Ben Myers wrote:
>
> w_tom trolls the computer-related newsgroups and every so often launches into
> his blather. He can be ignored... Ben Myers
Slightly too limited. w_ trolls google groups for surge to spread his
religious tract to *all* newsgroups. Even people who sew need to be
protected from the evils of plug-in suppressors.
On Sep 11, 12:27*pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
> 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.
When surges happened, do you also replace every TV, clock radio,
bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, all smoke detectors, dimmer switches, the
dishwasher, washing machine, etc? Of course not. Those many surges
are irrelevant due to protection inside every listed devices.
We install one 'whole house' protector so that the rare surge - one
that typically causes damage - does not cause that damage. Install
that one protector so that even lightning - a most common source of
destructive surges - is made irrelevant.
Meanwhile, that UPS and power strip manufacturer spec that claims
protection from each type of surge? Where is that spec? Even the
manufacturers will not claim that speculated protection. MOV
manufacturers also says a 'fried' protector violates MOV manufacturer
specs. MOVs must never fail by vaporizing or frying. However frying
- a popular myth - is why many believe a surge protector worked.
Where are those UPS or power strip specs that claim protection?
Manufacturer does not even claim that protection. Why would you
assume?
Install protection from direct lightning so that alll (even lesser)
surges are made irrelevant. An effective protector also does not
fry. That UPS is only for battery backup - with or without plugging
into a power strip protector.
More important, no other poster here disputes these facts which is
why other will instead attack the messenger. Provided is a superior
and effective solution that costs tens or a hundred times less money.
Not provided (because it does not exist) is a spec that claims that
power strip or UPS provides protection. The less expensive solution is
protection from all types of surges - including direct lightning
strikes. One protector answers your request AND more - including
protection for all other household appliances - especially those
necessary for human safety. Protects and remains functional; does
not fry as power strip protectors have.
w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in
news:18562873-35c3-4a9d-bea5-5d1640c9123a@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> When surges happened, do you also replace every TV, clock radio,
> bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, all smoke detectors, dimmer switches, the
> dishwasher, washing machine, etc? Of course not. Those many surges
> are irrelevant due to protection inside every listed devices.
Yes, somethimes I do have to replace electrical appliances that have been
fried by a surge, so their "interior protection" is obviously not
bulletproof.
Regardless of how badly it may burn your *** to hear, I would rather
replace a 10 or 20 dollar surge protector than a $100 dollar appliance.
And what is this "internal protection" of these appliances that you seem to
so unquestionably respect? Is it anything like, say, a SURGE PROTECTOR???
> We install one 'whole house' protector so that the rare surge - one
> that typically causes damage - does not cause that damage.
You have made this "we" statement before. I'm begining to think that your
psychotic rant is the result of some personal marketing pitch, and that you
are actually trying to promote a service that you stand to make money off
of. Sure, you may only charge pennies for your "perfect solution", but I'm
sure you charge more than pennies to install it.
> Yes, somethimes I do have to replace electrical appliances that have been
> fried by a surge, so their "interior protection" is obviously not
> bulletproof.
They aren't. In fact, most electronic devices for consumers don't have
any surge protection at all, I don't know where w_tom did get that from.
Just open up your clock radio, your TV, or one of the black bugs you
put into the wall outlets: no surge protection. Zero.
As to computer power supplies, yes, the better ones do have some surge
protection, but even more don't (especially the cheap ones).
Where I lived before (small village with lots of indurtry around) the
power lines were very "dirty" (checked with a Power Monitor) with lots
of spikes and occasional power outages of 1s or less, and it wasn't
uncommon that some devices died for this reason. People started using
SPs and they did help a lot. I for myself used a combination of SPs (for
devices I don't need during power outages) and UPSes (for everything
that should continue to run during the short power outages like phone
system, internet connection, TV and VCRs and of course computers).
Didn't had a single loss.
Of course one can draw some semi-scientific theory about them, but you
don't seem to be so ignorant to believe that SP will keep the connected
equipment healthy when a lightning strikes your house directly and it
burns down. As for what you're looking for, SPs are totally appropriate.
Back to your question: no, don't use SPs in series with an UPS, the
protection from a good(!) UPS is usually totally fine to handle common
surges. As to the UPS itself, avoid Standby UPSes as they don't provide
any power conditioning (protection other than a simple SP), get a
line-interactive UPS or online UPS instead (I'd recommend
line-interactive because it's good enough and doesn't "waste" as much
energy as the online variants). Out of experience I avoid APC as we had
****load of different models and the reliability was just poor. Best
Power/Powerware and Sola/Hevy Duty are brands that are very good, for
smaller loads the Belkin Regulator Pro series is quite good, too.
On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
> Yes, somethimes I do have to replace electrical appliances that have been
> fried by a surge, so their "interior protection" is obviously not
> bulletproof.
> Regardless of how badly it may burn your *** to hear, I would rather
> replace a 10 or 20 dollar surge protector than a $100 dollar appliance.
> And what is this "internal protection" of these appliances that you seem to
> so unquestionably respect? Is it anything like, say, a SURGE PROTECTOR???
$100 UPSes output surges when in battery backup mode. Electricity
so dirty as to even harm some small electric motors. Why do we call
these 'computer grade' UPSes? Because computers have even better
internal protection. Internal protection inside computers is some of
the most robust. Robust? Specs to withstand surges? Yes, these
industry standards have existed for decades. All appliances contain
internal protection as part of the design as even required by industry
standards. Known to we who do this stuff.
Meanwhile, newer interface standards now define semiconductors that
withstand 2000 and 15,000 volts without damage. Internal appliance
protection is becoming even more robust.
You have assumed a fried protector provided protection. It does
not. A fried protector means ineffective protection. A surge too
small to overwhelm protection inside a computer also fried the
adjacent protector? Yes - adjacent. A surge strikes both
simultaneously and equally. Your protector is not sit 'between'
computer and the surge. Surge strikes both simultaneously - in
parallel. A surge too small to harm the computer easily fried the
scam $20 protector.
The $10 grocery store protector (that has a same circuit found in
the $150 Monster Cable protector - yes protector scamming is that
common) does not stop surges from hitting a computer. Electrically, a
surge that fried a protector was also confronting the computer -
simultaneously. Computer saved itself. Grossly overhyped and
undersized plug-in protector failed because it was not effective.
Why would you replace a $20 surge protector? Because surges inside
a building are acceptable? Why would you spend $20 per appliance and
find fried protectors as acceptable? A fried protector violates even
the MOV component manufacturer requirements. And you find that
acceptable. A fried protector means no effective protection - and you
still believe that myth? For about $1 per appliance, that surge does
not even enter the building - effective protection for everything.
ShadowTek - if the protector fried, then it did not provide
protection. Effective protection even from direct lightning strikes
means you never even knew the surge existed. And that solution costs
tens of times less money.
Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors? Review those
manufacturer specs that you posted. Oh. Neither the UPS nor
protector claims any such protection. Exactly why your telco, that
must never suffer damage, does not use plug-in protectors. Telcos
have your problem on a massively larger scale. Their computers
connect to overhead wires all over town. Each computer is threatened
by about 100 surges during every thunderstorm. If their computer is
damaged, then phone service is lost for 5 days. Telcos use the same
recommended solution that you do not have. Instead, you spend massive
more for protectors that do not even claim to provide protection?
Protectors so pathetic as to fry? And you think that is good rather
than learn from datasheets?
Protectors that fry provided ineffective protection. Minimally
acceptable protector must make surges irrelevant AND not fry. Telcos
use these effective protectors because that is how protection has
worked even 100 years ago. The effective solution also costs less
money.
Why does your telco suffer 100 surges during every thunderstorm
without damage? Your telco also does not waste good money in
ineffective protectors. Your telco uses the same earthed protectors
that you could be using. We learned this stuff when we needed no
damage to any electronics. We even traced surge damage due to a plug-
in protector earthing a surge destructively through adjacent
electronics.
Does your protector stop what three miles of sky could not? It
must to also provide protection from lesser surges. Why spend tens
or 100 times more money for protectors that fry - that do not even
claim protection in specs? Where are those specs that claim
protection? No specs? It is recommended on myths and because it
fries. A protector that fries did not provide effective protection.
A protector that fries does not claim to provide protection AND gets
the naive to promote it using myths.
A fried protector did not provide protection. A computer protected
itself from a surge too small to harm the computer but that easily
destroyed a grossly undersized protector.
w_tom wrote:
> On Sep 11, 12:27 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> When surges happened, do you also replace every TV, clock radio,
> bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, all smoke detectors, dimmer switches, the
> dishwasher, washing machine, etc?
..
According to the NIST guide, citing insurance information, the equipment
most likely to be damaged is computers with phone connection and
TV/related equipment with cable connection. Damage is likely caused by
high voltage between power and signal wires.
..
> We install one 'whole house' protector so that the rare surge - one
> that typically causes damage - does not cause that damage.
..
A service panel suppressor is a real 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."
A service panel suppressor does not limit high voltage between power and
signal wires. If phone and cable entry protectors are connected to the
ground at the power service with *short* wires high voltage is much less
likely. An example of a wire that is too long is in the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40.
..
> Meanwhile, that UPS and power strip manufacturer spec that claims
> protection from each type of surge?
..
Each type of surge is more nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs from
H-N, H-G, N-G. That is all possible combinations and all possible modes.
And w_ has never explained how a common mode surge gets past the N-G
bond required in US services.
..
> More important, no other poster here disputes these facts which is
> why other will instead attack the messenger.
..
w_’s "facts" have been disputed by the NIST and IEEE guides, SquareD,
and technical papers.
Never seen - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do
not work. All you have is w_'s religious beliefs.
Never 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."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in news:6iupf8Fl5viU1
@mid.individual.net:
> Back to your question: no, don't use SPs in series with an UPS, the
> protection from a good(!) UPS is usually totally fine to handle common
> surges. As to the UPS itself, avoid Standby UPSes as they don't provide
> any power conditioning (protection other than a simple SP), get a
> line-interactive UPS or online UPS instead (I'd recommend
> line-interactive because it's good enough and doesn't "waste" as much
> energy as the online variants). Out of experience I avoid APC as we had
> ****load of different models and the reliability was just poor. Best
> Power/Powerware and Sola/Hevy Duty are brands that are very good, for
> smaller loads the Belkin Regulator Pro series is quite good, too.
Yeah, I read about "online" UPSs, and that was what I initially started
looking for. But, right now, I'm just trying to what to do with the limited
funds that I currently have.
It's good to get feedback so that I have a better understanding about
what's what when I get some spare cash to spend, but it's looking like I'm
going to have to hold off on a UPS for now, considering that my original
ambition was to solve the problem for around $50.
> Yeah, I read about "online" UPSs, and that was what I initially started
> looking for. But, right now, I'm just trying to what to do with the limited
> funds that I currently have.
I'd recommend line-interactive as it is cheaper (doesn't "waste" energy
permanently like online UPSes do) and usually lasts longer (inverters
have a limited life time). And more silent as online UPSes have to be
actively cooled all the time while line-interactive models only need
cooling when they run on battery.
> It's good to get feedback so that I have a better understanding about
> what's what when I get some spare cash to spend, but it's looking like I'm
> going to have to hold off on a UPS for now, considering that my original
> ambition was to solve the problem for around $50.
It's not impossibe, though. You can get a good(!) used (even if it's an
older one!) UPS from ebay for cheap. You don't need batteries with full
capacity for the relative short period of time you need to cover, and
later on you can replace the batteries if the need arises.
My main UPSes are two really old (around 15 years) HP Powertrust 2.5kVA
line-interactive UPSes which in fact are made by Sola/Hevy Duty. I
bought them basically for a few bucks ~8 years ago, and now it's time to
replace the batteries which costs me around 70EUR per UPS (standard Lead
batteries, no ****ing expensive proprietary packages like the ones lots
of APC UPSes use). Not bad for 8 years of service.
w_tom wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:14 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
>> Yes, somethimes I do have to replace electrical appliances that have been
>> fried by a surge, so their "interior protection" is obviously not
>> bulletproof.
>> Regardless of how badly it may burn your *** to hear, I would rather
>> replace a 10 or 20 dollar surge protector than a $100 dollar appliance.
>> And what is this "internal protection" of these appliances that you seem to
>> so unquestionably respect? Is it anything like, say, a SURGE PROTECTOR???
>
> You have assumed a fried protector provided protection.
..
Was the connected equipment damaged?
Since 1998 UL listed plug-in suppressors have been required to have
thermal disconnects for overheating (failing) MOVs. (Also required in
service panel suppressors.) The IEEE guide goes on at length how the
protected equipment can be connected across the MOV, and be disconnected
with the failing MOV, or connected across the incoming line. If
connected across the MOV, the protected load is not exposed to surges if
the suppressor fails. Quality suppressors are probably connected this
way. Another reason some suppressors can have protected equipment
warrantees. And with the high ratings the OP indicated, plug-in his
suppressors should never fail.
..
> Why does your telco not use plug-in protectors?
..
Geez - why wouldn’t the telco use a plug-in suppressor for a high amp
hard wired switch with thousands of phone circuits that would have to go
through the suppressor? That’s a tough one.
..
> Does your protector stop what three miles of sky could not?
..
Poor w_'s religious blinders prevent him from understanding how plug-in
suppressors work.
..
> Another problem with grossly undersized protectors that fry:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 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 the links even say a damaged suppressor was UL listed.
But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.
Still missing - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do
not work.
Still never 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."
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
On Sep 12, 12:17 pm, ShadowTek <F...@EMAIL.ADDRESS> wrote:
> ... but it's looking like I'm going to have to hold off on a
> UPS for now, considering that my original ambition was
> to solve the problem for around $50.
Solutions near your budget also protect maybe 100 appliances,
including those that are essential to human safety. This is
protection even for direct lightning strikes.
Line interactive UPS is $500+, specs do not claim to provide that
protection, AND to protect, it must block or absorb what three miles
of sky could not even stop. Why spend $500 per appliance for such
protection when the better solution, that is routinely used where
surge damage must never happen: about $1 per protected appliance.
Re: Choosing the right UPS 
Linear Mode
