UPS Recommendations?
(PeteCresswell)
It works, but it seems to me like APC is selling batteries. To wit, the thing's
software started telling me it was replacement time and "helpfully" pointing me
to APC's battery sales site.
Went down to Radio Shack instead and got a couple of the things that seem to
spec identically. Lifted the harness from the old set and replaced them.
But either I messed up on a connection somewhere or APC as something proprietary
built into their batteries.
Either way, I'm shopping.
Anybody got something that:
----------------------------------------------------------
1) They're happy with.
2) Takes some sort of standard widely-available battery?
3) Will run 400 watts for, say, 30 minutes or more?
----------------------------------------------------------
A nice touch would be having the batteries external to the unit and the ability
to daisy-chain additional batteries for increased capacity.
--
PeteCresswell
Mark A
news:3bceh2lt2hgg99d7e...@4ax.com...
First, I would monitor the reserve time, and until it goes down below an
acceptable level, there is probably no need to replace the battery.
There are companies that sell third party batteries for most UPS models that
are cheaper than the APC brand. I would check out some sites as
www.batteriesplus.com where you can get a replacement for about $60.00.
Radio Shack is usually a rip-off.
Of course, it sounds like you may have damaged the unit some how, in which
case buying a new battery will not help. You should be able to put the old
battery back in and see if it works.
Barry Watzman
batteries, and I've replaced a dozen or so batteries with non-APC
batteries with no problems. My guess is you somehow messed up. UPS
batteries do fail, usually after 3 ot 6 years, and the cost of replacing
batteries at the end-user level can approach the cost of the entire UPS
(we can't buy them in 1,000 unit lots like APC can). But next time, get
the APC p/n for the batteries for your unit, then check E-Bay. You will
be amazed at what you find ... exact replacement batteries from many
sources far cheaper (including shipping, which is often as much as the
battery (lead is heavy)) than APC or, for that matter, Radio Shack.
Mitch Crane
news:3bceh2lt2hgg99d7e...@4ax.com:
I used a sealed lawn mower battery. It's been working great for over a
year.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/NghtShd/DSCF3082.jpg
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
DK
I use a new car battery too.
However, I noticed an odor in the room and traced it to the 'sealed'
battery. So I drilled a hole in the wall and set it on the porch so
my family doesn't have to breath hydrocloric acid fumes.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 11:35:43 -0500, Mitch Crane <a-...@a-two.a-three>
wrote:
Mitch Crane
4ax.com:
>
> I use a new car battery too.
>
> However, I noticed an odor in the room and traced it to the 'sealed'
> battery. So I drilled a hole in the wall and set it on the porch so
> my family doesn't have to breath hydrocloric acid fumes.
Yeah, my plan was to make a box with a vent to the outside, but I've never
detected any outgassing. If there is any it isn't much. (Famous last
words?)
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
Ed Medlin
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:3bceh2lt2hgg99d7e...@4ax.com...
contractor nearby that has a retail store and they carry about all the major
manufacturer batteries for about 1/2 the price of the APC ones. I have used
my 1500 for about 2.5yrs now and just went and got a spare and installed and
tested it and it worked fine. It is non-branded (OEM) but at least I am
ready for when mine does fail. My battery still reads full (40mins uptime)
so I may not need it for awhile. It has been a lifesaver for us. We live in
a very rural area and our power is variable to say the least. I also have
another 1500 for my home theater system. They work very well and do exactly
what they are supposed to. We used to have a lot of problems with failed
components after brown/black outs and since we put in the two APC 1500s we
have had none at all.
Ed
Barry Watzman
life is about 6 years.
(PeteCresswell)
>You may have been premature on buying the new battery. Typical battery
>life is about 6 years.
Anybody know how the APC utility decides when to start nagging the user about
battery replacement? I'm guessing something about voltage of the fully-charged
battery.
--
PeteCresswell
Eric Parker
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
I'm not sure how it detects it but one that I look after started
emailing me warnings.
I was getting about 3 a day. I told the owner straight away and warned
him a couple
of more times over the next 2 weeks when it died making a whistling
noise.
We had to run without UPS for a few days while we got a replacement.
So if it complains I'd swap it immediately.
Eric
--
Remove the dross to contact me directly
(PeteCresswell)
>I used a sealed lawn mower battery. It's been working great for over a
>year.
>
>http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/NghtShd/DSCF3082.jpg
12v or 24?
--
PeteCresswell
Mitch Crane
news:a1mjh294c6ma4e68q...@4ax.com:
12v. That particular unit came with 2 6v batteries wired in series.
--
ybbxvatyvxrnobeantnvayvivatyvxrnurergvpyvfgravatgbneguheyrrerpbeqfznxv
atnyylbhesevraqfsrryfbthvyglnobhggurveplavpvfznaqgurerfgbsgurvetrareng
vbaabgriragurtbireazragnertbaanfgbclbhabjohgnerlbhernqlgborurnegoebxra
DK
wrote:
>"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in
>news:a1mjh294c6ma4e68q...@4ax.com:
>
>> Per Mitch Crane:
>>>I used a sealed lawn mower battery. It's been working great for over a
>>>year.
>>>
>>>http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a126/NghtShd/DSCF3082.jpg
>>
>> 12v or 24?
>
>12v. That particular unit came with 2 6v batteries wired in series.
Mine came with a 12 v battery too.
Peter Finney
>In article <4519431A...@neo.rr.com>, Watzma...@neo.rr.com
>says...
>> You may have been premature on buying the new battery. Typical battery
>> life is about 6 years.
>
>typical batter life, in a residential setting, is between 2 and 5 years
>- according to APC Support technicians. I've seen batteries, new, last
>only 1 year in a setting with lots of power problems.
I had to replace the battery on my APC Backup UPS Pro 650 after about
2.5 years. I concluded that it was running too hot - after moving the
box to improve ventilation it is much cooler.
Before the failure warning it was showing reduced capacity.
Peter Finney
Liphook
Hampshire
England
Kyle
news:gvfkh2liuj02g2c55...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:56:42 GMT, Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
|
| >In article <4519431A...@neo.rr.com>, Watzma...@neo.rr.com
| >says...
| >> You may have been premature on buying the new battery. Typical
battery
| >> life is about 6 years.
| >
| >typical batter life, in a residential setting, is between 2 and 5
years
| >- according to APC Support technicians. I've seen batteries, new,
last
| >only 1 year in a setting with lots of power problems.
|
| I had to replace the battery on my APC Backup UPS Pro 650 after
about
| 2.5 years. I concluded that it was running too hot - after moving
the
| box to improve ventilation it is much cooler.
|
|
It all depends on many mysterious factors, including the UPS's circuit
design, but 2-3 years is a more safe estimate of longevity. I have a
minuteman UPS that does not tolerate much battery degradation, and
needs batteries every couple of years. In fact, recent new batteries
for this unit lasted only 5 months, turns out one of the two 6V
batteries exhibited a voltage dip when the load was initially applied
to it during a power outage, triggering the UPS's circuitry to
indicate battery failure even tho the battery voltage would nearly
immediately return back to near normal levels under load (did some
power resistor tests on the unit). The battery would charge up
properly, but apparently has a manufacturing defect of some sort as
voltage drops of 2-3 volts were observed across one of the batteries
on application of a significant load, then output voltage returned to
normal voltage nearly immediately.
OTOH, I have an APC unit that is a 500 or 600 VAR unit that is about
10 years old, and its batteries lasted 9 years before the unit "puked"
on a power failure. I learned from this that the brand of batteries
does make a difference and prefer Panasonic or Yuasa brand gel cell
sealed batteries over "brand x" type gel cells sold thru retail stores
such as Batteries Plus.
Another factor affecting life span of the batteries is whether the UPS
performs any self tests. I have an APC net-1000 (or some such model)
UPS that uses 2 huge 6v batteries and it is fairly "smart", and
performs battery load testing at some unknown interval and also during
power up events.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
edavi...@gmail.com
getting the nag message at home on my main PC. The battery lasted
about 6 months after the nagging. However, one day the PC would not
boot. I checked and the PSU was failed. I replaced it, and the
second PSU made a sound and failed. I replaced with a third and
bypassed the UPS and was back up.
I had a router, cable modem, and such also plugged into this UPS. They
started acting up. They would quit working, and the router kept
loosing it's configuration.
Ends up the problem was with the UPS and the old battery. I replaced
the battery and all is fine again. The computer and all are back on
this old UPS with a new APC battery.
I could have saved some bucks if I'd of just replaced the battery when
I was reminded to do so. While I used an APC branded battery (though
it is 3rd party) we replace with other brands at work.
I almost went with this Panasonic for $10 less;
http://www.wholesalebatteries.us/replace.cfm/hurl/RBC51/UPS/APC/BE500U/LC-R127R2P1_LC-R127R2P1.htm
But figured I'd go with APC incase something else was wrong with the
UPS.
Barry Watzman
are "standby" UPS .... they don't run on batteries except during a power
"event" ... rather, you are directly connected to the AC power line
through a surge supressor. Thus a bad battery (regardless of how one
defines "bad") can only cause problems when there is a power line
"event" requiring the UPS to switch from the AC power line to the inverter.
edavi...@gmail.com
an outage, or dip. However, the power in my area is very unstable.
The first month I had the UPS, it switched on over 100 times per the
software counter. It's a little better now.
I had 2 PSU's blow and other hardware instability while the bad battery
was in place. Replace the battery, or bypass the UPS and things work
fine. The battery was kicking out about 80V when switched on per VO
meter. It did handle a 100W light okay. What else could it have been
if not the battery? I still have it so I could test it if I new how.
Kyle
news:1159375408.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
It stands to reason that a low input voltage to a PC power supply
might force the switching regulator circuits to work much harder than
normal to maintain rated outputs, causing overheating in the caps and
thus failures, particularly cheap branded PS units with cheap
capacitors. I've also seen cheap caps in more expensive PS units, ya
never know what you're gonna get any more.
As to AC power stability from the power utility, I see brief or
momentary power outages all the time in my area, I live in a large
midwestern US city and see power drops mostly on clear sunny days
(iow, not weather related). Oddly, I usually hear what sounds like a
very loud gunshot in the distance when power dropouts occur (I live
about 1 mile from the power substation). Since I work out of my home,
I invested in UPS protection for all critical systems, and some not so
critical systems (hehe, my gaming rig).
--
Best regards,
Kyle
Barry Watzman
Capacitors are used for filtering. They would not react as you hypothesize.
w_tom
is worse than no UPS. Newer design UPSes will not permit AC power if
the UPS battery is defective so that you remove a non-working UPS. A
desirable feature.
AC electricity comes directly from AC mains - not even through surge
protectors (UPS does not even claim such surge protection in numerical
specifications - that protection is promoted only by myths). If a UPS
battery is dead, you want UPS to not power anything - to announce it is
non-functional.
Typical UPS battery life expectancy is about 3 years. Serious UPS
systems feature a battery life of less than 20 years. Even automobile
batteries exposed to temperature extremes last seven and nine years.
Battery life expectancy is a function of battery quality and of how
battery charge is provided and maintained. But a computer grade UPS is
designed to be 'as cheap as possible' which is why plug-in UPS
batteries die quickly.
Is your UPS battery failing? With a digital volt meter and during a
load, determine UPS battery integrity quickly. There is no reason to
be swapping parts until something works. A meter identifies failures
quickly and can even report a failure before that failure happens.
Human then has sufficient time to find a new battery and prepare for
that failure.
Estimate about three years for a UPS battery. Figure even less time
if UPS is constantly switching to battery backup mode. UPS is for
computer data protection.
Meanwhile, low AC voltage does not cause power supply to work harder.
Computer power supplies even 30 years ago either worked just fine at
all voltages, or shutdown. Low voltage causing power supply failure is
nothing more than speculation, or a power supply that is missing
essential functions. All computer power supplies are required to work
just fine even when voltage drops so low that incandescent bulbs are at
less than 40% intensity. Required even 30+ years ago.
Suspect UPS battery is ready to fail after three years. Others have
demonstrated even faster failure rates. Remember, the plug-in UPS is
designed to be as inexpensive as possible.
Barry Watzman
First, I don't belive that this is true of the class of UPS' that
consumers buy (let's say products under 1KVA and under about $150).
Further, the only way that you would even know if the battery was "dead"
(meaning insufficiently alive to run the UPS for at least a long enough
period of time for the computer to shut down) would be to actually run
off of battery power. Because a no-load measurement of the batttery
voltage doesn't really tell you anything.
The way that the retail UPS' work is that they run the AC mains through
a surge protector to the "surge protected" outlets. [I categorically
challenge your assertion that "UPS does not even claim such surge
protection" -- in fact, all of the APC retail class of UPS' have two
distinct sets of outlets, labeled (on my unit under this desk) "surge
protected" and "battery backup plus surge protection"].
The surge protected AC mains also goes to a relay. The load is
connected to the armature of the relay, which can switch between the
surge protected AC mains and the output of the inverter (which runs from
the battery). Normally, when AC power is "ok", the load is connected
directly to the surge protected AC mains, and the inverter is either not
running at all, or is only running for phase synchronization, producing
no power. When a "power line event" occurs, the inverter starts and the
relay switches the load from the surge protected AC mains to the
inverter output. The load is presumed to be capable of handling an
interruption of up to one AC power line cycle (16 milliseconds) for the
inverter startup and switching to occur. On most products the relay is
a mechanical relay and you can hear it "click" as the switch occurs.
There are "full time" UPS' that always run the load from the inverter,
but they are relatively expensive and they are not in the class of
products that are commonly sold in a retail environment for use with PC
class products.
Kyle
switching supply are typically rated at 105 degrees C? It is fair to
assume this rating is necessary because the current flowing in the
filter caps of a typical buck converter circuit is substantial and
does induce significant heat in the output filters. Now, consider the
scenario created by an undervoltage input condition, either the power
switching devices will fail due to the need to conduct more current to
maintain output voltages, or the output caps will fail due to higher
currents delivered from the coil, assuming a constant power
requirement at the output of the switching circuit (which requirement
is typical). I suppose in a sense your comment is pertinent in that,
according to some experts, it is, in theory, more likely the
semiconductor devices will fail before the output caps fail.
Overcurrent protection circuits limit the maximum current that can
flow in the output filter inductor typically. The need for these
circuits is two-fold, to minimize output voltage overshoot when the
load changes value rapidly, and to prevent overcurrent conditions in
the switching devices and the output caps.
To put it more simply, I've changed more caps in mobo Vcore switching
circuits than I've changed power MOSFETs to repair the circuit to
operational status. What I've seen is caps that can't take the load,
overheat, and blow their seals. Maybe you can more fully explain your
point or offer an alternative analysis.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Barry Watzman" <Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:451AD351...@neo.rr.com...
w_tom
dead battery was replaced. Nothing claimed that function was standard
in all UPSes. But it appears to be a function in some newer UPSes - a
desirable function - and not difficult to design even to these computer
grade (least expensive) UPSes - not what you called 'full time'.
UPSes do not connect "through surge protected" outlets. Disconnect
surge protector components, then plug them into another wall receptacle
outlet. 'Surge protection' circuit remains unchange. Protector
circuit connects as if it was another light bulb on same AC circuit.
There is nothing - no surge protector - between AC mains and
'protected' outlets. If you know otherwise, then describe the
schematic connection (series mode devices) by breaking open a UPS.
If your UPS actually claims surge protection in numerical specs, then
list numbers that define protection for each type of surge. And good
luck. APC stopped discussing types of surges long ago so that
embarrassing questions are not asked. Protection is from a surge that
typically does not cause damage. Manufacturers wants you to assume and
then to promote myths.
Once APC did list a type of surge. Still no numbers that define
proteciton:
> SURGE PROTECTION AND FILTERING
> ...
> Normal mode clamping response time 0 ns, instantaneous
> Normal mode surge voltage let through <5% of test peak voltage
> when subjected to IEEE 587 Cat. A 6kVA test
> Normal mode noise suppression Full time EMI/RFI filtering
You believe a protector circuit sits between AC mains and electronics
- a series mode protector? Good. Then numerical specs also define
number of dBs. None listed. No numbers. Why? Because no series mode
protection exists - nothing between AC mains and UPS relay. Protector
components - MOVs - are shunt mode devices. APC no longer mentions
surge modes so that you will not ask embarrassing questons. Well I am
asking. Where are these nubmers for each type surge? No numbers
because assumed protection does not exist.
Peter Finney
<Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>Re: "Newer design UPSes will not permit AC power if the UPS battery is
>defective so that you remove a non-working UPS. A desirable feature."
>
>First, I don't belive that this is true of the class of UPS' that
>consumers buy (let's say products under 1KVA and under about $150).
It is certainly true of my APC Back-UPS Pro 650
Barry Watzman
ambient temperature inside the power supply as with anything related to
the capacitor itself. But the current flow into/out of the filter caps
can be substantial ... in an extreme case, the caps must momentarily
supply nearly the entire power supply load (20 amps or more), although
only for a very brief time (microseconds).
The capacitors are on the output (secondary) side of the pulse switching
transformer. Therefore, they don't see and are not subject to a low
(undervoltage) condition on the AC power line input, as long as the
input doesn't go so low that the switching circuit can no longer produce
the necessary output on the secondary side (at which point the supply
should simply shut down completely).
The problems that occured with electrolytic caps (that caused massive
numbers of failures in Vcore supplies on motherboards, but also
elsewhere) were due to the use of an improperly formulated electrolyte
in the capacitors. These caps were truly defective the day that they
were manufactured, and you can't attribute anything about the way that
they behaved (or failed) to normal, properly manufactured parts.
Barry Watzman
mains and 'protected' outlets" is simply wrong for the UPS' that I have
taken apart (mostly APC). The incomming line goes to a surge protector
(MOVs and inductors), and everything (both the UPS and those outlets
that don't get battery power) is on the output side of this surge
protector. I won't argue that on some UPS' this is not the case and
that your statement may be correct. But a "quality" UPS should include
surge protection, and the ones that I've opened up do. This is
internal, inside the UPS, it's not something external that the UPS' plug
into.
APC also has (I think; had for sure) a "connected equipment guarantee",
a type of insurance, in which they would cover damage to equipment
connected to their UPS' caused by surges.
w_tom
electricity is delivered to that 'surge protected' receptacle. Know
what an MOV does. It conducts no electricity - acts like an open
switch - until voltage exceeds its threshold or let-through voltage.
That let-through voltage is typically 330 volts. How does 120 volts
appear on the 'surge protected' outlet when it takes 330 volts to start
current through the MOV? You said the incoming line goes through MOVs.
How? MOVs are open circuit switches when no surge exists?
Apparently the UPS was not yet opened to learn what the 'surge
protected' receptacle connects to. Obviously it does not connect
through MOVs. So where is this surge protection? Well, defined was
how MOVs connect. Remove them from the UPS and connect them to the
other outlet in a duplex wall receptacle. Same protector circuit.
2) Meanwhile, numerical specs from that UPS were not provided. Simply
providing those numbers would have proved your claim. You don't
provide numbers because the UPS does not claim to provide such
protection. APC once claimed to protect from one type surge. But it
did not and does not claim to protect from surges that are typically
destructive.
3) Meanwhile look at that "connected equipment guarantee". So full
of fine print exemptions that a claim will never be honored. But
again, they make subjective claims hoping you don't look at those fine
print details nor look at the numerical specifications.
What are components between AC mains and a 'surge protected'
receptacle? A fuse? Fuse is surge protection? Not for one minute.
You said MOVs are in that circuit. Again, they are not. Did you look
- or just assume?
Those too few MOVs - and again, where are numerical specs - do not
connect as assumed. Obvious: when an MOV is understood, it acts as a
normally open circuit switch. But again, where is this protection when
manufacturer does not even claim same in numerical specifications? No
surge protector components between AC mains and relay. No numbers
claim that protection exists. A guarantee chock full of exemptions. So
where is this series mode protection? If my statement is wrong, then
simply list 'in series' electrical components and post numerical
specs. You cite neither because no such devices and series mode
protection exist.
Meanwhile, some UPSes will not provide AC power when battery is not
functional. Battery life expectancy is typically three years. A
multimeter is a powerful tool to identify a failing battery before that
battery actually fails.
Barry Watzman
are connected across the power line (in parallel with the load), not in
series with the load.
The fact that you don't know this very basic information leads me to
totally discredit your knowledge of the entire subject matter of this
thread.
Ken
<Watzma...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> The problems that occured with electrolytic caps (that caused massive
> numbers of failures in Vcore supplies on motherboards, but also
> elsewhere) were due to the use of an improperly formulated electrolyte
> in the capacitors. These caps were truly defective the day that they
> were manufactured, and you can't attribute anything about the way that
> they behaved (or failed) to normal, properly manufactured parts.
http://www.burtonsys.com/bad_BP6/story1.html
http://www.niccomp.com/taiwanlowesr.htm
http://www.edn.com/article/CA255062.html?partner=enews
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=195
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933571,00.asp
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=24596
http://badcaps.net/
w_tom
> Your statement that "There is nothing - no surge protector - between
> AC mains and 'protected' outlets" is simply wrong for the UPS' that I
> have taken apart (mostly APC).
So where are these series mode components? Where are these
components between AC mains and 'protected' outlets? They do not
exist. Now Barry changes - admits those components are connected as if
plugged into the other outlet of a wall receptacle. Barry now admits
those components are connected as I had posted. There are no
components between AC mains. Barry now admits that.
Meanwhile and for the fourth time, cite manufacturer numerical
specifications. Where are these numbers that claim protection exists?
I posted them specs. Why, Barry, do you ignore them specs? Do you
understand those technical words or do you ignore them that say you
have posted in error?
Barry Watzman speculations are not proven with manufacturer facts and
numbers. Manufacturer makes no such claim. AC mains don't connect
through surge protector components as Barry claimed. Barry - for the
third or fourth time: cite manufacturer numbers that make your claims.
No such numbers exist because no such protection exists.
Barry is correct. Higher quality UPSes do provide protection. Why?
Building wide UPSes make a short and necessary connection to earth.
What do MOVs do? Do they somehow absorb what three miles of sky could
not? Of course not. MOVs are shunts - act like switches. Effective
MOVs make a short and necessary connection to earth. High quality
UPSes have that earthing connection ... can provide protection.
A lower quality UPS manufacturer only implies protection. Again,
where are them spec numbers that say otherwise? Barry Watzman has
speculated this into:
> The way that the retail UPS' work is that they run the AC mains
> through a surge protector to the "surge protected" outlets.
That was not true. Barry now admits components instead
> ...are connected ...in parallel with the load ...
Surge protector components are not between AC mains and protected
electronics. IOW there is no series mode protector as Barry originally
stated. Those MOVs (shunt mode protectors) connected across AC mains
see no voltage while a destructive type surge passes through UPS. Just
another reason why those lower quality (plug-in) UPSes do not publish
numbers for surge protection ... leaving Barry to post speculations.
Barry - you did not provide numbers. Meanwhile, I did quote APC
specifications. Those specs never make claims for protection AND those
specs completely ignore the surge type that creates damage. Why?
Lower quality UPSes have no short connection to earth - a damning fact.
They say only enough so that Barry Watzman will speculate.
Plug-in UPS maintains power during blackouts and brownouts.
Effective surge protection is located elsewhere to make that all so
essential connection to earth. Higher quality UPSes make that
necessary earthing connection. Barry does not even post a single
manufacturer number for protection he has speculated. Barry now
concedes that no protector components are between AC mains and
'protected' outlets. Posting "MOVs are connected across the power
line" demonstrates but again: he does not even know the many transients
modes; does not have information taught to first year electrical
engineers.
So Barry accuses me of ignorance? The lurker is warned about those
who somehow know - and cannot even cite a manufacturer spec number.
Computer grade UPS uses battery only during power loss. However, as
posted and as Peter Finney also notes (and Barry denies), some UPSes
will not connect AC mains directly to electronics if battery has
failed.
Barry Watzman
bud--
w_tom wrote:
> Barry - you said
> > Your statement that "There is nothing - no surge protector - between
> > AC mains and 'protected' outlets" is simply wrong for the UPS' that I
> > have taken apart (mostly APC).
>
> So where are these series mode components? Where are these
> components between AC mains and 'protected' outlets? They do not
> exist. Now Barry changes - admits those components are connected as if
> plugged into the other outlet of a wall receptacle. Barry now admits
> those components are connected as I had posted. There are no
> components between AC mains. Barry now admits that.
>
Based on a remarkably dense reading of Barry's "through" statement.
>
> Barry is correct. Higher quality UPSes do provide protection. Why?
> Building wide UPSes make a short and necessary connection to earth.
> What do MOVs do? Do they somehow absorb what three miles of sky could
> not? Of course not. MOVs are shunts - act like switches. Effective
> MOVs make a short and necessary connection to earth. High quality
> UPSes have that earthing connection ... can provide protection.
>
w_ believes that plug-in surge suppressors (including those in UPSs)
can't work.
The best information I have seen on surge protection is at
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
- w_tom provided the link to this guide
- the title is "How to protect your house and its contents from
lightning: IEEE guide for surge protection of equipment connected to AC
power and communication circuits"
- it was published by the IEEE in 2005
- the IEEE is the dominant organization of electrical and electronic
engineers in the US
A second guide is
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf
- this is the "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to
protect the appliances in your home"
- it is published by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the US government agency formerly called the National
Bureau of Standards
- it was published in 2001
Both guides were intended for wide distribution to the general public
to explain surges and how to protect against them. The IEEE guide was
targeted at people who have some (not much) technical background. Read
one (or both) to understand surges and protection
Both say plug-in surge suppressors are effective.
Plug-in surge suppressors, as described clearly in the IEEE guide, work
primarily by clamping the voltages on all wires (power and signal) to
the common ground at the surge suppressor. They are not series mode and
are not primarily shunt mode. Since this violates w_'s religious view
of a "short and necessary connection to earth" he apparently can't read
and understand these guides.
bud--
w_tom
> The components are readily visible inside the UPS when you take it apart.
Barry now admits there is nothing between the electronics
('protected' receptacles) and AC mains - that MOVs are not in series as
he originally claimed. Barry now admits that the UPS manufacturer does
not provide numerical specifications for surge protection - does not
claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. Barry now
admits a "connected equipment guarantee" is so chock full of
exemptions as to not be honored. Barry even admits that some UPSes
will not power from AC mains if battery is defective.
Meanwhile, low voltage does not cause damage as was required by
indutry standards more than 30 years ago. Either electronics work just
fine, or must shut down. Intel specs demand a computer must work just
fine even when AC mains voltage is so low that incadescant lamps are
less than 40% intensity. Barry apparently denies that low voltage does
not cause hardware damage. Those fails that Barry claims, using only
observation and speculation, are attributed to facts posted by Kyle and
Ken.
Barry Watzman
w_tom
> MOV's are across the lines, but there are inductors in series with it.
Again, Barry demonstrates no grasp of a concept even taught to first
year electrical engineers. Barry, APC specifications were posted so
that you could learn. From those specs:
> Normal mode clamping response time 0 ns, instantaneous
> Normal mode surge voltage let through <5% of test peak voltage ...
> Normal mode noise suppression Full time EMI/RFI filtering
Is there an MOV between two power wires? Yes. Large enough? Barry
does not know.
Above quoted APC specs said that MOV exists. And then we move on to
a basic electrical concept that Barry does not grasp. A typically
destructive surge comes down those AC wires - creates no voltage across
that MOV - and damages electronics. MOV does not even see the typically
destructive type of transient. Barry - learn what even first year EEs
are taught. I can bury an MOV in my front yard. Will that also
protect electronics?
Barry - a destructive surge does not even create a voltage across
that MOV as the surge creates maybe 6,000 volts across adjacent
electronics. Barry - you still don't understand (and avoid discussing)
other types of surges - a concept even taught to first year EEs. Even
the manufacturer does not claim such protection. Barry - you don't
understand why earthing is so critical to effective protection. Barry
- you don't understand why higher quality UPSes (ie building wide
UPSes) have that short and necessary connection to earth. You don't
even grasp a basic concept taught to first year EEs.
But again, Barry, where are those manufacturer numerical
specifications from your UPS? Why do you not quote those numbers? Why
do you claim what the manufacturer does not even claim? Either you
don't know where to find those specs, or you fear other problems
exposed by those numbers.
Provided (not by Barry) were APC specifications that said that MOV
between AC power wires does exist. Barry said:
> MOV's are across the lines ...
But an MOV across those lines will not solve - may not even see - a
surge that typically damages electronics. No wonder APC does not
mention other surge types - so that those, like Barry, will speculate
protection that does not exist.
Barry posts only single sentences so that you will not notice how
little he really knows. Barry cannot even cite manufacturer numbers for
protection. Why? Such protection does not exist.
Michael W. Ryder
The reason No manufacturer will post numbers is that these numbers are
dependent on more than just the surge protector! The quality of the
wiring, grounding, equipment being protected, etc. all have a bearing
on the effectiveness of the surge protection equipment. The
manufacturers are Not going to give out numbers (along with 25 pages of
fine print to detail how these were arrived at) that will be used by
lawyers for a class action suit. Monitor manufacturers learned this the
hard way after they were sued because they stated that a monitor was 15"
measured diagonally. The fact that one inch was lost to the bezel was
enough for a claim of false advertising. Now they state the overall and
usable size.
> Provided (not by Barry) were APC specifications that said that MOV
> between AC power wires does exist. Barry said:
>> MOV's are across the lines ...
> But an MOV across those lines will not solve - may not even see - a
> surge that typically damages electronics. No wonder APC does not
> mention other surge types - so that those, like Barry, will speculate
> protection that does not exist.
>
The only way to truly protect an electronic device is isolation. No
matter how much grounding or impedance you add to the circuit you will
not prevent transients from getting through. The equipment may be able
to handle the transients for a time but they will fail sooner than if
the transients weren't there in the first place. There is no single
answer for the consumer. Businesses may elect to use full-time UPS
systems to protect their equipment but the initial cost, size,
maintenance, and extra heat and power usage are more than most consumers
are willing to put up with.
(PeteCresswell)
>Businesses may elect to use full-time UPS
>systems to protect their equipment but the initial cost, size,
>maintenance, and extra heat and power usage are more than most consumers
>are willing to put up with.
Would I be correct in assuming that with full-time the battery life is much
shorter?
--
PeteCresswell
Michael W. Ryder
Plus you usually need more of them. The last one we used had 20
motorcycle size batteries connected in series. You had to be really
careful finding and replacing bad batteries. The entire unit was around
2 feet square by 3 feet high and weighed over 200 pounds. Plus it
needed a special wall connector (locking type).
Barry Watzman
While the UPS is running off the inverter constantly, the inverter in
turn is running off of a parallel combination of the battery and a DC
battery power supply driven by the AC mains. The DC power supply is
both to charge the battery and also to run the inverter when the AC
mains is supplying normal (or nominal) power. The power supply can run
the inverter without any net draw from the battery as long as there is
AC mains power, so actual battery useage would be no greater than with a
standby UPS.
Barry Watzman
size of the UPS. There are small (under 1KVA) full-time UPS', and there
are large (multi-KVA) standby UPS'.
Michael W. Ryder
> No, not generally.
>
> While the UPS is running off the inverter constantly, the inverter in
> turn is running off of a parallel combination of the battery and a DC
> battery power supply driven by the AC mains. The DC power supply is
> both to charge the battery and also to run the inverter when the AC
> mains is supplying normal (or nominal) power. The power supply can run
> the inverter without any net draw from the battery as long as there is
> AC mains power, so actual battery useage would be no greater than with a
> standby UPS.
>
>
had in our office used AC power to charge the batteries which were then
used by an inverter to supply power to the equipment. The unit was
capable of bypassing the batteries if necessary but normally didn't.
The reason we used this style was to completely remove all the
transients in the AC power. Before installing the unit we had monthly
failures of our disk drives and CPU. These were 75 MB disk packs and
had about 10 large boards full of discrete components and integrated
circuits. We upgraded the grounding of the building and installed a
stand-alone isolation transformer on the circuit with little affect.
The maintenance company ran a monitor on the power and found constant
transients in the power even after the upgrades. We installed the UPS
and the problems totally disappeared. The power was not "dirty" enough
to be cleaned up by a stand-by UPS but was dirty enough to stress all
the components.
Barry Watzman
What you describe is correct, however, the output of the power supply
that is charging the batteries is also the input to the inverter (as
long as the is AC mains power). Effectively, the battery and the DC
power supply derived from the AC mains (the "battery charger", if you
will) are in parallel, so that the inverter (which is directly running
the load) will run from either. However, the capacity of the DC supply
is such that (again, as long as there is AC mains power) there is no net
discharge from the battery.
Because there is no net discharge from the battery, the battery life is
the same as it would be in an equivalent "standby" UPS (which was the
original question).
And yes, you are also correct that since the load is at all times
operating off of the inverter, not (directly) the AC mains, this
completely eliminates transients (and all other AC mains power problems).
There's no doubt that it's cleaner power than a "standby" UPS, since the
latter actually runs the load from the AC mains unless there is an
"event" beyond it's trigger threshold. Many types of transients and
noise, especially those of short duration, do not trigger a transfer.
And even though there may be filtering and surge supression, it's never
absolutely totally effective. Consequently, a full-time online
sine-wave UPS is undoubtedly the ultimate in power protection. It's
also the most expensive protection you can buy, but definitely justifed
for some applications.
By the way, my qualifications:
I'm 57 years old, had an FCC amateur radio license at age 13, and a
commercial license to run 50,000 watt transmitters at age 16; worked as
an AM/FM/TV broadcast engineer while in high school (1960's). I'm a
degreed Electrical Engineer (I also have an MBA), and I have a bunch of
computer industry certifications (including A+ and Network+). I worked
both as an engineering manager and as the director of marketing for a
UPS manufacturer; I have also worked for several PC manufacturers in
both engineering and marketing.
w_tom
power supply in a UPS? Noise on AC mains must not cause power supply
failure. Computer components must not be damaged by anything that
comes out of power supply.
Too often, computer assemblers do not know how electricity works.
They buy a power supply only on watts and dollars; supplies that are
missing essential functions. Then computer components do not have
protection, inside a power supply, as even required by Intel specs.
If constant noise on AC mains is damaging computer power supplies,
then noise is also damaging UPS power supplies. Otherwise computer
power supply is defective by design. Most robust power supplies inside
a building should be computer power supplies. Computer grade (standby)
UPSes in battery backup mode output more 'dirt' than on AC mains
because computer power supplies must be so robust. Functions required
inside a power supply are necessary so that computer components cannot
be damaged.
If noise on AC mains is causing computer power supply failure, then
UPSes are also being damaged or something is seriously wrong with those
computer power supplies. Anything inside that UPS (that makes AC mains
noise irrelevant) should have been inside all computers. Sounds as if
symptoms are being cured with a $500 UPSes rather than spend $10 or $30
more for a minimally acceptable computer power supply.
Michael W. Ryder
> Why does AC mains noise harm computer power supply but not harm same
> power supply in a UPS? Noise on AC mains must not cause power supply
> failure. Computer components must not be damaged by anything that
> comes out of power supply.
>
> Too often, computer assemblers do not know how electricity works.
> They buy a power supply only on watts and dollars; supplies that are
> missing essential functions. Then computer components do not have
> protection, inside a power supply, as even required by Intel specs.
>
> If constant noise on AC mains is damaging computer power supplies,
> then noise is also damaging UPS power supplies. Otherwise computer
> power supply is defective by design. Most robust power supplies inside
> a building should be computer power supplies. Computer grade (standby)
> UPSes in battery backup mode output more 'dirt' than on AC mains
> because computer power supplies must be so robust. Functions required
> inside a power supply are necessary so that computer components cannot
> be damaged.
>
> If noise on AC mains is causing computer power supply failure, then
> UPSes are also being damaged or something is seriously wrong with those
> computer power supplies. Anything inside that UPS (that makes AC mains
> noise irrelevant) should have been inside all computers. Sounds as if
> symptoms are being cured with a $500 UPSes rather than spend $10 or $30
> more for a minimally acceptable computer power supply.
>
The equipment in question was not failing at the power supply. The
components on the multiple large circuit boards were failing. The power
supply was not removing the noise from the line and this was stressing
the components faster than designed for. The UPS was not a $500 special
but cost around $4,000 but it was well worth it. The loss in time and
productivity to have the failed boards replaced at least monthly was
more than the cost of the UPS.
As to the design of the power supply in these disk drives and CPU I can
not say if they were properly designed for this type of stress, we are
near a number of large commercial operations which create a lot of noise
on the power lines and the lines themselves are old.
My point was that no single component is adequate for protecting
computer, or any electronic, equipment. You need adequate power from
the power company, adequate wiring in the premises, adequate grounding,
adequate backup power and surge protection, and adequate components in
the electronic equipment itself. When one or more of the above could be
substandard the rest should be able to handle the problem.
w_tom
supply and cause failure to any large circuit board. A properly
constructed power supply does that with layer after layer of filters,
galvanic isolation, conversions of AC to DC to AC again, etc.
If AC mains noise caused computer component failure, the power supply
is missing essential functions - as was posted before. So one saves
$10 or $30 on a power supply - buys only on dollars and watts? Then
one needs a $500+ UPS to provide that missing protection?
If power supply is that defective, then spikes and noise created by a
computer grade UPS when in battery backup mode would also cause
problems. Why are they called computer grade power UPSes? Because the
power supply must make all that dirty electricity irrelevant AND
protect all computer parts from that type of problem.
Industry standards provide numbers that demand power supplies make AC
mains noise and things much worse irrelevant. But power supplies
dumped into the market to so many computer experts somehow are missing
such functions to sell at $10 and $30 less.
You said noise exists but provided no numbers. I suspect you solved
that problem with a $4000 UPS by curing symptoms. A properly
constructed power supply makes noise irrelevant. $500+ because power
supply costs $10 or $30 less? I see this reasoning too often because so
many computers are constructed by people who don't even know how
electricity works. "When one or more of the above could be
substandard", then why spend $4000 to fix a problem created by a cheap,
inferior, and $30 less power supply. Computers must have substantial
protection from surges, noise, low voltages, etc all inside the power
supply. Therefore power supply manufacturers are making a fortune
dumping inferior supplies into the computer market. A market where so
many computer experts don't even know how electricity works.
Power supply's job is to make AC mains noise, harmonics, low voltage,
and other repeated variations completely irrelevant to computer
components - so that computer components are not damaged even if that
power supply fails catastrophically.
Michael W. Ryder
When you have $20,000+ pieces of equipment on lease and maintenance it
is Not your decision to replace the power circuitry. It was costing the
maintenance company a lot of money to constantly repair the equipment
but the powers that be would not spend the money to determine what the
problem was and fix it. Our only alternative was to make the
"substandard" power supply irrelevant.
Michael W. Ryder
> In article <nxgUg.15318$QZ1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> _mwr...@worldnet.att.net says...
>> When you have $20,000+ pieces of equipment on lease and maintenance it
>> is Not your decision to replace the power circuitry. It was costing the
>> maintenance company a lot of money to constantly repair the equipment
>> but the powers that be would not spend the money to determine what the
>> problem was and fix it. Our only alternative was to make the
>> "substandard" power supply irrelevant.
>
> everyone how that a UPS provides no benefit under any conditions. He
> will say that a UPS just won't offer ANY protection against surges.
>
I realize this, he has been doing this for many years, but post to
educate others who might have been taken in by him.
w_tom
> w_tom appears to search google looking for UPS/Power threads and telling
> everyone how that a UPS provides no benefit under any conditions. He
> will say that a UPS just won't offer ANY protection against surges.
And Leythos routinely posts only insults - cannot post any numbers or
facts.
Long ago, Leythos was asked to provide a manufacturer numerical spec
for this protection he had only assumed. He could not. He still does
not. He knows only posts insults.
Some appreciate what even Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752. Surges
are made irrelevant by earthing. What makes the lightning rod
effective? Pointed or blunt rod? Of course not. Earthing. What do
telcos, commercial broadcasting stations, and 911 emergency response
centers install to work during every thunderstorm without damage?
Earthing. What does Leythos deny? Earthing. His proof that
undersized and overpriced plug-in protectors are effective? Insults.
Meanwhile, where is this manufacturer numerical spec that agrees with
Leythos? Leythos cannot provide it because it does not exist. No
earth ground means no effective protection. Some will believe Leythos
only because he ridiules. Others instead want numbers, facts - and
even manufacturer numerical specs - that Leythos cannot and will not
provide.
w_tom
> I realize this, he has been doing this for many years, but post to
> educate others who might have been taken in by him.
Fine. Just post manufacturer numerical specs that define protection
for each type of surge - including the type that typically causes
damage. Michael cannot do that because plug-in manufacturers do not
even claim such protection. Sales are promoted by undersizing
protectors so that smoke promotes more sales. Sales are promoted by
installing protection from one type of surge - and leaving the naive to
assume that is protection from all types of surges.
It would be so easy for Michael W Ryder to dispute what I post. All
Michael need do is cite manufacturer numerical specs. No such specs
exist because plug-in protectors ... without that all so critical 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth ... cannot provide and do not claim
such protection.
No earth ground means no effective protection. Protectors from
responsible manufacturers have a dedicated earthing wire. Michael will
not even provide manufacturer numerical specs because no such
protection exists.
What do UPSes with effective protection have? Those building wide
UPSes also make the short connection to earth using a dedicated
connection. Plug-in UPSes have no such earthing connection and
therefore provide no numerical specifications. Michael cannot post
what does not exist. So he attacks the messenger - and hopes that is
technical proof.
Michael W. Ryder
> Michael W. Ryder wrote:
>> I realize this, he has been doing this for many years, but post to
>> educate others who might have been taken in by him.
>
> Fine. Just post manufacturer numerical specs that define protection
> for each type of surge - including the type that typically causes
> damage. Michael cannot do that because plug-in manufacturers do not
> even claim such protection. Sales are promoted by undersizing
> protectors so that smoke promotes more sales. Sales are promoted by
> installing protection from one type of surge - and leaving the naive to
> assume that is protection from all types of surges.
>
> It would be so easy for Michael W Ryder to dispute what I post. All
> Michael need do is cite manufacturer numerical specs. No such specs
> exist because plug-in protectors ... without that all so critical 'less
> than 10 foot' connection to earth ... cannot provide and do not claim
> such protection.
>
WHERE did I say that everything you posted was wrong????? As I posted
to an earlier post which you seem to have ignored the manufacturers will
NOT provide specs to be used by some shyster for a class action lawsuit.
My posts were about UPS systems that totally remove the AC circuit
from the equation, not about stand-by UPS systems. Whole building
grounds will NOT protect equipment from transients without other
equipment. Our office installed the above as the first step when
encountering power problems. Total effect of zero. Same for an
isolation transformer. Only after running the equipment off of batter
power did the problems go away. Nothing was ever said about surge
protectors as our problems were with transients too small for a surge
protector.
> No earth ground means no effective protection. Protectors from
> responsible manufacturers have a dedicated earthing wire. Michael will
> not even provide manufacturer numerical specs because no such
> protection exists.
>
See above.
> What do UPSes with effective protection have? Those building wide
> UPSes also make the short connection to earth using a dedicated
> connection. Plug-in UPSes have no such earthing connection and
> therefore provide no numerical specifications. Michael cannot post
> what does not exist. So he attacks the messenger - and hopes that is
> technical proof.
>
WHO is attacking who here???? Why don't YOU post some specs showing
what your vaunted whole building ground can do??? Because you can't I
bet. I post examples of problems I have personally been involved in and
the final solution, you post attacks saying I can't provide numbers.
Numbers are worthless, results are all that counts.
This thread is done for me.
bud--
w_tom wrote:
> Michael W. Ryder wrote:
> > I realize this, he has been doing this for many years, but post to
> > educate others who might have been taken in by him.
>
> Fine. Just post manufacturer numerical specs that define protection
> for each type of surge - including the type that typically causes
> damage. Michael cannot do that because plug-in manufacturers do not
> even claim such protection. Sales are promoted by undersizing
> protectors so that smoke promotes more sales. Sales are promoted by
> installing protection from one type of surge - and leaving the naive to
> assume that is protection from all types of surges.
>
protection for each type of surge" for any of your favorite
manufacturers. Your manufacturers apparently "do not even claim such
protection".
Any decent plug in suppressor or UPS with surge protection has MOVs
from H-G, N-G and H-N as shown in the IEEE guide on surges. They handle
common mode and transverse mode surges. You may not be able to figure
out how they work, but the IEEE and NIST can.
The obvious fix for undersized is not to buy undersized suppressor.
>
> No earth ground means no effective protection. Protectors from
> responsible manufacturers have a dedicated earthing wire.
>
Your religious views on earth ground are not relevant. The IEEE guide
clearly describes plug-in suppressors as clamping all wires to a common
ground at the suppressor. Earthing is not the primary method of
protection.
The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective.
That also applies to UPSs with built in surge protection.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0
bud--
w_tom
provide numerical specifications for each transient type. So many
manufacturers to quote from. Bud cannot even find one to quote?
Exactly.
Bud promotes a myth about protecting from both common mode and
transvers mode. Fine. Manufacturer specifications say that? No. Why
does Bud claim what even the manufacturers do not publish? Notice the
plural - manufacturers. So many manufacturers and yet Bud cannot find
even one with those numerical specs?
Bud is again posting this myth:
> The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective.
Bud's own citations don't make recommendations. His own citations
are technical discussions about what may work and how it may fail.
Instead we go to an IEEE *Standard* for recommendations:
IEEE Red Book (Standard 141) says:
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
What type of UPS makes that earthing connection? Building wide UPSes
have a short and dedicated earthing wire. Plug-in UPSes have no such
earthing wire - which explains why those UPS numerical specs don't even
claim such protection. Remember those specification numbers that
neither Bud nor Michael Ryder provide?
IEEE also recommends effective protection in another *standard*:
IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
> not result in damage.
IEEE Green book also discusses earthing for lightning protection.
IEEE says what is required: earth ground. Bud repeatedly denies this.
No earth ground means no effective protection. IEEE Standard 141 and
IEEE Standard 142 are quite specific on what is required for effective
protection: earthing. What does Bud say?
> Earthing is not the primary method of protection.
Bud follows me around everywhere posting some mythical protection
without earthing. Some mythical protection that even manufacturers do
not claim. IEEE Std 141 and 142 have been quoted to him repeatedly.
So why does he even misrepresent IEEE? IEEE is quite blunt about what
is necessary AND what has been proven for protection long before WWII.
Earthing. Bud will say most anything to deny this 'well grounded'
reality.
bud-- wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
> ...
bud--
On Oct 5, 6:23 am, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> Bud claims UPSes are effective surge protection and yet does not
> provide numerical specifications for each transient type. So many
> manufacturers to quote from. Bud cannot even find one to quote?
> Exactly.
>
> Bud promotes a myth about protecting from both common mode and
> transvers mode. Fine. Manufacturer specifications say that? No. Why
> does Bud claim what even the manufacturers do not publish? Notice the
> plural - manufacturers. So many manufacturers and yet Bud cannot find
> even one with those numerical specs?
>
To repeat:
You have never provided "manufacturer numerical specs that define
protection for each type of surge" for any of your favorite
manufacturers.
So many manufacturers and yet w_ cannot find even one with those
numerical specs? Could be another of your bs claims??
And repeating"
Any decent plug in suppressor or UPS with surge protection has MOVs
from H-G, N-G and H-N as shown in the IEEE guide on surges. They handle
common mode and transverse mode surges. You may not be able to figure
out how they work, but the IEEE and NIST can.
>
> > The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective. Bud's own citations don't make recommendations. His own citations
> are technical discussions about what may work and how it may fail.
To take only one example: the IEEE guide, chapter 6, "SPECIFIC
PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2 examples of surge protection. Both use
SREs.
Saying the guides take a lot of space describing, but not recommending
plug-in surge protectors is stupid. Repeatedly making this claim
requires willful stupidity.
The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective
(and UPSs with built in surge protection).
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0
Your links ot manufacturer specs "that define protection for each type
of surge": 0.
bud--
w_tom
requote what the IEEE recommends. IEEE Standards 141 and 142 define
what effective protection must accomplish. Recommendations in IEEE Red
Book and IEEE Green Book are in direct contradiction to what Bud claims
and what the plug-in protector manufacturer hopes you will assume.
IEEE is quite blunt about what is essential to effective protection -
earthing:
IEEE Red Book (Std 141):
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
> not result in damage.
Bud will recommend plug-in UPS and yet cannot even provide a single
manufacturer numerical spec that claims such protection.
Scary pictures of products that Bud recommends:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
bud-- wrote:
> To repeat:
> You have never provided "manufacturer numerical specs that define
> protection for each type of surge" for any of your favorite
> manufacturers.
>
> So many manufacturers and yet w_ cannot find even one with those
> numerical specs? Could be another of your bs claims??
>
> And repeating"
> Any decent plug in suppressor or UPS with surge protection has MOVs
> from H-G, N-G and H-N as shown in the IEEE guide on surges. They handle
> common mode and transverse mode surges. You may not be able to figure
> out how they work, but the IEEE and NIST can.
> ...
bud--
On Oct 5, 5:25 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> Again Bud posts accusations and claims - and yet will not even
> requote what the IEEE recommends. IEEE Standards 141 and 142 define
> what effective protection must accomplish. Recommendations in IEEE Red
> Book and IEEE Green Book are in direct contradiction to what Bud claims
> and what the plug-in protector manufacturer hopes you will assume.
The 5 EEs who wrote the IEEE guide have read the Red and Green books.
The IEEE guide recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as effective.
> Bud will recommend plug-in UPS and yet cannot even provide a single
> manufacturer numerical spec that claims such protection.
>
The first plug--in surge suppressor I found was
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=124817
Belkin
1770 joules
90,000-Amp maximum spike current
That sounds like manufacturer specs
And as I said, specs for different modes is a bs argument - you have
not provided that information from any manufacturer.
> Scary pictures of products that Bud recommends:
Pathetic scare tactics.
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
The Hanford link specifically references the new UL standard with
thermal disconnect as a fix.
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
The 2nd and 3rd links are the same. Both give guidelines for using
plug-in suppressors
None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
The 4th link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.
The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Add to that the 4 horror picture sites.
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0
And still missing - your links to sites that have common and
transverse mode ratings for service panel suppressors, ratings which
you say are essential - for other people.
bud--
w_tom
and that is why his citations also define how his protection can be
compromised even by a kid with an Xbox.
But again return to what IEEE recommends. Not in a technical
discussion. IEEE recommendations are in standards that Bud will not
even discuss. Why would he discuss a recommendation that demonstrates
plug-in protectors as ineffective? Why would he discuss a *standard*
that recommends the 'whole house' protector?
What Bud hopes you will forget. IEEE Red Book (Std 141):
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.
IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding':
> Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
> diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
> not result in damage.
Scary pictures were so common in the 1980s that PC Magazine even had
two feature articles on how frequently undersized and mislocated
protectors created those scary pictures. Therefore UL has required
backup safety devices in all protectors - for decades. Why do recent
scary pictures still threaten fire? UL backup system alone is not
sufficient. Just another reason why properly sized plug-in protectors
are, instead, located in a safer place AND with the 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth.
Again, scary pictures because human safety is dependent only on a UL
required backup safety device:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
Meanwhile, UL requires certain numbers be lists - numbers for human
safety. Manufacturer does not list each type surge and numbers for
each surge. Why? It protects only from one type of surge so that you
will call it surge protection. UPSes typically contain numbers so
small - so few joules - as to be all but no surge protection. Bud
hopes you will overlook a pathetically few joules inside a UPS. Too
few joules - enough to proclaim protection to the naive. Bud also hopes
you forget to ask for protection for each type surge. Why? Where
protection does not exist, then numbers do not exist. Those same
numbers that Bud forgot to promote in order to promote myths.
Those who politicians fear and hate, instead, demand numbers.
Protection inside a UPS is typically so grossly undersized as to be
ineffective. Bud, who promotes for plug-in protectors manufacturers,
fears you might learn why plug-in UPSes and plug-in protectors are so
ineffective. He even posts numbers required for UL - human safety - as
if that were numbers for transistor safety. Again, he knows he is
deceiving you.
Bud refuses to acknowledge or admit to what IEEE recommends in Red
Book and Green Book ... because plug-in protectors violate that
recommendation.
bud-- wrote:
> On Oct 5, 5:25 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
> ...
> The 5 EEs who wrote the IEEE guide have read the Red and Green books.
> The IEEE guide recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as effective.
> ...
>
> The first plug--in surge suppressor I found was
> http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=124817
> Belkin
> 1770 joules
> 90,000-Amp maximum spike current
> That sounds like manufacturer specs
> And as I said, specs for different modes is a bs argument - you have
> not provided that information from any manufacturer.
> ...
>
> Pathetic scare tactics.
> ...
> The Hanford link specifically references the new UL standard with
> thermal disconnect as a fix.
> ...
bud--
On Oct 6, 7:22 pm, "w_tom" <w_t...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> But again return to what IEEE recommends. Not in a technical
> discussion. IEEE recommendations are in standards that Bud will not
> even discuss. Why would he discuss a recommendation that demonstrates
> plug-in protectors as ineffective? Why would he discuss a *standard*
> that recommends the 'whole house' protector?
>
> What Bud hopes you will forget. IEEE Red Book (Std 141):....
> .IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) ....
>
#1
You have to be stupid to think the IEEE would publish a guide to the
general public that is not consistent with the IEEE color books. Maybe
if you tried real hard you could understand the IEEE and NIST guides
> Scary pictures were so common in the 1980s that PC Magazine ....
>
As you know thhe UL standard has been changed to require MOVs
disconnect when they overheat.The PCmag articles were long before that.
Maybe if you read your hanford link...
> Again, scary pictures because human safety is dependent only on a UL
> required backup safety device:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
> http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf
> http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
>
And the pathetic horror pics again. None of the sites say protectors
under the current standard are a problem and thy are certainly not
against plug-in surge suppressors.
> UPSes typically contain numbers so
> small - so few joules - as to be all but no surge protection. Bud
> hopes you will overlook a pathetically few joules inside a UPS.
Not at all. A UPs may not be designed effective for surge protection.
One can plug a UPS into a plug-in surge suppressor.
> . Bud also hopes
> you forget to ask for protection for each type surge. Why? Where
> protection does not exist, then numbers do not exist. Those same
> numbers that Bud forgot to promote in order to promote myths.
>
Never seen - any site from w_ with the stats he requires others to
furnish. Another bs argument.
> Bud, who promotes for plug-in protectors manufacturers,
To quote w_: -again- "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot
be challenged technically, then attack the messenger.."
>
> Bud refuses to acknowledge or admit to what IEEE recommends in Red
> Book and Green Book ... because plug-in protectors violate that
> recommendation.
>
Repeat #1. The IEEE published one of the guides.
For those who can read and think, IEEE and NIST guides say that
plug-in suppressors are effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
And add the 4 horror picture sites.
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
always 0
And -still- missing - your links to sites that have common and
transverse mode ratings for service panel suppressors, ratings which
you say are essential - for other people.
bud--