge too small to overwhelm protection inside any
computer? Effective protectors do not fail; are not damaged by surges
including direct lightning strikes.
'Dirty' electricity from computer grade UPSes may harm some small
electric motors. But computers are so robust as to make the worst
(dirtiest) UPSes irrelevant. That computer's robust internal
protection may be overwhelmed by the rare and typically destructive
surge such as lightning. Direct lightning strikes are the reason for
surge protectors - so that internal electronics protection is not
overwhelmed. You would use a surge protector that does not protect
from direct lightning strikes? A protector so pathetic as to be
damaged even by smaller and irrelevant surges is considered
protection?
Effective protectors earth direct lightning strikes, divert surges
outside a building, and remain functional even after the direct
lightning strike. Such protectors cost about $1 per protected
appliance. Effective protectors (that cost tens or 100 times less
money) must remain undamaged even after a direct lightning strike. We
install protectors to even make direct lightning strikes irrelevant.
You asked for an effective surge protector. That means the
protector diverts direct lighting strikes to earth, remains
functional, and costs less money.
Do you want battery backup for power loss or do you want surge
protection? Protection already inside all computers is so robust that
transients even from cheap UPSes are irrelevant - why sub $100 UPSes
are used with computers.. Surge protector is to divert surges in
earth (not absorb surges) so that protection inside computers is not
overwhelmed. That means protection from direct lightning strikes.
w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in
news:1c657f10-1a11-48f0-a145-fd9f2b8a60d2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 10, 12:15 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>> I never said anything about a surge protector being able to protect
>> against a direct lightning strike. The idea that I did is,
>> apparently, -your- belief.
>
> The purpose of a surge protector is to protect from direct lightning
> strikes. You asked about a "good" surge protector - your adjective -
> and then listed protectors that don't protect from typically
> destructive surges.
>
> Suggested protectors even fail during direct lightning strikes. A
> surge too small to overwhelm protection inside an appliance can also
> damage these protectors. What kind of protection is that? A protector
> was damaged by a surge too small to overwhelm protection inside any
> computer? Effective protectors do not fail; are not damaged by surges
> including direct lightning strikes.
>
> 'Dirty' electricity from computer grade UPSes may harm some small
> electric motors. But computers are so robust as to make the worst
> (dirtiest) UPSes irrelevant. That computer's robust internal
> protection may be overwhelmed by the rare and typically destructive
> surge such as lightning. Direct lightning strikes are the reason for
> surge protectors - so that internal electronics protection is not
> overwhelmed. You would use a surge protector that does not protect
> from direct lightning strikes? A protector so pathetic as to be
> damaged even by smaller and irrelevant surges is considered
> protection?
>
> Effective protectors earth direct lightning strikes, divert surges
> outside a building, and remain functional even after the direct
> lightning strike. Such protectors cost about $1 per protected
> appliance. Effective protectors (that cost tens or 100 times less
> money) must remain undamaged even after a direct lightning strike. We
> install protectors to even make direct lightning strikes irrelevant.
>
> You asked for an effective surge protector. That means the
> protector diverts direct lighting strikes to earth, remains
> functional, and costs less money.
>
> Do you want battery backup for power loss or do you want surge
> protection? Protection already inside all computers is so robust that
> transients even from cheap UPSes are irrelevant - why sub $100 UPSes
> are used with computers.. Surge protector is to divert surges in
> earth (not absorb surges) so that protection inside computers is not
> overwhelmed. That means protection from direct lightning strikes.
The question was simple: do I plug the UPS into a surge protector, or
not? I already have many surge protectors scattered thoughout my home,
so it's just a matter of using one inline with a UPS, or not using one
inline with a UPS.
This thread -was- about a UPS to begin with. Your rant surge protectors
makes it appear as you have not even been keeping up with the entire
thead.
The only comparison that I made between one surge protector and another
was the built in 400 joule protection of one of the discussed UPSs and
the hypothetical 2,000 something joule protection that is offered by the
typical surge protector that I already have in my home.
>w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in
>news:1c657f10-1a11-48f0-a145-fd9f2b8a60d2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sep 10, 12:15 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>>> I never said anything about a surge protector being able to protect
>>> against a direct lightning strike. The idea that I did is,
>>> apparently, -your- belief.
>>
>> The purpose of a surge protector is to protect from direct lightning
>> strikes. You asked about a "good" surge protector - your adjective -
>> and then listed protectors that don't protect from typically
>> destructive surges.
>>
>> Suggested protectors even fail during direct lightning strikes. A
>> surge too small to overwhelm protection inside an appliance can also
>> damage these protectors. What kind of protection is that? A protector
>> was damaged by a surge too small to overwhelm protection inside any
>> computer? Effective protectors do not fail; are not damaged by surges
>> including direct lightning strikes.
>>
>> 'Dirty' electricity from computer grade UPSes may harm some small
>> electric motors. But computers are so robust as to make the worst
>> (dirtiest) UPSes irrelevant. That computer's robust internal
>> protection may be overwhelmed by the rare and typically destructive
>> surge such as lightning. Direct lightning strikes are the reason for
>> surge protectors - so that internal electronics protection is not
>> overwhelmed. You would use a surge protector that does not protect
>> from direct lightning strikes? A protector so pathetic as to be
>> damaged even by smaller and irrelevant surges is considered
>> protection?
>>
>> Effective protectors earth direct lightning strikes, divert surges
>> outside a building, and remain functional even after the direct
>> lightning strike. Such protectors cost about $1 per protected
>> appliance. Effective protectors (that cost tens or 100 times less
>> money) must remain undamaged even after a direct lightning strike. We
>> install protectors to even make direct lightning strikes irrelevant.
>>
>> You asked for an effective surge protector. That means the
>> protector diverts direct lighting strikes to earth, remains
>> functional, and costs less money.
>>
>> Do you want battery backup for power loss or do you want surge
>> protection? Protection already inside all computers is so robust that
>> transients even from cheap UPSes are irrelevant - why sub $100 UPSes
>> are used with computers.. Surge protector is to divert surges in
>> earth (not absorb surges) so that protection inside computers is not
>> overwhelmed. That means protection from direct lightning strikes.
>
>The question was simple: do I plug the UPS into a surge protector, or
>not? I already have many surge protectors scattered thoughout my home,
>so it's just a matter of using one inline with a UPS, or not using one
>inline with a UPS.
>
>This thread -was- about a UPS to begin with. Your rant surge protectors
>makes it appear as you have not even been keeping up with the entire
>thead.
>
>The only comparison that I made between one surge protector and another
>was the built in 400 joule protection of one of the discussed UPSs and
>the hypothetical 2,000 something joule protection that is offered by the
>typical surge protector that I already have in my home.
>
>400 < 2,000
>What is your problem with that?
On Sep 11, 1:47*am, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
> 400 < 2,000
> What is your problem with that?
Again, you assumed a protector stops or absorbs what three miles of
sky could not. You assumed those joules protect by absorbing a full
surge. How much energy is 400 or 2000 joules? Near zero. Worse, a
2000 joule protector would use maybe 700 joules and never more than
1300. If a protector works by absorbing surges, then 1000 joules is
near zero protection. Do you understand how much energy is 1000
joules? A 1000 joule surge is trivial - near zero - due to protection
already inside every appliance.
Again, install protection for surges that might harm a computer.
That means a protection even for direct lightning strikes. Neither
the UPS nor power strip claim (in numeric specs) to protect from a
typically destructive surge. Post them. Show us this spec that
claims protection from each type of surge. Manufacturer does not make
that protection claim.
Effective protectors do not work by stopping or absorbing surges.
Effective protectors remain functional even after direct lightning
strikes. However, ShadowTek wrote:
> I would rather replace a fried SP than a UPS.
If fried, then ineffective protection was provided. If a surge
fries a protector, then it promotes sales and myths among the naive.
An effective protector for typically destructive surges diverts even
direct lightning strikes AND remains functional. You are not asking
about effective protection. Instead, you believe a protector or UPS
will somehow stop or absorb surges. How does it stop what even three
miles of sky could not? How does a miniscule 1000 joules stop or
absorb typically destructive surges? It does not.
UPS does not even claim such protection. Post its manufacturer
specs. Post numbers that list protection from each type of surge.
Even a 2000 joule surge will not damage a computer. Protection inside
all appliances is that robust. Protectors do not work as you have
assumed: block or absorb surges. Asking for effective protection
means protection from direct lightning strikes. Will that power strip
or UPS stop what three miles of sky could not? That is what ShadowTek
has assumed.
Why would a power strip protector fry? A 2000 joule surge that must
not overwhelm internal computer protection would fry that ineffective
protector. Then the naive would declare, "Why protector sacrificed
itself to save my computer." No. But many know only because the
protector failed. An effective protector earths direct lightning
strikes and remains functional. Cost? About $1 per protected
appliance.
w_tom wrote:
> On Sep 10, 12:15 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>> I never said anything about a surge protector being able to protect against
>> a direct lightning strike. The idea that I did is, apparently, -your-
>> belief.
>
> The purpose of a surge protector is to protect from direct lightning
> strikes.
..
For most people "direct lightning strike" probably means a direct strike
to a house. For that protection you need lightning rods.
A good plug-in suppressor with high ratings is likely to protect from a
very near strike. That is why some suppressors have connected equipment
warrantees.
..
> You asked about a "good" surge protector - your adjective -
> and then listed protectors that don't protect from typically
> destructive surges.
..
The nonsense repeated. Poor w_ doesn’t think plug-in suppressors do
anything useful.
Still missing - a source that agrees with w_.
..
> Effective protectors earth direct lightning strikes
..
The religious belief in earthing.
Never answered:
- 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"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
And a UPS can be plugged into a plug-in suppressor.
> Again, you assumed a protector stops or absorbs what three miles of
> sky could not. You assumed those joules protect by absorbing a full
> surge. How much energy is 400 or 2000 joules? Near zero. Worse, a
> 2000 joule protector would use maybe 700 joules and never more than
> 1300. If a protector works by absorbing surges, then 1000 joules is
> near zero protection. Do you understand how much energy is 1000
> joules? A 1000 joule surge is trivial - near zero - due to protection
> already inside every appliance.
Direct lightning strikes aren't the only source of electrical surges. I
have witnessed many nonlightning related electrical surges in my home, but
I have never had a direct lightning strike on my home, and I am primariy
interested in combating the typical problem.
Aha! So this is very much a "down to earth" discussion. I still vote for a
surge protector or a good-quality UPS, but not the cheap UPS.
w_tom trolls the computer-related newsgroups and every so often launches into
his blather. He can be ignored... Ben Myers
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:59:52 -0500, bud-- <remove.budnews@isp.com> wrote:
>w_tom wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 12:15 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>>> I never said anything about a surge protector being able to protect against
>>> a direct lightning strike. The idea that I did is, apparently, -your-
>>> belief.
>>
>> The purpose of a surge protector is to protect from direct lightning
>> strikes.
>.
>For most people "direct lightning strike" probably means a direct strike
>to a house. For that protection you need lightning rods.
>
>A good plug-in suppressor with high ratings is likely to protect from a
>very near strike. That is why some suppressors have connected equipment
>warrantees.
>.
>> You asked about a "good" surge protector - your adjective -
>> and then listed protectors that don't protect from typically
>> destructive surges.
>.
>The nonsense repeated. Poor w_ doesn’t think plug-in suppressors do
>anything useful.
>
>Still missing - a source that agrees with w_.
>.
>> Effective protectors earth direct lightning strikes
>.
>The religious belief in earthing.
>
>Never answered:
>- 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"?
>
>For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
>suppressors are effective.
>
>
>And a UPS can be plugged into a plug-in suppressor.
w_tom wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:47 am, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>> 400 < 2,000
>> What is your problem with that?
>
> Again, you assumed a protector stops or absorbs what three miles of
> sky could not.
..
Poor w__ believes plug-in suppressors protect by stopping or absorbing.
His religious blinders prevent him from reading how plug-in suppressors
work - explained in the IEEE guide. They work by clamping the voltage on
all wires to the common ground at the suppressor.
..
> You assumed those joules protect by absorbing a full
> surge. How much energy is 400 or 2000 joules? Near zero.
..
w_ also refuses to understand where lightning energy goes. With a strong
surge there is arc-over from hot busbars to
panel/neutral/ground/earthing electrode at the service panel at about
6,000V (US). After the arc is established the voltage from hot to
neutral/ground is hundreds of volts. Thus dumps most of the surge energy
to earth through the earthing electrode. The impedance of the branch
circuit greatly limits the current, and thus the energy, that can reach
a plug-in suppressor. Experiments by the author of the NIST guide found
there was surprisingly small energy that reached a plug-in suppressor,
even with a 10,000A surge on a service wire (the maximum that is
reasonably expected).
..
> Manufacturer does not make
> that protection claim.
..
Complete nonsense.
But one of w_'s favored manufacturers, SquareD, says for it’s "best"
service panel suppressor "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
..
> An effective protector earths direct lightning
> strikes
..
The required religious belief in earthing.
Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective.
Still never ever answered - embarrassing 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 SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
Re: Choosing the right UPS 
Linear Mode
