OT - Computer question
Janet Wilder
top. It's close to 4 years old and the battery has died. I looked on
line for another battery and none of them seem to have the same sort of
clips that the one from the manufacturer (APC) does. APC wants $30 plus
shipping and tax for a new battery.
I have seen entire units for not much more than that, so I'm considering
just replacing it with a new unit, but I am also wondering if I even
need the battery backup.
From what I understand, if there is a power failure, the only thing I
will lose is whatever I am working on at the moment that has not been
saved. If that is true, and I don't mind taking the risk of losing
something I am working on, would I be just as protected with a good
quality surge protector?
TIA,
Janet
--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
Dave Grant
"Janet Wilder" <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:004782da$0$14667$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Janet,
That is true, you would only lose whatever was open that you hadn't saved
yet. However, most office programs have an autosave feature that you can
configure to save any open files automatically. XP doesn't seem to mind
losing power like older versions of Windows did.
I've never felt that I needed a battery backup, however, I just bought a
nice Phillips surge protector at Sam's club last week for 9.99. They were
originally 19.99. It also has jacks for TV cable and telephone, in and out.
Dave Grant
nothermark
Probably. You do stand a chance of screwing up your next boot process
so you should make a repair disk for your machine.
If this link makes sense to you then go bare:
You also might want to read:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/23181-45-repairing-power-loss
and google:
power loss microsoft XP
After you do that you can make the decision.
Jim Rusling
Check out some other places like Batteries Plus. That is where I get
the replacement batteries for my APC UPS's.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org
Janet Wilder
Perfect for most things. WP has an auto backup feature. I might just
skip the battery all together.
Janet Wilder
I'll look there. The sites I went to showed different connectors. APC's
site says to only order it from them.
Janet Wilder
Batteries Plus did not have the right one.
nothermark
APC always says that. They also say it will void the warranty on your
out of warranty machine.
Janet Wilder
But the connection clips or whatever are different on theirs than in
all the pictures of the same size batteries I'm seeing on the net.
Jim Rusling
<snip>
>Batteries Plus did not have the right one.
You must have a strange one. They have always had what I needed for
my APC's. With three of them, it seems like I am always replacing the
batteries on one of them.
Bob Hatch
Janet Wilder <kellie...@yahoo.com> typed:
I've never used a UPS in the 27 years I've been using computers. I've always
used a surge protector of some kind.
I'm using XP SP3 on this machine and I'll bet we've lost power 100 times
since we've been to YNP, and so far no problem.
--
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism,
but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program until one day America
will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
John Kinney
> From what I understand, if there is a power failure, the only thing I
> will lose is whatever I am working on at the moment that has not been
> saved. If that is true, and I don't mind taking the risk of losing
> something I am working on, would I be just as protected with a good
> quality surge protector?
I've spent nearly 30 years managing computer systems at one level or
another.
A top quality surge protector is essential for desktop computers. Buy the
best you can afford.
An auxiliary power unit is really important in only a few instances.
One is if the computer is on constant duty managing tasks that other folks
are relying on - operating as a web or email server on a network, for
example. I once had a computer that was essentially a digital PBX for a
company with 150 employees all using telephones more or less constantly.
In that case, our APU was a bank of sealed lead-acid batteries that could
operate the entire system including telephones for an hour or so.
The other is if the computer is performing mission-critical
number-crunching services (usually bookkeeping-related). It's important
to make sure that those services can be shut down in an orderly manner
during a power outage, in order to avoid data loss or corruption. As
Director of Systems for a company doing nearly $20 million of business
each year, I had software that would sense the switchover to the APU and
automatically shut down any mission-critical services if main power wasn't
back up within 5 minutes of their 20 minute capacity.
If you're only using a computer for personal purposes, run backups of
active work at regular intervals, and don't mind losing some data now and
again, an APU is more of a convenience than a necessity. If you set up
your email and word processing software to automagically back up current
files as you work, the actual chance of significant data loss is greatly
reduced.
Regards, John Kinney
Ron Recer
"Bob Hatch" <bob....@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:003022bf$0$9858$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> In news:004782da$0$14667$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
> Janet Wilder <kellie...@yahoo.com> typed:
>> I have one of those surge protectors with back up battery for my desk
>> top. It's close to 4 years old and the battery has died. I looked on
>> line for another battery and none of them seem to have the same sort
>> of clips that the one from the manufacturer (APC) does. APC wants $30
>> plus shipping and tax for a new battery.
>>
>> I have seen entire units for not much more than that, so I'm
>> considering just replacing it with a new unit, but I am also
>> wondering if I even need the battery backup.
>>
>> From what I understand, if there is a power failure, the only thing I
>> will lose is whatever I am working on at the moment that has not been
>> saved. If that is true, and I don't mind taking the risk of losing
>> something I am working on, would I be just as protected with a good
>> quality surge protector?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Janet
>
> I've never used a UPS in the 27 years I've been using computers. I've
> always used a surge protector of some kind.
>
> I'm using XP SP3 on this machine and I'll bet we've lost power 100 times
> since we've been to YNP, and so far no problem.
>
>
during high winds and bought UPS for both our desktop PCs. By the time the
batteries died the power company had corrected the problem and we never
replaced the batteries. Good surge protectors are great to have, but many
on the market are next to worthless.
My current PC has a built in UPS, it is called a laptop.
Ron
Mickey
say how overpriced it is. If you can find the correct battery, can't
you replace the connector from the old battery? Recently put a couple
OLD cordless phones back in service. Had to replace the batteries and
had to sub the old connector for what was on the new batteries.
Is the UPS connected to the computer via a data cable? If so, there
should be software for managing your system. Mine keeps track of all
events, conditions the power and shuts everything down for me at
scheduled time. UPS comes back to life ever morning at scheduled time.
If I loose power the UPS will cause all running apps to save the data,
shut the programs down and then shut the computer off, all in an orderly
manner.
I've replaced the battery once in the UPS on the computer and would do
so again as I appreciate the things it does other than being there in
the event of a power outage.
Mickey
Janet Wilder
> In news:004782da$0$14667$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
> Janet Wilder <kellie...@yahoo.com> typed:
>> I have one of those surge protectors with back up battery for my desk
>> top. It's close to 4 years old and the battery has died. I looked on
>> line for another battery and none of them seem to have the same sort
>> of clips that the one from the manufacturer (APC) does. APC wants $30
>> plus shipping and tax for a new battery.
>>
>> I have seen entire units for not much more than that, so I'm
>> considering just replacing it with a new unit, but I am also
>> wondering if I even need the battery backup.
>>
>> From what I understand, if there is a power failure, the only thing I
>> will lose is whatever I am working on at the moment that has not been
>> saved. If that is true, and I don't mind taking the risk of losing
>> something I am working on, would I be just as protected with a good
>> quality surge protector?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Janet
>
> I've never used a UPS in the 27 years I've been using computers. I've always
> used a surge protector of some kind.
>
> I'm using XP SP3 on this machine and I'll bet we've lost power 100 times
> since we've been to YNP, and so far no problem.
>
>
Janet Wilder
Thanks, John. That really helped me decide. Right now I'm running things
through the surge protector side of the thingie. I've seen some
excellent surge protectors without battery backup that are the same
price as the replacement battery. I think I'll stick with the surge
protection.
Janet Wilder
> Lot of replies. $30 for a replacement? Not knowing what size, hard to
> say how overpriced it is. If you can find the correct battery, can't
> you replace the connector from the old battery? Recently put a couple
> OLD cordless phones back in service. Had to replace the batteries and
> had to sub the old connector for what was on the new batteries.
Mickey, I see no possible way of changing the connectors.
> Is the UPS connected to the computer via a data cable?
Nothing as sophisticated as that. The thing is plugged into the wall and
the plugs from the computer, printer, monitor, etc. are plugged into it.
And the phone modem jack, too. There are surge protectors that have the
same features without the battery and I think one of them will work well.
> I've replaced the battery once in the UPS on the computer and would do
> so again as I appreciate the things it does other than being there in
> the event of a power outage.
Mine doesn't do any tricks, so I don't think I'll be missing the battery
backup.
Thanks, for your help.
Robert Bonomi
Janet Wilder <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have one of those surge protectors with back up battery for my desk
>top. It's close to 4 years old and the battery has died. I looked on
>line for another battery and none of them seem to have the same sort of
>clips that the one from the manufacturer (APC) does. APC wants $30 plus
>shipping and tax for a new battery.
One of the hazards of products manufactured overseas -- APC is based in India.
They make good-quality stuff, but parts/repairs can be iffy, as you've just
found. I like the Tripp-lite units, personally. But, being in Chicago,
and only a few miles from their H.Q. and main plant, may well have something
to do with it. <grin>
>
>I have seen entire units for not much more than that, so I'm considering
>just replacing it with a new unit, but I am also wondering if I even
>need the battery backup.
>
> From what I understand, if there is a power failure, the only thing I
>will lose is whatever I am working on at the moment that has not been
>saved. If that is true, and I don't mind taking the risk of losing
>something I am working on, would I be just as protected with a good
>quality surge protector?
*Usually* what you describe would be the case.
*HOWEVER* there are other circumstances -- presumably rare, but Murphy's
Law says it is 'most of the time' -- where the unexpected power-fail can
have much more catastrophic effect.
If you're just working on something that is 'in memory' when the power goes
down, then all you are likely to lose is what you were working on.
*HOWEVER*, if the computer is in the middle of writing stuff to disk (or a
'thumb drive', or a memory card) when the power goes down, then the power-fail
can (potentially) result in scrambling *anything* (and possibly -everything-)
on the entire drive.
In the olden days (MS-DOS), when a program wrote something to disk, it was
sent to the drive *right*then* -- thus your data was 'safe' within a fraction
of a second of issuing a 'save' command.
In today's world, Windows 'optimizes' disk access, by saving stuff up for a
bit (as much as 30 seconds or so) before actually sending it to the drive.
Thus, on a power-fail, you may lose anything you 'saved' within the last 30
seconds.
A UPS is intended to give you enough time to shut the system down 'cleanly',
*NOT* so much as to save 'whatever it was' you were in the middle of working
on, but to prevent the possible 'scrambling' of *all* disk data.
If you 'store' (long-term, that is) anything 'important' on the computer
hard drive, it is a *really* GOOD IDEA(tm) to have a minimal-size UPS for the
box.
A surge protector protects against 'over-voltage' damage to the _hardware_
*ONLY*. A 'surge' event is very unlikely to cause damage to the data stored
on the disk.
A UPS provides protection for the _data_ stored on the machine. Data that
can be damaged by 'erratic' machine operation in a loss-of-power situation.
Modern PC power-supplies are _supposed_ to have circuitry, that, coupled with
'smarts' in software, reduces the risk of this particular catastrophe.
Sometimes it may even work. BUT, if I have any significant amount of even
'moderately valuable/important' data on the machine, I *will* take out the
'cheap insurance' of a UPS.
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>
>I've never used a UPS in the 27 years I've been using computers. I've always
>used a surge protector of some kind.
>
>I'm using XP SP3 on this machine and I'll bet we've lost power 100 times
>since we've been to YNP, and so far no problem.
I use a laptop. Should I have a power loss, the battery keeps it
going for about 4 hours and then goes to sleep. Never have to worry
about the possibility.
Chuck
--
Liberals. You can't talk to them and bullets are just so damned expensive!
Chuck Norris
William Boyd
Chuck you are operating your laptop off of its battery all the time. The
a/c power is recharging the battery all the time it is plugged in.
--
BILL P.
&
DOG
nothermark
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:27:47 -0500, Janet Wilder
>> <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'll look there. The sites I went to showed different connectors. APC's
>>> site says to only order it from them.
>>
>> APC always says that. They also say it will void the warranty on your
>> out of warranty machine.
>
>But the connection clips or whatever are different on theirs than in
>all the pictures of the same size batteries I'm seeing on the net.
I'm not arguing over that. I am pointing out that APC does anything
it can to discourage using other folks parts.
You never said what kind of battery or protector you had so none of us
can really tell you any more than other folks make the batteries and
sell direct. On a $30 battery that is not that much savings. For the
one's I have APC charges $100 ea for 2.
Chuck Norris
I am aware of how the AC and battery operate the laptop. When I am on
shore power, I run the power pack. Should the power go out, the
battery continues powering the computer. It lasts 4 hours +/- as I
stated before.
Need I explain further? And why the hell are you ragging on me
lately? Did someone pee on your Wheaties?
Peter Pan
"William Boyd" <willi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a4fceef$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
unfortunately, thats the way they were for many years, unfortunately, in the
effort to make em cheaper, there are a bunch that run off the ac thing now
instead of the battery
Mickey
UPS's are low cost, <$50, came with controlling software.
Mickey
Robert Bonomi
<stan....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 Janet Wilder <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I have one of those surge protectors with back up battery for my desk
>>top. It's close to 4 years old and the battery has died.
>
>Never tempted for so much as a single moment to succumb to the "surge
>protector" scam. :-(
>
>On balance, most of those so-called surge-protectors, do absolutely squat!!
>
>With a significant background in digital electronics, for the most part,
>Surge protectors don't do anything useful. This is a totally sucker-based
>endeavour!!
"Male bovine excrement" applies.
A surge suppressor is a form of "insurance", and d*mned inexpensive insurance
at that. The events it protects against _are_ rare, but the cost of the
damages =if= that event occurs are substantial.
Suppressors _have_ saved me a small fortune in equipment costs.
Except in territories where _all_ the electric utility distribution is
underground (*including* the feed-lines _to_ the local sub-station) surge
suppressors do provide significant protection against certain kinds of
events. Specifically, lightning strikes "near" a power distribution line.
The more 'rural' the area one is in, the more likely this is to happen,
in large part due to the longer run of wire (more opportunity for Murphy
to find work :).
Such a strike can cause a _significant_ 'spike' in the voltage on the
power lines. And electric transformers happily pass this through to the
lower-voltage side. Thus, a strike on a feeder line can, and *does* get
passed on to the residential distribution, and on through the pole
transformer into the 'house' wiring.
As I said, I _personally_ have had two instances where a suppressor saved
_many_ thousands of dollars of gear.
One was a known lightning strike near-by. The next-door neighbors lost 3
TV sets, several (digital) clock radios, and their microwave. We lost a
clock-radio, one TV (the other did _not_ have anything that ran [e.g. 'instant
on', or remote control] when turned 'off'), and the computer printer (it
_wasn't_ plugged into the suppressor, and got its internal programming
scrambled -- still ran, but printed 'garbage'). The computer, monitor,
external disks, scanner, modem, and other accessories survived intact, but
the suppressor did have to be replaced. It gave it's life in a good cause.
For both us and the neighbors, homeowners insurance paid off for the
_confirmed_ lightning strike damage.
The other situation was in a downtown Chicago office building. Had about
$50k worth of servers off a heavy-duty line conditioner / surge suppressor.
Don't know exactly what the cause for this was -- obviously, all underground
utilities -- but the building was undergoing major renovation at the time.
During the _all_ the servers went out, at the same time. When I came in
to see what the problem was, they were all without power. A little testing
showed nothing 'out' of the conditioner, although there was power 'in' to it.
I disconnected it, opened it up, and find that the suppressor blocks (on all
_three_ sections of the conditioner) had absolutely shattered. By-passed the
unit to get the servers back on line for the rest of the night, and got a new
one, first thing the next morning. That next day, we found out that the
fax machine was _terribly_ sick. It was "cheap enough" we didn't even think
about having it diagnosed for repair, just got another one. That was, however,
the -only- other piece of electronic equipment in the office that was 'on'
that evening.
Surge protectors _do_ have their uses. Like any form of insurance, they're
not necessarily right for everyone. Yeah there are people who have gone
25 years without 'needing one'. There are also people who have driven cars
for 25 years without needing _that_ insurance either. *grin*
Janet Wilder
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 Janet Wilder <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have one of those surge protectors with back up battery for my desk
>> top. It's close to 4 years old and the battery has died.
>
> We bought our first computers twenty-five years ago, way back in 1982.
> Never tempted for so much as a single moment to succumb to the "surge
> protector" scam. :-(
>
> On balance, most of those so-called surge-protectors, do absolutely squat!!
>
> With a significant background in digital electronics, for the most part,
> Surge protectors don't do anything useful. This is a totally sucker-based
> endeavour!!
>
> aftermarket USB add-on disc to provide a backup record of your data. I have
> at least a few of them. Like . . . for a hundred bucks, you can easily
> offload ten years of data to a USB interfaced disk.
>
> I have a couple of them in service hereabouts.
>
I have one of those E-book USB connected drives and I back up to it
frequently. I think it also backs itself up because sometimes I hear it
running for no reason.
Janet Wilder
It's an APC. I bought it originally at Office Depot. I checked their
store and web site and they don't carry them. It appears that to get one
with the proper clips, I have to order it through APC. It's $29.99 plus
tax and shipping. I don't know what the shipping is. The only problem I
have with using it solely as a surge protector is that there aren't
enough outlets and I'm kind of overloading my other surge protector, so
I think I'll just buy another surge protector.
I don't understand why the battery would die. I thought that with the
electricity almost always on, the battery should last longer than 4
years. When the power goes off and the alarm sounds. I turn the thing
off. It's only made to run on the battery for a few minutes. Why would
the battery die?
bill horne
If one of the reasons for backing up is to ensure against data loss
from electrical events, then the USB drive should be disconnected when
not actually backing up to it. And then you also wouldn't hear it
running for no reason.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Peter Pan
Are you sure it's a ups, and not just a surge protector in an outlet with an
alarm and battery backup for the alarm? Even reconditioned stuff doesn't
show an actual ups that cheap or in that package?
they do show some wall outlet things made by phillips and out of stock...
could it be one of those?
Janet Wilder
> Are you sure it's a ups, and not just a surge protector in an outlet
> with an alarm and battery backup for the alarm? Even reconditioned stuff
> doesn't show an actual ups that cheap or in that package?
> they do show some wall outlet things made by phillips and out of
> stock... could it be one of those?
>
The replacement battery is $29.99, not the entire unit. I don't remember
what I paid for the thing 4 years ago. It is made by APC and it says
that it is a "surge protector + battery backup" It did not come with
software. It does not connect to the computer.
The only UPS I know is the brown truck that delivers packages.
Janet Wilder
The USB drive is just for backing up. It has nothing to do with
electrical events. It's an external hard drive. I copy my important
files to it.
bill horne
If it's plugged in to the computer to when an electrical event occurs
that takes out your main drive, there's a distinct possibility it'll
get taken out, too. The point is that a backup drive should only be
connected when you're backing up or restoring. And since you hear it
"running for no reason", you're apparently leaving it plugged in all
the time.
Ron Recer
"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
news:00984397$0$18769$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
It may give her the option of runnng in RAID 0 or 1. I have a WD 1TB HD
that gives you the choice of operating it as a 1TB RAID 0 or in RAID 1 it is
2 500 GB drives where one is basically a copy of the other. When is RAID 1
mode it often ran on its own, but was checking/maintaining the two drives,
it would do that even when it wasn't plugged in to the laptop.
Ron
Ron Recer
"Janet Wilder" <kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0049d81c$0$14632$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Ron
nothermark
<kellie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Essentially for the same reason House batteries die on a MH. All they
are is gel cell lead acid batteries with low quality charger.
bill horne
If an external USB drive is plugged into a computer, it's at risk from
an electrical event. If it's not plugged into a computer, it's not
checking/maintaining anything, and sitting in a drawer somewhere, is
not at significant risk from any electrical event except a lightning
strike on the drawer.
Lee
> I don't understand why the battery would die. I thought that with the
> electricity almost always on, the battery should last longer than 4
> years. When the power goes off and the alarm sounds. I turn the thing
> off. It's only made to run on the battery for a few minutes. Why would
> the battery die?
I would assume that a 3 to 5 year life span which APC advertises on
their site. Also the same if you leave your battery in all the time
when using AC. I have used 3 unit now and the battery usually starts
going around 3 to 4 years. But as said it is good insurance and
better than buying a new computer plus they let you finish your work
after a power loss unless you have a near dead battery.
Best to you both!
--
Lee (in Florida)
Georgie Boy Cruise Master
Lone Haranguer
LZ
Lone Haranguer
LZ
Ron Recer
"Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bcq9oF...@mid.individual.net...
Eventually all of them become inhabited by evil spirits and refuse to
read/write! :-)
Ron
Pepperoni
@news.astraweb.com:
> Eventually all of them become inhabited by evil spirits and refuse to
> read/write! :-)
>
>
Only after you trust them to archive all of your costly software and
irreplaceable family photos...... and your Doctoral Thesis.
Ron Recer
"Pepperoni" <tras...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3FDD5FFA659t...@74.209.136.91...
TB external that requires a power supply and a WD 500 GB external that is
powered by the USB port. I keep photos on both and also put each photo on
two DVD's. Hopefully it won't all go bad at once. ;-)
Ron
Peter Pan
UPS in computer terms = Uninterruptable Power Supply and usually have BIG
honking batteries, Sometimes called battery backup systems, and are even
sometimes cabled into the computers themselves for control and to power the
puter without ac/power supply (switches very quickly, puter power supply
drops ac to 12vdc, sort of like many laptops do/did run off the battery/ac
chages the battery)
point is that even reconditioned units are anywhere between $30 and $500,
new $129 to $999 depending (faster switchover is usally more money)......
trying to figger out what you have... is it the strip type/the wall type/big
honkin heavy battery/box type etc.....
from that manufacters site
http://www.apc.com/products/index.cfm
they show a UPS product line, and a Surge Protection and power conditioning
product line, both can have batteries, just tyring to narrow down what you
needed
Peter Pan
"Ron Recer" <RonR...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:000a4d80$0$2348$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>>> Ron
>> Probably inhabited by evil spirits.
>> LZ
>
> Eventually all of them become inhabited by evil spirits and refuse to
> read/write! :-)
>
> Ron
>
I thought they took up smoking, and eventually the smoke leaks out..... evil
spirits, peace pipe, smoke...... the things you can learn on this NG.....
nothermark
wrote:
If you are storing on burned media check this out:
http://www.kmpmedia.com/premium/gold-preservation-discs
From what I see and hear they are they only one's that you can expect
more than a few years storage life from.
Ron Recer
"Peter Pan" <pponvis...@MarcAlanNOSPAM.Info> wrote in message
news:tOadnX3_Z_JtBczX...@earthlink.com...
out of a black box it won's do its magic anymore and it is imposible to put
the smoke back in once it gets out! ;-)
Ron
Ron Recer
"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:99l355th6ge5if2s9...@4ax.com...
I haven't had any go bad, but that is not to say that some won't. The link
is an a I wouldn't put too much faith in them. One of the PC mags did an
article on longevity sometime back and clearly they won't last forever, but
if you burn a new DVD periodically there is no problem. A few years back I
transferred photos from CDs to DVDs without a problem. Some CDs were 5-6
years old.
Ron
westom
> The replacement battery is $29.99, not the entire unit. I don't remember
> what I paid for the thing 4 years ago. It is made by APC and it says
> that it is a "surge protector + battery backup"
It makes claims. But does it make claims with numbers?
A battery backup power supply (UPS) that is serious uses battery
that last something short of 20 years. Even my car battery typically
lasts seven or nine years in the harshest environment. So why does
that APC battery die in three years? They make the entire unit as
cheap as possible. Then make claims hoping you will not demand
numbers.
The UPS is often so marginal that its battery is most of the cost.
For example, that surge protection is so small as to be near zero.
But just enough above zero that you will believe it also provides
surge protection.
UPS has only one function - to protect from data loss. It does
nothing for hardware protection. Some have a data cable so that the
computer can save its data without your involvement. But data
protection is its only function.
How clean is the output from a UPS when in battery backup mode?
This 120 volts UPS outputs two 200 volt square waves with a spike of
up to 270 volts between those square waves. Others call this 'clean'
power only because of subjective claims on a sales brochure.
Meanwhile, power output by a typical UPS is so dirty as to be harmful
to small electric motors and power strip protectors. Computers are so
robust as to make that 'dirty' UPS electricity irrelevant.
Computers are that robust. Any hardware protection provided by that
UPS is virtually zero. Your only concern is the rare surge that
actually can overwhelm protection inside a UPS. That protection must
be located far from the computer, as close to earth as possible, and
where the surge might enter the building. One solution for your
computer and everything else for about $1 per protected appliance.
There is no magic box that does everything. You must decide with
electrical anomalies you want to protect from. Then install the
difference solutions for each. To protection data from blackouts and
extreme brownouts, buy a UPS. Often cheaper to buy a new one than to
replace batteries because other than the battery, a UPS has so little
more.
For hardware protection (even of the UPS), address building earthing
and one 'whole house' protector.
BTW, all this also applies to RV power.
Ron(Tx)
"westom" <wes...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f585793a-3679-48cd...@h31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 5, 3:44 pm, Janet Wilder <kelliepoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The replacement battery is $29.99, not the entire unit. I don't remember
> what I paid for the thing 4 years ago. It is made by APC and it says
> that it is a "surge protector + battery backup"
To protection data from blackouts and extreme brownouts, buy a UPS. Often
cheaper to buy a new one than to replace batteries because other than the
battery, a UPS has so little more.
I always use one, and always buy another instead of replacing the battery.
I figure that after 3-5 yrs the new one will be better than the old one.
Ron
Janet Wilder
Janet Wilder
http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BE325
The battery is a K Long WP3-12 12V 3Ah made in Viet Nam
bud--
> On Jul 5, 3:44 pm, Janet Wilder <kelliepoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The replacement battery is $29.99, not the entire unit. I don't remember
>> what I paid for the thing 4 years ago. It is made by APC and it says
>> that it is a "surge protector + battery backup"
> ....
> Computers are that robust. Any hardware protection provided by that
> UPS is virtually zero. Your only concern is the rare surge that
> actually can overwhelm protection inside a UPS.
The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
- "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
And also:
<http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf>
- "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
Standards and Technology in 2001
The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. The type of UPS
commonly bought does not intrinsically include surge protection, but the
same type of protection as in plug-in suppressors is usually included.
High ratings are readily and inexpensively available in plug-in
suppressors. It is a lot harder to find high ratings in UPSs. Any surge
protector should be listed under UL1449 - the appropriate UL standard.
Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go
through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor
prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These
multiport suppressors are described in both guides.
> For hardware protection (even of the UPS), address building earthing
> and one 'whole house' protector.
Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But 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."
Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltage between power and
signal wires. The NIST guide, using US insurance information, suggests
that most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and
phone/cable wires. An example is in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.
--
bud--
westom
> <http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf>
> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
> appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
> Standards and Technology in 2001
bud is promoting his company's products. He is here because he
follows me everywhere posting insults and half truths. He is their
sales promoter.
View his NIST citation. Essential paragraphs are what a
professional sales promoter will routinely forget:
> You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
> "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
> neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
What must that UPS do? Stop, absorb, or "arrest" a surge. What
happens if any protector does not have that 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth? It even connects a surge to earth destructively
via household appliances. bud claims protectors (ie that UPS) will
magically stop and absorb surge energy. Ok. How do a few hundred
joules inside a UPS absorb hundreds of thousands of joules from a
surge? bud is a sales promoter. He promotes subjectively. He needs
you to ignore numbers: a few hundred joules in a UPS absorbing a surge
of hundreds of thousands of joules.
The NIST is not done contradicting bud. An effective protector does
not stop surges. The effective protector diverts thousands of joules
harmlessly into earth. Effective protectors have that short (ie 'less
than 10 foot') connection to earth. A surge earthed before entering
the building does not cause surge damage. A 'whole house' protector
to do this costs about $1 per protected appliance. And so the NIST
says why a 'whole house' protector is so effective and why any plug-in
protector (promoted by bud) does not even claim to provide surge
protection. NIST says:
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your
> surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
> ground. The best surge protection in the world can
> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
bud will post here endlessly because he is promoting ineffective
and highly profitable protectors. Notice he will post insults and
will post endlessly to get the last word. He is paid to post lies,
myths, and half facts. He is my troll. He follows me everywhere.
Even his citation shows a plug-in protector earthing a surge 8000
volts destructively through an adjacent TV. With no short connection
to earth, it must earth that surge somewhere. That energy must be
absorbed somewhere. bud hopes you ignore that reality. A protector
too far from earth ground and too close to the appliance diverts
massive energy into what?
Even telcos will not buy bud's products. Telcos need effective
protection. That UPS will somehow absorb how many joules? View its
specs. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No
wonder that UPS and bud's protectors do not list each type of surge
and protection in numeric specs. Ask bud for those numeric specs. He
will routinely *forget* to provide them. Near zero surge protection
is called "surge protector" to those who ignore numbers. Even a
professional sales promoter cannot find those numbers.
Effective protection means massive surge energy dissipates
harmlessly in earth; does not even enter the building; does not
overwhelm protection already inside every appliance.
Janet Wilder
> westom wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 3:44 pm, Janet Wilder <kelliepoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The replacement battery is $29.99, not the entire unit. I don't remember
>>> what I paid for the thing 4 years ago. It is made by APC and it says
>>> that it is a "surge protector + battery backup"
>
>> ....
> > Computers are that robust. Any hardware protection provided by that
>> UPS is virtually zero. Your only concern is the rare surge that
>> actually can overwhelm protection inside a UPS.
>
> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:
> <http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
>
> - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
> for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
> communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
> major organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
> And also:
> <http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf>
> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
> appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
> Standards and Technology in 2001
>
> The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
> NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
----snip---
Thanks for the sites. I went to the NIST one and saved a copy of the *.pdf.
I appreciate your time and effort.
bud--
> On Jul 7, 11:54 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> <http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf>
>> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
>> appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
>> Standards and Technology in 2001
>
> bud is promoting his company's products.
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.
If w had valid arguments he wouldn't have to try to discredit others.
> He is here because he
> follows me everywhere posting insults and half truths.
I got tired after seeing w's misinformation about 8 times in a short
period on 2 newsgroups I follow.
> What must that UPS do? Stop, absorb, or "arrest" a surge.
Plug-in suppressors do not work by "stopping", "absorbing" or
"arresting" a surge.
> What
> happens if any protector does not have that 'less than 10 foot'
> connection to earth?
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. The voltage
between wires going to the protected equipment is safe for the protected
equipment. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).
Because w is evangelical in his belief in earthing, he uses
google-groups to search for "surge" to spread his beliefs. Among his
primary beliefs is that plug-in suppressors (and UPSs) can't possibly
work. That is why he is here.
> How do a few hundred
> joules inside a UPS absorb hundreds of thousands of joules from a
> surge?
Note this answer is somewhat technical. It may be useful to a few people.
Fran�ois Martzloff was the surge guru at the NIST, wrote the NIST guide,
and wrote many technical papers on surges and protection. One of those
papers looked at the energy absorbed in a MOV on a branch circuit. (MOVs
are the protection elements in almost all surge suppressors.) Martzloff
found the energy is surprisingly small, even with surges that were the
same as a very near lightning strike to power lines. The maximum was 35
Joules.
One reason is that at about 6,000 volts there is arc-over from service
panel busbars to the panel enclosure. In the US the panel enclosure is
connected to the system "ground", the power neutral. and the earthing
electrodes. Arc-over dumps most of the surge energy to earth. The other
reason is that the impedance of the branch circuit wiring greatly limits
the current, and thus energy, that can reach the MOV. (Since a surge is
a very short event the inductance of the wire is much more important
than the resistance.)
Neither service panel or plug-in suppressors work by absorbing a surge.
They absorb some energy in the process of protecting.
> And so the NIST
> says why a 'whole house' protector is so effective
Repeating:
But 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."
> and why any plug-in
> protector (promoted by bud) does not even claim to provide surge
> protection.
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.
> bud will post here endlessly
w will post here endlessly because his belief in earthing has been
challenged.
Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Read the sources.
Then read the sources that agree with w that plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective - there aren't any.
Never answered - 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?
--
bud--
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>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.
>
>If w had valid arguments he wouldn't have to try to discredit others.
>
>> He is here because he
>> follows me everywhere posting insults and half truths.
>
>I got tired after seeing w's misinformation about 8 times in a short
>period on 2 newsgroups I follow.
Since he posted a comment and you followed it would seem you are the
stalker. I don't recall ever seeing any posts from either of you b4.
So far "w" wins the credibility war.
--
Liberals. You can't talk to them and bullets are just so damned expensive!
Chuck Norris
westom
> So far "w" wins the credibility war.
"Credibility war" should be 'won' on the facts. Even bud's
citations cite the problem with plug-in protectors. Page 42 Figure 8
of his IEEE citation shows a protector too close to electronics and
too far from earth ground. So it earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. Again, what did those earlier NIST
quotes say? On page 17 (Adobe page 19 of 24) of the *.pdf downloaded
by Janet:
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your
> surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
> ground. The best surge protection in the world can
> be useless if grounding is not done properly.
THE name in protection is Polyphaser and its legendary application
notes:
http://www.polyphaser.com/technical_notes.aspx
What common factor is in every cited protection system? A short
connection to single point earth ground. Those are facts. Surge
energy must be dissipated somewhere - harmlessly in earth. A
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
How does a protector without that dedicated earth ground provide
protection? Notice - even its own numeric specs do not make a
protection claim. Facts should be more important than credibility.
Where is that plug-in protector spec that claims protection? Where is
the item that absorbs all that energy (earth ground)? In some other
nations, those plug-in protectors include this phrase, "Does not
protect from lightning".
nothermark
<hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:20:06 -0500, bud-- <remove....@isp.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>If w had valid arguments he wouldn't have to try to discredit others.
>>
>>> He is here because he
>>> follows me everywhere posting insults and half truths.
>>
>>I got tired after seeing w's misinformation about 8 times in a short
>>period on 2 newsgroups I follow.
>
>
>Since he posted a comment and you followed it would seem you are the
>stalker. I don't recall ever seeing any posts from either of you b4.
>
>So far "w" wins the credibility war.
The only thing I will toss in is that there is a lot more to
protecting equipment than I want to get into here. BTDT. None of
them are perfect, all of them do something, none are guaranteed 100%
of the time under 100% of possible conditions. The IEEE and NIST are
both good sources if you understand them. Protection is like a lot of
things - you set a level and pay for that level or you decide what to
pay for a level you don't understand and get that level.
;-)
bud--
> On Jul 8, 12:59 pm, Chuck Norris <hamguy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So far "w" wins the credibility war.
Sources that support w's claim that plug-in suppressor do NOT work -
zero. Did I miss one???
Sources that support my claim that plug-in suppressors are effective -
two that have been posted - the IEEE and NIST.
What I have written is consistent with the sources provided. Read the
sources.
> Even bud's
> citations cite the problem with plug-in protectors. Page 42 Figure 8
> of his IEEE citation shows a protector too close to electronics and
> too far from earth ground. So it earths a surge 8000 volts
> destructively through that TV.
If poor w could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
guide says in this example:
- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- w's favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO
protection. The surge does not come in on the power service.
And it is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example
damages the second TV. Read the source.
> Again, what did those earlier NIST
> quotes say?
Again, what does the NIST guide actually say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor.
Read the source.
In high risk areas I would follow the protection advice in the IEEE guide:
1 have an effective earth connection
2 short interconnection from cable and phone entry protectors to the
earthing connection at the power entry (an overlooked but important item)
3 surge suppressor at the power service
4 plug-in suppressors at sensitive equipment, especially equipment with
both power and phone/cable connection
Basically the same advice is in the NIST guide.
The question in this thread is whether plug-in suppressors are
effective. Every reputable source I have read says they are. And with
high ratings and properly connected they are likely to protect from even
very near lightning strikes (in line with the Martzloff paper in my last
post).
Incidentally NIST expert Martzloff has also written "In fact, the major
cause of [suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than
an unusually large surge." (Temporary over voltage is a much longer
voltage rise which could be caused, for example, by crossed power lines.)
> How does a protector without that dedicated earth ground provide
> protection?
Clearly explained in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40 for anyone who
can read and think. It is primarily by clamping, not earthing.
And how do you protect airplanes? Do they drag an earthing chain?
Still missing - any sources that agree with w that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Still never answered - 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?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
westom
> Sources that support w's claim that plug-in suppressor do NOT work -
> zero. Did I miss one???
> Sources that support my claim that plug-in suppressors are effective -
> two that have been posted - the IEEE and NIST.
bud's NIST and IEEE citations show why a plug-in protector even
contributes to damage of the adjacent appliance. Both explain why
telcos (that suffer about 100 surges with every thunderstorm and must
never suffer damage) do not use bud's plug-in protectors. Telcos
everywhere in the world use the solution that has been proven for over
100 years - a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. For
homeowners, that means upgrading the earthing electrode AND one 'whole
house' protector. An effective protector sells in Lowes (from Cutler-
Hammer) for less than $50.
A surge earthed before entering the building means that surge will
not overwhelm protection inside every appliance. Anything the plug-in
protector might do is made irrelevant by protection already inside
appliances. And then we install one 'whole house' protector so that a
rare and destructive surge does not overwhelm that protection.
UPS has the same protector circuit found in plug-in protectors. Also
does not have a necessary dedicated earthing connection. Also does
not claim to provide protection in its numeric specs.
bud mentioned François Martzloff but forgot to quote what Martzloff
actually said. Plug-in protectors can even contribute to surge
damage. bud constantly forgets to mention relevant facts. Martzloff's
very first conclusion in his 1994 IEEE paper defines damage created by
plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
> Conclusion:
> 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
> show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
> even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
> present at the point of connection of appliances.
How curious. Same forgotten fact is also in bud's IEEE citation -
Page 42 Figure 8. A protector earthed a surge 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV. Protector was too close to the
appliance with no earthing connection. A protector is only as
effective as its dedicated connection to earth. No earth ground means
no effective protection. Another example of why one 'whole house'
protector is so effective - protects everything.
bud never provides a protection spec because no plug-in protector or
UPS claims that protection. Obviously not. No earth ground means no
effective protection. A protector without earth ground can even
contribute to appliance damage - as we engineers also discovered by
literally tracing surge damage through each semiconductor.
Same principles apply to RV protection. A protector (or UPS) is only
Robert Bonomi
nothermark <nothe...@not.here> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:59:11 -0700, Chuck Norris
><hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:20:06 -0500, bud-- <remove....@isp.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>If w had valid arguments he wouldn't have to try to discredit others.
>>>
>>>> He is here because he
>>>> follows me everywhere posting insults and half truths.
>>>
>>>I got tired after seeing w's misinformation about 8 times in a short
>>>period on 2 newsgroups I follow.
>>
>>
>>Since he posted a comment and you followed it would seem you are the
>>stalker. I don't recall ever seeing any posts from either of you b4.
>>
>>So far "w" wins the credibility war.
>
>
>The only thing I will toss in is that there is a lot more to
>protecting equipment than I want to get into here. BTDT. None of
>them are perfect, all of them do something, none are guaranteed 100%
>of the time under 100% of possible conditions.
The folks at Tripp are pretty confident about their stuff. They give
blanket insurance coverage -- in 5 figures -- from power spikes, etc.,
for gear plugged into one of their devices. The only downside to the
deal is it doesn't cover the suppressor/conditioner *itself*. Admittedly
this makes sense, since the device is _designed_ to kamakazi in protecting
the gear behind it, but it does mean that 'after it works', you have to go
buy another policy.
> The IEEE and NIST are
>both good sources if you understand them. Protection is like a lot of
>things - you set a level and pay for that level or you decide what to
>pay for a level you don't understand and get that level.
It's "insurance", pure and simple. And, as with insurance, it is only
as good as what the policy says it is.
nothermark
Yep. I'm not sure if I'm plugged into an APC or Tripp right now. Too
heavy to turn around and look at the front. ;-)
It's a rack mount standing on one edge in a corner desk. The bottom
faces the corner so I can get to the ends but not see them.
westom
> The folks at Tripp are pretty confident about their stuff. They give
> blanket insurance coverage -- in 5 figures -- from power spikes, etc.,
> for gear plugged into one of their devices. The only downside to the
> deal is it doesn't cover the suppressor/conditioner *itself*. Admittedly
> this makes sense, since the device is _designed_ to kamakazi in protecting
> the gear behind it,
Two incorrect statements. First a protector must even earth a
direct lightning strike and remain functional. In fact, if its MOVs
go kamikaze, then the MOV is operating in violation of what MOV
manufacturer require. At the top of every MOV datasheet are numbers -
Absolute Maximum Parameters - that say a protector must not go
kamikaze.
However a protector does go kamikaze, then the naive will recommend
that ineffective protector. By grossly undersizing, it gets
recommended? Unfortunately yes because so many do not even learn what
a protector does. A protector that goes kamikaze abandons the
appliance to a surge. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective.
What happens when a protector is grossly undersized to go kamikaze?
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm
Second, a big buck warranty is so chock full of fine print
exemptions as to never be honored. When selling the protection
circuit found in a $7 grocery store protector for $25 or $150, then
the big buck warranty gets the naive to wish it is better.
GM also promoted big buck warranties. That proves GM products are
better than Honda and Toyota without big buck warranties? Nonsense.
The warranty is promoted here because the poster does not know
anything about protectors and what a protector does.
Effective protection means nobody knows a surge existed. That means
one 'whole house' protector harmlessly connects a direct lightning
strike to earth, remains functional, and nobody knew that surge
existed. The superior protectors from companies with more responsible
reputations costs tens or 100 times less money - about $1 per
protected appliance. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector to
even protect that plug-in protector. Why? See those above scary
pictures.
Hunter Hampton
>
>and that was right after earlier this week calling Hunter a slut! :-(
Who did? Why?
Hunter
Hunter Hampton
>But for the rest of us, and probably most of us, who have so enjoyed your
>company over the years, the pleasure of your company, has always been
>**FAR** too brief! You are at the very top of the list, and continue to be
>at the very top of the list of guests who have ingratiated our home, and
>are always most very welcome in our home and environs!!
>
>Hope to see you soon! We are in the process of patching together our Winnie
>for at least one more trip South before this crappy Winnebago contraption
>melts to a pile of pulp in our laneway! :-)
You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Hunter <- in Washburn, Wisconsin
Lone Haranguer
>> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:45:46 -0500, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in OT - Computer question:
>
>> Why are you presuming to give Janet advice? She already knows EVERYTHING.
>> LZ
>
> and that was right after earlier this week calling Hunter a slut! :-(
She would have a hard time denying it.
slut
a promiscuous woman
>
> Are all of us old farts doomed to end our days tossing ugly barbs,
> particularly at ladies who outclass us in every way.
Speak for yourself.
>
> So . . . what's your problem LZ?
Except for an old back injury that's gotten worse, I can't think of any.
You should be as fortunate as I and my wife of 54 years. We got an
invite to dinner over at my son's house a block away. Outdoor cooking.
Second oldest grandson is home for a visit and we got to see our latest
great-granddaughter, a pretty little thing with piercing blue eyes and
dark hair.
His younger brother and his soon-to-be wife were also there. The
wedding is the day after tomorrow. Also my pretty granddaughter who is
interning at a nuke
plant this summer. More brains and beauty than your family has produced
in 40 generations.
Some of us have it and some don't. Have you posted a current photo yet?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
For a change it wasn't one of your ex-husbands.
LZ
>
> Hunter
Lone Haranguer
>> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:27:28 -0400, stan....@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> and that was right after earlier this week calling Hunter a slut! :-(
>
>>
>> Who did? Why?
>>
>> Hunter
>
> LZ did! :-( And there was absolutely no reason for his ugliness,
You forgot that you used the same term for Sarah Palin without
furnishing justification.
Hunter meets the dictionary definition.
>
> Not to be remotely concerned. Angry discontented dirtmongers you will find
> everywhere. :-(
>
> But for the rest of us, and probably most of us, who have so enjoyed your
> company over the years, the pleasure of your company, has always been
> **FAR** too brief! You are at the very top of the list, and continue to be
> at the very top of the list of guests who have ingratiated our home, and
> are always most very welcome in our home and environs!!
You're drooling, Stan......
>
> Hope to see you soon! We are in the process of patching together our Winnie
> for at least one more trip South before this crappy Winnebago contraption
> melts to a pile of pulp in our laneway! :-)
My Itasca is still purring along although I did replace a faucet knob
last week.
Probably you skimped on the maintenance, you notorious cheapskate.
LZ
>
Lone Haranguer
And a world class bigot.
LZ
bud--
> On Jul 9, 1:14 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sources that support w's claim that plug-in suppressor do NOT work -
>> zero. Did I miss one???
>> Sources that support my claim that plug-in suppressors are effective -
>> two that have been posted - the IEEE and NIST.
>
> telcos (that suffer about 100 surges with every thunderstorm and must
> never suffer damage) do not use bud's plug-in protectors.
Geez - why wouldn't a telco central office switch, which is high amp and
hard wired, not use a plug-in suppressor that the thousands of phone
circuits would have to go through??? Thats a tough one.
> For
> homeowners, that means upgrading the earthing electrode
Again quoting Martzloff: "the impedance of the grounding system to `true
earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
various parts of the grounding system."
If you have an earthing system (required by US electrical codes), it is
more important to insure there is a short wire connecting the phone and
cable entry protectors to the earthing connection at the power service.
It is point #2 in my last post. An example of a connection that is too
long is in the IEEE guide starting pdf page 40.
> AND one 'whole
> house' protector.
Repeating yet again:
"Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
But 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.' "
"Service panel suppressors do not prevent high voltage between power and
signal wires. The NIST guide, using US insurance information, suggests
that most equipment damage is from high voltage between power and
phone/cable wires."
A service panel suppressor would provide absolutely NO protection in the
IEEE page 42 example cited by w below.
> bud mentioned Fran�ois Martzloff but forgot to quote what Martzloff
> actually said.
> Martzloff's
> very first conclusion in his 1994 IEEE paper defines damage created by
> plug-in (point of connection) protectors:
Forgot to quote what Martzloff actually said???
w_ ignores that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."
This paper was from when MOV based suppressors were relatively new. The
point of the paper was that plug-in suppressors could protect equipment
that had both power and cable/phone connections if all the wires went
through the (multiport) suppressor. (This was in my first post.)
As usual, w tries to twist what sources say.
At alt.engineering.electrical w similarly tried to twist what a
Martzloff coauthor, Arshad Mansoor, said.
w provoked a response from an electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of [multiport] type plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."
> How curious. Same forgotten fact is also in bud's IEEE citation -
> Page 42 Figure 8. A protector earthed a surge 8000 volts
> destructively through the adjacent TV.
The lie repeated. Covered in my last post.
Read the IEEE source.
> A protector is only as
> effective as its dedicated connection to earth. No earth ground means
> no effective protection.
w's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).
Everyone is for earthing. The question is whether plug-in suppressors
are effective.
The IEEE guide explains, for anyone not hampered by religious blinders,
that plug-in suppressors work primarily by clamping, not earthing.
Still missing - any source that agrees with w that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. Even on the internet w can't find anyone.
bud--
> On Jul 9, 12:33 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>> The folks at Tripp are pretty confident about their stuff. They give
>> blanket insurance coverage -- in 5 figures -- from power spikes, etc.,
>> for gear plugged into one of their devices. The only downside to the
>> deal is it doesn't cover the suppressor/conditioner *itself*. Admittedly
>> this makes sense, since the device is _designed_ to kamakazi in protecting
>> the gear behind it,
>
> recommended?
w thinks that all plug-in suppressors have minuscule ratings and
service panel suppressors have mega ratings. Actually UL tests require
listed suppressors provide at least a floor level of protection. And
high ratings are readily available.
> A protector that goes kamikaze abandons the
> appliance to a surge.
The IEEE guide goes on at length about how the protected load can be
connected across the MOVs, and be disconnected if they fail (below),
OR the protected load can be connected across the incoming line.
In the former case, even if the MOVs fail the protected load is
disconnected and stays safe. It is how any quality suppressor should be
connected. It is one reason why some manufacturers, like TrippLite, can
offer protected equipment warranties. Another reason is that the amount
of energy that is absorbed in a plug-in suppressor is surprisingly small
(re: Martzloff technical paper) and high ratings are readily and cheaply
available for plug-in suppressors. The suppressor is not likely to ever
fail.
And repeating Martzloff:
"In fact, the major cause of [suppressor] failures is a temporary
overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." (Don't bet on
overvoltage being covered.)
> What happens when a protector is grossly undersized to go kamikaze?
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
w refuses to 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 for overheating MOVs. 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.
> Second, a big buck warranty is so chock full of fine print
> exemptions
Unfortunately, since people may sincerely (or otherwise) believe
nonexistent surges damage their equipment, fine print is required.
Still missing - any sources that agree with w that plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective.
Still never answered - 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?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
--
bud--
Max
Damn. I'm somehow reminded of Osborne and Sill.
Is anyone else?
Max
R.J.(Bob) Evans
wrote:
>And a world class bigot.
>LZ
Not to mention a whiny nitwit
Now it looks like he is adding ass-kissing to his list of talents.
--
R.J.(Bob) Evans
(return address needs alteration to work)
http://travellingwithgeorge.blogspot.com/
Robert Bonomi
westom <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 12:33 pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> The folks at Tripp are pretty confident about their stuff. They give
>> blanket insurance coverage -- in 5 figures -- from power spikes, etc.,
>> for gear plugged into one of their devices. The only downside to the
>> deal is it doesn't cover the suppressor/conditioner *itself*. Admittedly
>> this makes sense, since the device is _designed_ to kamakazi in protecting
>> the gear behind it,
>
> Two incorrect statements.
it's really a shame you don't know you don't know what you're talking about.
First a protector must even earth a
>direct lightning strike and remain functional.
Not if it blows, like a fuse, _open_ the circuit to the downstream gear.
Strike one.
> In fact, if its MOVs
>go kamikaze, then the MOV is operating in violation of what MOV
>manufacturer require. At the top of every MOV datasheet are numbers -
>Absolute Maximum Parameters - that say a protector must not go
>kamikaze.
Who said this device used a MOV?
Streeike TWO!
"
>
> However a protector does go kamikaze, then the naive will recommend
>that ineffective protector. By grossly undersizing, it gets
>recommended?
Specious argument based on a false presumption.
> Unfortunately yes because so many do not even learn what
>a protector does. A protector that goes kamikaze abandons the
>appliance to a surge. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective.
WRONG.
>
> Second, a big buck warranty is so chock full of fine print
>exemptions as to never be honored. When selling the protection
>circuit found in a $7 grocery store protector for $25 or $150, then
>the big buck warranty gets the naive to wish it is better.
You continue to demonstrate that you "know not that you know not" that of
which you speak. There is a truely ancient Middle-Eastern proverb that
describes such people.
Janet Wilder
<g> I was thinking "tire pressure", too.
Once again, great minds are thinking alike, Max.
bill horne
> Max wrote:
>>
>> Damn. I'm somehow reminded of Osborne and Sill.
>> Is anyone else?
>>
>> Max
>
>
> <g> I was thinking "tire pressure", too.
>
> Once again, great minds are thinking alike, Max.
>
Simple minds think alike, too, you know.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Janet Wilder wrote:
>> Max wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn. I'm somehow reminded of Osborne and Sill.
>>> Is anyone else?
>>>
>>> Max
>>
>>
>> <g> I was thinking "tire pressure", too.
>>
>> Once again, great minds are thinking alike, Max.
>>
>
>Simple minds think alike, too, you know.
But they are seldom aware of it.
bill horne
It's been my observation that they nearly always are.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Bob Giddings wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:12:23 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>> Damn. I'm somehow reminded of Osborne and Sill.
>>>>> Is anyone else?
>>>>>
>>>>> Max
>>>>
>>>> <g> I was thinking "tire pressure", too.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, great minds are thinking alike, Max.
>>>>
>>> Simple minds think alike, too, you know.
>>
>> But they are seldom aware of it.
>
>It's been my observation that they nearly always are.
Simple as that, eh?
Osbourne and Sill could never admit how much they were alike.
bill horne
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:24:38 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Giddings wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:12:23 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>>> Damn. I'm somehow reminded of Osborne and Sill.
>>>>>> Is anyone else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Max
>>>>> <g> I was thinking "tire pressure", too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, great minds are thinking alike, Max.
>>>>>
>>>> Simple minds think alike, too, you know.
>>> But they are seldom aware of it.
>> It's been my observation that they nearly always are.
>
> Simple as that, eh?
>
> Osbourne and Sill could never admit how much they were alike.
>
If nothing else, they are alike in being not here.
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>Bob Giddings wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:24:38 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Giddings wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:12:23 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Janet Wilder wrote:
>>>>>> Max wrote:
>>>>>>> Damn. I'm somehow reminded of Osborne and Sill.
>>>>>>> Is anyone else?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Max
>>>>>> <g> I was thinking "tire pressure", too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, great minds are thinking alike, Max.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Simple minds think alike, too, you know.
>>>> But they are seldom aware of it.
>>> It's been my observation that they nearly always are.
>>
>> Simple as that, eh?
>>
>> Osbourne and Sill could never admit how much they were alike.
>>
>
>If nothing else, they are alike in being not here.
Simple minds flake alike.
Janet Wilder
> Bob Giddings wrote:
>> Osbourne and Sill could never admit how much they were alike.
>>
>
> If nothing else, they are alike in being not here.
>
A happy situation.
westom
>> First a protector must even earth a direct lightning strike
>> and remain functional.
>
> Not if it blows, like a fuse, _open_ the circuit to the downstream gear.
> Strike one.
So an open fuse will stop what three miles of sky could not? Scam
protectors are promoted by such claims. Did you read what the NIST
says? Without earth to connect (divert) a surge to, the world's best
protector is useless. Could the NIST be blunter? Tell us how a fuse
or anything else will stop what three miles of sky could not stop.
Don't forget to cite the source (because you probably have none).
> Who said this device used a MOV?
See those manufacturer spec sheets (that also do not even claim to
provide protection)? Those numbers say MOVs are used.
Plug-in protectors and that UPS are often promoted by a majority
because the urban myth is popular. However, if it does perform as you
claim, then post those manufacture spec numbers. You cannot because
even the UPS (recommended to Janet) manufacturer makes no such
protection claims. No plug-in UPS claims to protect from typically
destructive surges. But the UPS does protect itself using same
protection existing inside every computer.
How many joules in that UPS? A few hundred? How does that UPS
absorb a surge of hundred of thousands of joules? It does not. It
just claims a few tiny MOVs inside. That is enough to proclaim "Surge
Protection" in a sales brochure. That is enough for many to *know* it
must be an effective protector; even thought the manufacture will
never make that claim..
Now the numbers. How does that tiny little fuse stop what three miles
of sky could not? View the fuse body. It says 250 volts. That means
a voltage exceeding 250 volts when a fuse blows, then that fuse
continues to conduct electricity. And still some believe your urban
myth - that a fuse can stop what three miles of sky could not. That a
fuse or that UPS will somehow absorb what three miles of sky could
not.
Why do telcos not use that UPS for surge protection? Why spend tens
or 100 times more money for protection that is just above zero?
Provided earlier were solutions routinely used when surge damage must
never happen. A solution that costs less money and actually works.
Posted was the solution that does what the NIST says all protector
systems must do -
> ... neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
> divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
nothermark
now you are seeing why I decided not to say very much. ;-)
Robert Bonomi
westom <wes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 10, 2:19�pm, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>> First a protector must even earth a direct lightning strike
>>> and remain functional.
>>
>> Not if it blows, like a fuse, _open_ the circuit to the downstream gear.
>> Strike one.
>
> So an open fuse will stop what three miles of sky could not?
A device that blows open, because of an induced _direct_short_ to the
grounding wire, yes.
> Scam
>protectors are promoted by such claims. Did you read what the NIST
>says? Without earth to connect (divert) a surge to, the world's best
>protector is useless.
Yup. Which is why _all_ domestic U.S. wiring installed in the last 40+
years has provided an 'earth ground' (in addition to the electric 'neutral')
at *every* wall outlet.
> Could the NIST be blunter? Tell us how a fuse
>or anything else will stop what three miles of sky could not stop.
It's _easy_. the building wiring provides an 'earth ground'. By providing
a 'good quality' short to that 'ground', _before_ the protected device (which,
*by*definition* has a higher-resistance path to ground -- since any power has
to go on out the cord _to_ the device, and return to the protector before
continuing to the earth ground),
>Don't forget to cite the source (because you probably have none).
NIST, IEEE, U.L., to name three. Oh, here's a couple more -- Argonne Nat'l
Labs. Lawrence Livermore Labs.
>
>> Who said this device used a MOV?
> See those manufacturer spec sheets (that also do not even claim to
>provide protection)? Those numbers say MOVs are used.
_How_ do you *know* what the numbers are? I didn't mention the specific
device I used.
BTW, it really *doesn't* use MOVs. It uses transils. Several. In parallel.
Each of which is rated for several kilowatts.
> Plug-in protectors and that UPS are often promoted by a majority
>because the urban myth is popular. However, if it does perform as you
>claim, then post those manufacture spec numbers.
Up to 2k joules suppressed -- non-destructively.
Over that, _by_design_, it kamikaze's, dropping in a dead short to ground,
and blowing the series fusible links upstream. The links, themselves, could
be made field-replaceable, but the crowbar-type circuitry destructs as well,
and the RFI filtering has also probably been affected.
The 'reaction time' of a transil is in the single digits of _pico_ seconds.
About the time it takes electricity to travel 1/4 of one millimeter in copper
wire.
*That* quickly, there is a 'better path' to ground than going through the
protected device. As a result, the surge goes through that 'better' path,
and not through the protected device. And, because it is a dead short,
the fast-reacting fusible links trigger almost immediately. This provides
circa 40-50kv of isolation between the line and the protected gear. Which
is 'more than sufficient' in the real world. At voltages considerably
less than that, the insulation on the supply wiring will fail, and you'll
have arc-over occurring inside the conduit inside the walls.
> You cannot because
>even the UPS (recommended to Janet) manufacturer makes no such
>protection claims. No plug-in UPS claims to protect from typically
>destructive surges. But the UPS does protect itself using same
>protection existing inside every computer.
>
> How many joules in that UPS? A few hundred?
You *really* don't know sh*t about power systems do you?
A *little* home-style UPS one that will run an Apple ][ for only 5 minutes,
contains over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND joules.
Me, I run bigger gear, and use UPS units with roughly 1.5 _million_ joules
in the base configuration.
> How does that UPS
>absorb a surge of hundred of thousands of joules?
It _doesn't_. It 'redirects' it. switches it away from the protected
device, to 'ground'. You know, don't you, that that _is_ why the 'green'
wire exists at outlets?
>just claims a few tiny MOVs inside. That is enough to proclaim "Surge
>Protection" in a sales brochure. That is enough for many to *know* it
>must be an effective protector; even thought the manufacture will
>never make that claim..
You continue to prove you *don't* know what you're talking about.
>
> Now the numbers. How does that tiny little fuse stop what three miles
>of sky could not? View the fuse body. It says 250 volts. That means
>a voltage exceeding 250 volts when a fuse blows, then that fuse
>continues to conduct electricity.
<snicker> =GUFFAW= *R*O*T*F*L*M*A*O.
You continue to prove you don't have a d*mn clue as to what you're talking
about. You *really* should take a lesson from Abraham Lincoln, who said:
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
You have done an excellent job of 'removing all doubt', in your regard.
No, that is -NOT- what the 250v rating means. It means that fuse is _not_
intended for use on circuits rated _above_ that voltage, because it will blow
prematurely -- i.e at significantly *less* than the rated current load -- if
so used. (You see, a fuse doesn't actually act on the 'amperage' going through
it, but the _wattage_ generated by the power flow through the small, but
measurable, resistance of the fuse itself.)
At higher _supply_ voltages, the wattage goes up, because the voltage drop
across the resistance of the fuse is higher, and the fuse blows at lower-
than-rated amperage.
A typical medium-power fuse (10-50A, nominal 125-250v rated), when it blows,
creates an 'air gap' of approximately 1/2". That requires around 37 KV to
jump the gap.
Thus, your claim that it will keep conducting at 250v is only off by a
factor of about 150 times.
> And still some believe your urban
>myth - that a fuse can stop what three miles of sky could not. That a
>fuse or that UPS will somehow absorb what three miles of sky could
>not.
Yup. because it is proven, used as part of the proper circuits, that they _do_.
Robert Bonomi
We'll concede to your obvious first-hand expertise on the matter. <grin>
bill horne
Observation. Not self-observation, sonny.
westom
> A device that blows open, because of an induced _direct_short_ to the
> grounding wire, yes.
Somewhere in that lost post of insults are numerous facts devoid of
reality. Somehow the fuse will blow and stop what three miles of sky
could not? Somehow a wire earthed 50 feet away with sharp bends, and
bunlded with other wires is sufficient for surge protection? Was not
true 100 years ago.
Somehow a house earthed in 1950 or 1960 will meet and exceed
earthing requirements of post 1990 National Electrical Code? We have
been told yes.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Effective
protection means a short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
earth. No sharp wire bends. Everything to the same earthing
electrode. Wire not inside metallic conduit, etc. Requirements that
did not exist when transistors did not exist. Upgrades required to
make a 'whole house' protector effective.
Either surge energy is diverted harmlessly into earth. Or that
surge goes hunting for earth ground destructively inside the
building. Some say that will not happen because homes were earthed in
the 1950s as if transistors existed. And fuses will magically stop
what three miles of sky could not.
A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Effective
protection so that direct lightning strikes do not cause damage means
earthing a 'whole house' protector. A protector that costs about $1
per protected appliance. That earths even direct lightning strikes
without anyone even knowing the surge existed. That earths direct
lightning strikes without damage even to the protector. A technology
that has been routinely installed in all telco facilities where damage
cannot occur even 100 years ago.
In every case, protection is defined by better earthing. Not by
some magic box that also does not even claim (in numeric specs) to
provide that protection..