w_tom wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:20 pm, joe <n...@home.now> wrote:
>> There was an update in 1998, but you seem to ignore that.
>>
>> w_tom, you make yourself sound like a knowledgeable person, but you really
>> don't have the facts right. You don't understand surge suppression. You
>> ignore facts that contradict you. Normally I wouldn't bother with a troll
>> like you, but some may actually believe you and be mislead.
>
> The sound of knowledge comes from
> engineering knowledge.
..
The sound of w_ comes from religious belief. For engineering knowledge
read the IEEE and NIST guides (and everyone else).
joe has excellent answers to w_'s dogma. But when w_'s religious views
are challenged he must defend his beliefs.
..
> Yes, UL1449 standard was updated with UL1449 2nd edition. Those
> scary pictures show what still happens with plug-in protectors that
> meet UL1449 2nd edition standards and still created a human threat.
> Boston 2007 - a fire due to a UL1449 2nd edition protector.
..
At least w_ acknowledges UL1449 was revised. He still has no source that
says a damaged suppressor was manufactured under the revised standard.
In fact none of the links say a damaged suppressor had a UL label.
..
> All goes right back to ShadowTek's original posts that still
> mistakenly assumed a protector will somehow stop what 3 miles of sky
> could not. No effective protector stops or absorbs surges.
..
Being a religious fanatic, poor w_ still can't understand how plug-in
suppressors work. Explained in the IEEE guide.
..
> Those 'scary
> pictures' show what sometimes happens even with UL1449 2nd edition
> protectors.
..
Lacking valid technical arguments w_ repeats the lie.
..
> Why should the OP install one effective 'whole house' protector?
..
Repeating from the NIST guide:
"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."
Why did Martzloff say that, w_?
..
> The OP did not even know all
> appliances contain internal surge protection.
..
Debunked by Benjamin.
..
> If you disagree, then post those manufacturer specs that say
> otherwise.
..
w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often
enough, people will believe it.
Of course joe did post specs.
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 15, 10:46 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> The sound of w_ comes from religious belief. ...
> But when w_'s religious views are challenged ...
> Being a religious fanatic, poor w_ still can't understand how plug-in
> suppressors work. ...
Being a sales promoter, Bud again posts no facts. Bud uses lies,
insults and religious reasoning. Otherwise obscene profits on
ineffective protectors are at risk. A $3 power strip with some ten
cent parts selling for $25 or $150. Bud's job is to protect those
profit margins.
If Bud was honest, he would post those manufacturer specs that claim
protection. Bud cannot post what does not exist. So Bud resorts to
insult and religion to promote protectors that do not even claim to
provide that protection.
Bud says you must spend about $3000 on plug-in protectors to
accomplish what one 'whole house' protector does. Well, none of those
plug-in protectors even claim to protect from the destructive type of
surge. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector eliminates that
threat AND threatens Bud's profit margin.
Where is that plug-in spec that claims surge protection? Even the
sales protector promoter cannot find those spec numbers. No plug-in
protector claims to protect from the typically destructive surge. So
Bud resorts to insult, lies, and religion. Such arguments work when
the naive believe popular myths. The informed consumer asks ****ing
questions based in reality and engineering. The informed consumer
gets protection even from direct lightning strikes for about $1 per
appliance.
Even Bud's own citation says:
> The best surge protection in the world can be useless
> if grounding is not done properly.
Why does the plug-in protector not even claim to protect? Where is
that short connected to earth? No earth ground means no effective
protection. Telcos don't waste money on it. Why waste money on
something that does not even claim to provide that protection?
Because it is so profitable.
Meanwhile, surge protection inside a UPS is even more pathetic -
near zero - not effective.
You need to upgrade your meds. What you're taking now ain't cutting it.
Sheesh. Get a life.
HH
"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1111717b-a8cc-48e3-b6c2-4b5c4b11e39b@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 10:46 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> The sound of w_ comes from religious belief. ...
>> But when w_'s religious views are challenged ...
>> Being a religious fanatic, poor w_ still can't understand how plug-in
>> suppressors work. ...
>
> Being a sales promoter, Bud again posts no facts. Bud uses lies,
> insults and religious reasoning. Otherwise obscene profits on
> ineffective protectors are at risk. A $3 power strip with some ten
> cent parts selling for $25 or $150. Bud's job is to protect those
> profit margins.
>
> If Bud was honest, he would post those manufacturer specs that claim
> protection. Bud cannot post what does not exist. So Bud resorts to
> insult and religion to promote protectors that do not even claim to
> provide that protection.
>
> Bud says you must spend about $3000 on plug-in protectors to
> accomplish what one 'whole house' protector does. Well, none of those
> plug-in protectors even claim to protect from the destructive type of
> surge. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector eliminates that
> threat AND threatens Bud's profit margin.
>
> Where is that plug-in spec that claims surge protection? Even the
> sales protector promoter cannot find those spec numbers. No plug-in
> protector claims to protect from the typically destructive surge. So
> Bud resorts to insult, lies, and religion. Such arguments work when
> the naive believe popular myths. The informed consumer asks ****ing
> questions based in reality and engineering. The informed consumer
> gets protection even from direct lightning strikes for about $1 per
> appliance.
>
> Even Bud's own citation says:
>> The best surge protection in the world can be useless
>> if grounding is not done properly.
> Why does the plug-in protector not even claim to protect? Where is
> that short connected to earth? No earth ground means no effective
> protection. Telcos don't waste money on it. Why waste money on
> something that does not even claim to provide that protection?
> Because it is so profitable.
>
> Meanwhile, surge protection inside a UPS is even more pathetic -
> near zero - not effective.
w_tom <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2:20 pm, joe <n...@home.now> wrote:
>> There was an update in 1998, but you seem to ignore that.
>>
>> w_tom, you make yourself sound like a knowledgeable person, but you really
>> don't have the facts right. You don't understand surge suppression. You
>> ignore facts that contradict you. Normally I wouldn't bother with a troll
>> like you, but some may actually believe you and be mislead.
>
> How many decades ago were you building this stuff, actually tracing
> surge damage, and building surge protectors that protected from direct
> lightning strikes? I have been. The sound of knowledge comes from
> engineering knowledge.
On Sep 16, 11:23 am, "HH" <hahun...@va.metrocast.net> wrote:
> You need to upgrade your meds. What you're taking now ain't cutting it.
> Sheesh. Get a life.
Posted were technical facts with citations, numbers, fundamental
concepts and direct quotes. And you know the science (as was
understood even 100 years ago) is wrong only because you feel? You
were told; therefore it must be true? Nonsense. Where is that
manufacturer spec that says a plug-in protector provides protection?
You don't need no stink'in spec? You just know because you are a
genius? Apparently the majority proves it must be true ... just like
Saddam's WMDs? Apparently you are quick to believe any myth. Get a
brain. No plug-in protector manufacturer even claims to provide that
protection.
Case closed . . .
HH
"w_tom" <w_tom1@usa.net> wrote in message
news:15ee9f5e-e1dc-433f-a483-ee636e793317@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 11:23 am, "HH" <hahun...@va.metrocast.net> wrote:
>> You need to upgrade your meds. What you're taking now ain't cutting it.
>> Sheesh. Get a life.
>
> Posted were technical facts with citations, numbers, fundamental
> concepts and direct quotes. And you know the science (as was
> understood even 100 years ago) is wrong only because you feel? You
> were told; therefore it must be true? Nonsense. Where is that
> manufacturer spec that says a plug-in protector provides protection?
> You don't need no stink'in spec? You just know because you are a
> genius? Apparently the majority proves it must be true ... just like
> Saddam's WMDs? Apparently you are quick to believe any myth. Get a
> brain. No plug-in protector manufacturer even claims to provide that
> protection.
Does anyone else really care? What was it you were arguing about anyway? I got
lost in your excessive verbosity way up near the top of this thread... Ben Myers
>On Sep 16, 11:23 am, "HH" <hahun...@va.metrocast.net> wrote:
>> You need to upgrade your meds. What you're taking now ain't cutting it.
>> Sheesh. Get a life.
>
> Posted were technical facts with citations, numbers, fundamental
>concepts and direct quotes. And you know the science (as was
>understood even 100 years ago) is wrong only because you feel? You
>were told; therefore it must be true? Nonsense. Where is that
>manufacturer spec that says a plug-in protector provides protection?
>You don't need no stink'in spec? You just know because you are a
>genius? Apparently the majority proves it must be true ... just like
>Saddam's WMDs? Apparently you are quick to believe any myth. Get a
>brain. No plug-in protector manufacturer even claims to provide that
>protection.
w_tom wrote:
>
> Being a sales promoter
..
To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.
With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
..
Bud again posts no facts.
..
Facts include:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
- The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
- SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional protection by
installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use."
..
> A $3 power strip with some ten
> cent parts selling for $25 or $150.
..
One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10. The
other 2 MOVs were rated 590J 30,000A. The suppressor cost under $30 and
had a protected equipment warranty.
..
> If Bud was honest, he would post those manufacturer specs that claim
> protection. Bud cannot post what does not exist.
..
The lie repeated. Specs were posted by joe.
Also above.
Still missing - a source that agrees with w_ that plug-in suppressors do
NOT work. Why doesn't anyone ever agree with you w_?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
Re: Choosing the right UPS 
Linear Mode
