 |
|
|
|
Related Topics:
| Using compters at opposite ends of the house - Hi, I have a cable TV to the net. It comes in to a cable modem, then one cable goes out to a and one goes to a Windows desk top. We built a new room on at the far side of the house, and the signal is not strong enough..
Rental House Database Software for OS X ? - Some friends are starting a rental house and related items) and are looking for inventory and billing software that runs on a Mac. Hopefully something that won't be difficult to build into a web site later. It's a small..
The XFace Follies -- Two Failures and One Success! - Today I wanted to create an XFace to use with my of choice. (For some time I did have an XFace with Hogwasher but it somehow got lost when I my system.) I used Adobe CS2 to create a 48 by 48 pixel..
[9.2.2] iCab 3.0.3 on Power Mac G4 - Hello, This is to report on my efforts to get iCab 3.0.3 to work on my system. I've been quits with Type 2 error when telling this version of iCab to go to any URL (I'm using as a test). This is with my..
Power Point for those not using MS? - My sister has some el Cheapo version of MicroSoft that will not enable her to view files that I send her. I have also had problems sending her MS Word files and getting her to be able to open them. Is there a Can I use my..
|
|
|
Next: General Discussion: Apple Mail setting ?
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: May 28, 2005
Posts: 1095
|
(Msg. 76) Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:19 am
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: comp>sys>mac>apps (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:19:01 -0500, bud-- wrote
(in article <62f0c$47b53b7f$4213eb82$4595@DIALUPUSA.NET>):
> The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on
> all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. No one but w_ talks
> about stopping or absorbing surges.
Absolutely correct.
I've got a surge protector which does exactly that, and is rated at 1.5 kJ,
in front of each of my UPSes, precisely because the built-in surge protection
in the UPSes is limited... because they're designed for battery support, not
surge protection. A direct hit from a lightening strike will still blow right
past the surge protector, and the surge protection in the UPS... but not past
the AC/DC converter, the battery, and the DC/AC converter. Anything less than
a direct hit by a lightening strike will be stopped by the surge protector
and/or the surge protection in the UPS.
There's a _reason_ I recommend a UPS, not a SPS... and all his arguments seem
to be aimed against SPSes. And he misses with most of even those.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 77) Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:47 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 15, 6:19 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not....RemoveThis@but.see.sig> wrote:
> I've got a surge protector which does exactly that, and is rated at 1.5 kJ,
> in front of each of my UPSes, precisely because the built-in surge protection
> in the UPSes is limited... because they're designed for battery support, not
> surge protection. A direct hit from a lightening strike will still blow right
> past the surge protector, and the surge protection in the UPS... but not past
> the AC/DC converter, the battery, and the DC/AC converter. Anything less than
> a direct hit by a lightening strike will be stopped by the surge protector
> and/or the surge protection in the UPS.
If lightning will not blow through UPS's AC/DC converter, then
lightning does not get into a computer. That UPS AC/DC converter does
not have the higher standards required in a computer power supply. If
lightning does not blow through a UPS AC/DC converter, then lightning
does not get into a computer. Computer's supply makes UPS surge
protection completely unnecessary - assuming J J O'Shea's reasoning.
Instead, that UPS AC/DC converter does not provide the protection
assumed.
Lightning will blow right past plug-in surge protector and UPS.
Surges are only stopped in myths. Protection - even Ben Franklin
lightning rods - has always been about diverting surges to earth - as
Bud's NIST citatioin says repeatedly. Surge must be dissipated.
Where? In earth ground. Surge that is not dissipated in earth will
blow right through everything (including comptuer and AC/DC converter)
to get into earth destructively.
Effective protection has always been about earthing a surge BEFORE
it can enter the building. Where is that surge energy dissipiated
harmlessly? Earth. Where is that surge energy dissipated according
to Bud? Inside his plug-in protectors.
Surge protection is to earth surges that cause damage. Direct
lightning strikes are dissipated in earth by effective protection.
A direct strike to AC electric lines down the street is a direct
lightning strike to household appliances. Any surge protector that
does not earth direct strikes is wasted money. A typical lightning
strike is 20,000 amps. A minimally sized 'whole house' protector is
50,000 amps. Same sufficiently sized protector was sold in Home Depot
for over a decade for less than $40.
In other places such as FL, install even better protectors. Why? A
protector must withstand each surge (the direct lightning strike maybe
every two years) for decades without failure. What does Electrical
Engineering Times discuss in "Protecting Electrical Devices from
Lightning Transients"? Not a UPS. Not the grossly undersized
protector promoted by Bud. Protection is about earth ground. How do
FL owners suffer so many lightning strikes without damage? They
install what is required for better surge protection:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
What does the UPS AC/DC converter not connect surges to? Earth
ground.
Protectors are only as effective as its earth ground. J J O'Shea
says protectors do not protect from direct lightning. Reality -
protection such as that UPS does not provide effective protection -
has no earth ground and is typically undersized. Effective protection
protects from all destructive surges - especially lightning. A
protector without earthing is not for surge protection. It is for
profits.
Routine: properly sized protectors earth direct lightning strikes
and remain functional for decades. Scary pictures occur when a
protector is grossly undersized. Some will rationalize a grossly
undersized protector was not intended for surge protection? Then what
is it for? Decoration? Reason to call the local fire department?
Where does that plug-in protector - a complete solution according to
Bud - claim to provide any protection. Where are the numbers?
Numbers don't exist. No wonder your telco would never use products
recommended by Bud. Telcos want protectors that work and that cost so
much less money. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground
which is why no plug-in UPS provides surge protection.
If that UPS AC/DC converter did as J J O'Shea claims, then a power
supply inside every computer (a more robust AC/DC converter as
required by industry ATX specs) makes all surge protectors
unnecessary. Or maybe that AC/DC converter in a UPS does not provide
protection from surges. His UPS provides same protection from 600
volt spikes as required in all electronics even 40 years ago. So yes,
the AC/DC converter provides some protection. Same protection inside
all appliances. Therefore that UPS also needs protection by a
properly earthed 'whole house' protector.
Earth a destructive surge - direct lightning strikes - so that
protection inside all household appliances is not overwhelmed. No UPS
claims to do that. No earth ground means no effective protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 78) Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:54 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 15, 6:12 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... DeleteThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
> Bingo. There's a reason why Florida Power & Light is also known as Florida
> Flicker & Flash. I saw more surges in my first six months in Florida than I'd
> seen in my last two years in Jamaica, and it's not as though JPS (the
> Jamaican power utility) was famous for delivering clean power.
Surge protector failure is acceptable? FL phone service is lost for
about four days every year in every town as the telco replaces that
lightning damaged $multi-million computer. Oh? You are not without
service for four days? That computer connects to overhead wires all
over town. It suffers maybe 100 surges with each thunderstorm. Do
they replace thousands of surge protectors after each storm? Of
course not. They use protectors sufficiently sized to last for
decades - which is what every minimally sufficient protector in FL and
Jamaica should do.
So how do you know that protector is failing? According to MOV
manufacturers (who make this active part), an MOV must always remain
intact and its voltage must only degrade 10%. That failure light
cannot report a degraded MOV - the acceptable MOV failure mode. That
light only reports a type of failure when MOVs are grossly
undersized. So how do you know that protector failed in 18 months or
three years? Did that light report failure - grossly undersized? Or
did you measure a 10% voltage change - acceptable type of failure?
The light reports a failed protector because it was grossly
undersized.
Only a thermal fuse kept that grossly undersized protector from
creating these scary pictures. Since 1986, protectors meet UL safety
standards. And still (because plug-in protectors are so typically
undersized) these scary pictures exist:
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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
A properly sized and properly earthed 'whole house' protector means
the protector remains working in FL and Jamaica for decades. When
protectors don't fail catastrophically, then the naive don't recommend
'whole house' protectors. Instead the naive recommend grossly
undersized plug-in protectors. So grossly undersized that that light
can report an unacceptable type failure. So undersized that, well,
read how that grossly undersized protector threatens fire according to
the Gaston County NC fire marshal. See also the recent Boston fire.
How to increase profits? Grossly undersize a plug-in protector.
Locate it where it creates maximum fire danger. Sell a $3 power strip
with some 10 cent parts for $25 or $150. Then when that light
indicates the most dangerous type of failure, the naive will recommend
more plug-in protectors?
Because FL has more frequent lightning and sandy soil, then typical
minimum standards for protection are demonstrated by pictures from
Gfretwell:
http://members.aol.com/gfretwell/ufer.jpg
Why better earthing - Ufer grounds? Because protection is not
defined by a protector. Protection is defined by earth ground
quality. Some FL homeowners can expect a destructive surge once
every two or three years. Those who upgrade their earthing system
(and connections to that system) avoid surge damage. Also required
are protectors sufficiently sized so to last decades without
failure. Those who know surge protection (and are not promoting a
scam) know that a protector failure every 18 months or three years is
not acceptable - is directly traceable to a grossly undersized
protector. Normal is to have grossly undersized plug-in protectors
fail with each surge - every 18 months or three years. That promotes
sales - the profits that attracts bud.
A protector that is damaged did not provide protection. Just
another reason why we spend less money for a properly sized and
properly earthed 'whole house' protector - especially in FL and
Jamaica. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 79) Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:28 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 15, 2:19 am, bud-- <remove.budn....RemoveThis@isp.com> wrote:
> Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?
NIST says why plug-in protectors - the easiest solutioni - have this
small problem providing protection. Profit are at risk. No earth
ground means no effective protection - as every responsible
engineering source says. Bud again never provides a single manufaturer
number that claims protection. He cannot. How many posts here ask
Bud for that spec. How many times must be avoid reality? Profits are
at risk when he admits no plug-in protector will claim that
protection. None.
Where are spec numbers that prove surge protection? Bud never
answers. He cannot. Promoters are not known for honest answers.
How to identify a scam surge protector? Missing 'less than 10
foot' dedicated connection to earth ground. Every Bud citation states
why earth ground is essential - why the easiest solution even
contributes to damage of adjacent appliance - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud says his complete 'magic box' surge protector absorbs surge
energy. No manufacturer spec makes that protection claim. Bud claims
all that energy exists but gets dissipated no where? Nonense. Either
it is absorbed by the protector OR it is diverted someplace else. All
that energy must be dissipated somewhere. Now Bud claims all that
energy dissappears - does not exist - because it is clamped.
Responsible sources say that energy is clamped to earth ground where
energy is dissipated ... harmlessly Bud says all that energy can be
clamped to the protector's ground ... and all that energy just
dissappears? It must be true. Profits are so large.
When a plug-in protector without earhting attempts to absorb
surges, scary pictures may result. Scary pictures that Bud cannot
dispute - so he attacks me:
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
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
Threat of fire located where fire would be most dangerous - that is
Bud's solution. When profits are so excessive, then why be honest?
Where is surge energy dissipated when the protector has no earthing
connection? Don't worry. Be happy. The grossly undersized protector
is so profitable. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 11, 2008
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 80) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:05 am
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
w_tom wrote:
>
> Where are spec numbers that prove surge protection? Bud never
> answers. He cannot.
w_ just ignores information that does not fit his religious beliefs.
Repeating:
“One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.“
The plug-in suppressor had 2 of these MOVs plus a smaller one. The
suppressor cost under $30. Compare to w_’s value of an average lightning
strike of 20,000A/50,000A whole house rating.
Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
guide, also wrote a technical paper that looks at a *very* strong
100,000A strike to the primary wire on the pole directly behind a house
for a typical urban distribution system. This is a near worst case.
Only 30,000A of the strike flows toward the house on the neutral. The
current on the neutral is directly earthed by the N-G bond in (US)
services. A fraction is coupled to the hot wires. If the strike was
further away, there would be many more paths to earth and the surge
reaching the house would be far smaller.
Note it is not possible to get a 75,000A surge to a house (other than
direct strike), and the branch circuit impedance greatly limits the
current that reaches a plug-in suppressor. The 75,000A MOV rating just
accompanies the very high Joule rating.
=====================
w_ just posts the same lies, misrepresentations and other drivel based
on his religious belief in earthing.
Still *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud-- >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 11, 2008
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 81) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:13 am
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:26:20 -0500, bud-- wrote
> (in article <b852d$47b53d30$4213eb82$4625@DIALUPUSA.NET>):
>>>> Depending on the quality of electrical service in your area, a
>>>> surge protector's MOVs might last 3 years. Or they might last
>>>> 18 months.
>> .
>> Plug-in suppressors are readily available with very high ratings at
>> relatively low cost. "Grossly undersized" is a red herring. If plug-in
>> suppressors only last 3 years you are buying junk or are in an extremely
>> high lightning area.
>
> Bingo. There's a reason why Florida Power & Light is also known as Florida
> Flicker & Flash. I saw more surges in my first six months in Florida than I'd
> seen in my last two years in Jamaica, and it's not as though JPS (the
> Jamaican power utility) was famous for delivering clean power.
>
..
Parts of Florida do sound ‘exciting’.
Francois Martzloff, was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST guide
also wrote many technical papers. One looks at a MOV (simulating a
plug-in suppressor) at the end of a 10-50 meter branch circuit. The
surge is 2,000-10,000A. There is an arc-gap at the source end with a
breakdown voltage of 6,000V. US systems will have arc-over at panels
(and receptacles) at about 6,000V. Arc-over dumps a large percentage of
the surge to earth. This is where much of the surge energy is dissipated
if there is no service panel suppressor. [w_ asks where the energy is
dissipated and ignores this explanation.] Branch circuit impedance
greatly limits the surge current to the MOV.
In all cases the energy dissipated at the MOV was less than 1J except
for a 10M branch circuit and, ironically, the lower current surges below
5,000A. Contrary to intuition, at all branch circuit lengths the energy
dissipation at the MOV was lower as the surge current went up. That was
because the MOV also clamped the voltage at the source spark gap.
Higher current surges forced the voltage at the gap up faster causing it
to break down faster and dump more of the energy to earth. With the
short branch circuit and lowest surge currents, the MOV prevented the
gap from arcing over at all. The max energy dissipation at the MOV was 22J.
(Protection is by clamping the voltage at the MOV, not absorbing surge
energy. Energy is absorbed in the clamping action.)
I would expect you have a service panel suppressor which should take the
main hit. Even without one, a plug-in suppressor with high ratings
should have a long life. The 1500J rating of your suppressor is for a
single event. If the energy hits are a small fraction of 1500J the
cumulative rating is far greater than 1500J.
Like you I would rather have a high rating plug-in suppressor ahead of a
UPS. Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available. I
would rather not have the UPS try to provide surge protection. Which
unit takes the surge hit is actually determined by the MOV clamp
voltages (which Martzloff says are set unnecessarily low).
–-
bud-- >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 28, 2005
Posts: 1095
|
(Msg. 82) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:30 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:47:55 -0500, w_tom wrote
(in article
<ec545819-961b-4e86-8a53-3115705ac262.DeleteThis@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 15, 6:19 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not....DeleteThis@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> I've got a surge protector which does exactly that, and is rated at 1.5 kJ,
>> in front of each of my UPSes, precisely because the built-in surge
>> protection
>> in the UPSes is limited... because they're designed for battery support, not
>> surge protection. A direct hit from a lightening strike will still blow
>> right
>> past the surge protector, and the surge protection in the UPS... but not
>> past
>> the AC/DC converter, the battery, and the DC/AC converter. Anything less
>> than
>> a direct hit by a lightening strike will be stopped by the surge protector
>> and/or the surge protection in the UPS.
>
> If lightning will not blow through UPS's AC/DC converter, then
> lightning does not get into a computer.
Exactly. It does, however, reduce the UPS to a smoking pile of rubble.
> That UPS AC/DC converter does
> not have the higher standards required in a computer power supply. If
> lightning does not blow through a UPS AC/DC converter, then lightning
> does not get into a computer. Computer's supply makes UPS surge
> protection completely unnecessary - assuming J J O'Shea's reasoning.
The surge protection in the UPS is to protect the UPS circuitry. The AC/DC
converter is more expensive than surge protection.
As the primary job of a UPS is battery backup, not surge protection, 320
joules is plenty.
>
> Instead, that UPS AC/DC converter does not provide the protection
> assumed.
>
> Lightning will blow right past plug-in surge protector and UPS.
No, it won't. It'll burn the UPS, but won't go past. {snip rest]
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 28, 2005
Posts: 1095
|
(Msg. 83) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:32 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:54:44 -0500, w_tom wrote
(in article
<8abc1182-c43a-4a31-a69e-24e6d45d3e0d DeleteThis @v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 15, 6:12 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... DeleteThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
>> Bingo. There's a reason why Florida Power & Light is also known as Florida
>> Flicker & Flash. I saw more surges in my first six months in Florida than
>> I'd
>> seen in my last two years in Jamaica, and it's not as though JPS (the
>> Jamaican power utility) was famous for delivering clean power.
>
> Surge protector failure is acceptable?
Surge protectors can't stop lightening. They can stop lesser surges.
> FL phone service is lost for
> about four days every year in every town as the telco replaces that
> lightning damaged $multi-million computer. Oh? You are not without
> service for four days?
No. You appear to be confused. Snip remaining evidence of confusion.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 28, 2005
Posts: 1095
|
(Msg. 84) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:42 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:13:57 -0500, bud-- wrote
(in article <9b993$47b70a4d$4213ea7f$13018@DIALUPUSA.NET>):
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:26:20 -0500, bud-- wrote
>> (in article <b852d$47b53d30$4213eb82$4625@DIALUPUSA.NET>):
>>>>> Depending on the quality of electrical service in your area, a
>>>>> surge protector's MOVs might last 3 years. Or they might last
>>>>> 18 months.
>>> .
>>> Plug-in suppressors are readily available with very high ratings at
>>> relatively low cost. "Grossly undersized" is a red herring. If plug-in
>>> suppressors only last 3 years you are buying junk or are in an extremely
>>> high lightning area.
>>
>> Bingo. There's a reason why Florida Power & Light is also known as Florida
>> Flicker & Flash. I saw more surges in my first six months in Florida than
>> I'd
>> seen in my last two years in Jamaica, and it's not as though JPS (the
>> Jamaican power utility) was famous for delivering clean power.
>>
> .
> Parts of Florida do sound ‘exciting’.
If you like thunderstorms. And hurricanes.
[snip]
>
>
>
> Like you I would rather have a high rating plug-in suppressor ahead of a
> UPS. Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily available. I
> would rather not have the UPS try to provide surge protection. Which
> unit takes the surge hit is actually determined by the MOV clamp
> voltages (which Martzloff says are set unnecessarily low).
That's why I have a surge protector _and_ a UPS. The surge protector is
cheaper than the UPS, and protects it from surges which would destroy it. The
UPS provides battery backup for my computers... and, if a surge gets past the
surge protector, will either stop the surge with its surge protection or burn
before the surge gets to the computers.
As I have _seen_ this happen on several occasions, anyone (such as, oh, a
certain very confused in-duh-vidual) who wants to convince me otherwise has a
very difficult job. Who should I believe, the confused in-duh-vidual or my
eyes? Hey, I could be wrong... but proving it ain't gonna be easy. And his
frothing and ranting without producing a scintilla of support for his
position ain't gonna cut it.
I repeat: my fav example of UPSes doing what I say they do is when that 250
kVA Liebert burned stopping a surge from a near-miss by lightening.
And I find it... odd that power companies use UPSes when a certain
in-duh-vidual says that UPSes don't work. Why on Earth would a power company,
run by people who presumably know how electrical power systems work, waste
their money on something which doesn't work? Unless, of course, there's a
problem with the in-duh-vidual's thesis, and UPSes _do_ work the way that I
think they do...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 85) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 16, 11:05 am, bud-- <remove.budn....TakeThisOut@isp.com> wrote:
> Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
> guide, also wrote a technical paper that looks at a *very* strong
> 100,000A strike to the primary wire on the pole directly behind a house
> for a typical urban distribution system. This is a near worst case.
> Only 30,000A of the strike flows toward the house on the neutral. The
> current on the neutral is directly earthed by the N-G bond in (US)
> services. A fraction is coupled to the hot wires. If the strike was
> further away, there would be many more paths to earth and the surge
> reaching the house would be far smaller.
In his 1994 IEEE paper, Francois Martzloff defines what a plug-in
protector (without that essential connection to earth ground) can do
to household appliances. A conclusion so fundamental that this "NIST
guru" makes it his first conclusion:
> 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.
Because a protector is adjacent to the appliance, then objectionable
voltages may be applied to that appliance. Bud routinely 'forgets' to
mention that even Martzloff says why plug-in (point of use) protectors
can be ineffective. IEEE paper demonstrated same on Page 42 Figure
8. A fact from Martzloff that Bud must ignore to promote plug-in
protectors. A protector not connected short to earth ground earths a
surge, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV. Martzloff
also notes the problem. Bud forgets to mention that part.
A higher current rating for a protector means more surge energy is
dissipated harmlessly into earth AND less voltage confronts household
appliances. But only IF a short connection to earth exists. A better
protector is a more conductive path to earth. Protector absorbs less
energy AND shunts (diverts) more energy harmlessly into earth. Bud
'forgets' all this.
A minimally sized 'whole house' protector shunts all 50,000 amps to
earth without damage. Better protectors shunt more. A plug-in
protector never uses all its ratings during surges which means
exponentially decreasing protection. For example, a plug-in 75,000
amps protector will shunt as little as 25,000 amps during the surge.
It assumes the protector only connects to AC lines; not to telephone,
cable, etc. Otherwise that current number becomes even smaller - even
worse protection. Bud 'forgets' these facts to promote grossly
overpriced plug-in protectors - that do not even claim to provide that
protection.
Meanwhile, the UPS would only claim a few thousand amps - is that
near zero protection. Protection decreases exponentially with
dropping current numbers.
The point in both front page Electrical Engineering Times articles
entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients":
connection to earth must be short (ie 'less than 10 feet'). Bud posts
a myth about a neutral wire making an earth ground connection. Yes,
for one kind of electricity such as 60 Hz. But that same wire is too
long for surges. Both EE Times articles provide numbers. Same
problem - neutral wire is not sufficient for earthing - is
demonstrated by Page 42 Figure 8. Bud must also 'forget' that fact.
Profits are at risk. Bud's protectors do not have that short earthing
connection and do not even claim to provide effective protection.
If Bud's plug-in protectors earth a surge via a neutral wire, then
a surge is induced on those adjacent wires. More appliances put at
risk. Just another reason why a neutral wire is not an earthing
connection. Just another reason why effective protection earths before
surges can enter the building. Ground wire from the effective 'whole
house' protector is dedicated; separated from all other wires, and
connects directly to single point earth ground. No splices. No sharp
bends. Just more facts that Bud 'forgets'.
Surges must be earthed before entering a building for these and
other reasons. Bud's neutral wire has numerous splices and sharp
bends. So he forgets to mention why that compromises protection.
More engineering facts Bud must 'forget' to promote excessively
profitable and ineffective plug-in protectors. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 86) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:16 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 16, 9:32 pm, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... DeleteThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
> Surge protectors can't stop lightening. They can stop lesser surges.
Explain how a shunt mode protector (defined to divert surges) somehow
does something completely different - stops or absorbs surges? Why
does J J O'Shea ignore what the NIST says:
> ...your surge protector will work by diverting surges to earth.
There is no stopping or absorbing these surges ... except when myths
are promoted. Even the UPS manufacturer will not make J J's claim of
stopping surges.
Why do lesser surges not damage the AC/DC converter inside a UPS?
Because that converter must be designed to make such surges
irrelevant. An industry standard for appliances even 40 years ago.
Stated again are industry standards that J J O'Shea ignores to make
that claim. A more robust AC/DC converter inside a computer - called
a power supply - also makes that protection irrelevant - wasted
money. Why spend money to protect from lesser surges that do not even
do damage? That must not overwhelm protection already inside
appliances?
J J O'Shea originally claimed:
> A UPS is a box with surge protection, an AC/DC converter, a battery,
> and a DC/AC converter...
"A box with surge protection" - when even the manufacturer defines
J J O'Shea's protection using near zero numbers. How many times does
J J O'Shea story change? His original claim (the UPS for surge
protection) is already revised down to protection for surges that do
not even cause damage. Protection that the UPS manufacturer does not
claim.
A plug-in UPS is for battery backup - protection of data from
blackouts and extreme brownouts. UPSes that provide surge protection
make that short connection to earth - also called building wide UPS
systems. These UPSes are found where surges must not cause damage
such as in telco switching centers (COs), commercial broadcasting
stations, and military facilities. Why would they spend so much more
when J J O'Shea's plug-in UPS will do same thing? They need real surge
protection using a UPS that actually provides surge protection.
Protector circuits that make that short connection to earth ground.
Effective surge protection that costs less money means protection
already inside appliances is not overwhelmed. It is called 'whole
house' protection. It has that short connection to earth ground so
that ALL surges do not overwhelm protection inside appliances.
Will that UPS stop or absorb surges? A computer grade UPS connects
the computer directly to wall receptacle when not in battery backup
mode. No protector is between appliance and AC mains to absorb
surges. Shunt mode protectors don't protect by absorbing or stopping
surges as J J has posted. Even the trivial (near zero) protector
component in a UPS can only work by diverting surges ... and to where? >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 87) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:31 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... DeleteThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
>... and, if a surge gets past the surge protector, will either
> stop the surge with its surge protection or burn before
> the surge gets to the computers.
>
> As I have _seen_ this happen on several occasions, anyone (such
> as, oh, a certain very confused in-duh-vidual) who wants to
> convince me otherwise has a very difficult job.
JJ O'Shea claims a protector does what even Bud's NIST citation says
a protector does not do. It does not "stop the surge with its surge
protection". How many times will J J defend a myth before learning
how electricity works? A protector does not stop or absorb surges.
From the NIST:
> ...your surge protector will work by diverting surges to earth.
Where is this magic "stopping" circuit? Did you read both EE Times
articles - or do you just know without first learning? Surge
protection is by diverting surges to earth: "Protecting Electrical
Devices from Lightning Transients". J J O'Shea would not post "stop
the surge with its surge protection" if he read the NIST citation or
both EE Times articles.
That is the first half of JJ's "either". J J O'Shea also claims:
> ... or burn before the surge gets to the computers.
J J learn how electricity works. Electricity is not some wave
breaking on a beach. Electric current first flows through everything
in a circuit from cloud to earth. Everything conducts the same
current - the same amperage. Why do you assume electricity flows like
water? Do you learn the science before parroting popular myths? First
surge current is flowing through sky, protector, UPS, computer, and
connections to earth ground. Then much later, things in that circuit
burn out. Let's see. The surge creates the damage in
microseconds. Disconnecting due to the damage occurs in
milliseconds. Just more numbers you should learn before promoting
Bud's obscenely profitable protectors. Why do you promote a UPS for
protection when you don't even know how electricity or protection
works? A protector that burns out was grossly undersized; failed to
provide protection.
The naive proclaim, "My surge protector sacrificed itself to save my
computer". Your grossly undersized protector did that. You know only
because you observed something? Classic junk science speculation. A
surge too small to overwhelm protection inside the computer, instead,
destroyed the grossly undersized protector. That is how Bud's
protectors promote more sales. Charge $25 or $150 for protectors so
grossly undersized as to fail - provide no surge protection. The
effective protector earths surges AND remains functional. And that
fact has been put in your face how many times now?
J J O'Shea has demonstrated that he does not know how electricity
works. He falls for the myth that a grossly undersized protector
(that burns out) provided protection. He even thinks microsecond
surges can be stopped by parts that take seconds to disconnect (burn
out). J J O'Shea, without even basic electrical knowledge, now would
say this poster is wrong. J J O'Shea - it is quite likely that
protectors designed and installed by me effectively protected from
direct lightning strikes before you were born. Will you learn how
protection works OR will you continue to promote Bud's myths?
Even the NIST contradicts what J J claims:
> ...your surge protector will work by diverting surges to earth.
Did you also believe Saddam had WMDs? Or did you first read numbers
to appreciate myths in those WMD claims. I did. Also learn the
numbers and electrical concepts before believing promoters such as
Bud.
What sometimes happens when the grossly undersized protector
burns? So these protectors (with circuits also in your UPS and power
strip protector) were also effective protection?
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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol
No earth ground - in your UPS and adjacent protector - means no
effective protection. But please: show us how you are right and both
front page articles in Electrical Engineering Times is wrong. You
claim to know more about electricity because you observed a protector
fail. That somehow is science proof?
The responsible human earths one 'whole house' protector to protect
all appliances for tens of times less money and to avoid dangers in
those scary pictures. The effective protector does not stop surges
and does not burn out. A concept well understood for even well before
World War II - when one first learns how electricity works. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 10, 2008
Posts: 24
|
(Msg. 88) Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 16, 9:30 pm, J.J. O'Shea <try.not....DeleteThis@but.see.sig> wrote:
> As the primary job of a UPS is battery backup, not surge protection,
> 320 joules is plenty.
On that we agree. UPS is battery backup. But 320 joules is near
zero (pathetic) protection.
As noted elsewhere, surged were conducting through everything,
simultaneously, for microseconds. Somehow the surge current on both
sides of a 'burning' device will no longer ever have existed on one
side?. Component burning inside a UPS to disconnect a microsecond
surge - millisecond or seconds later? Myth.
Even fuses don't protect hardware. The fuse burns (opens) after
damage occurs traditionallly to protect a human from fire.
Do you really believe that sub-inch open connection (created by a
burned component) will stop what three miles of sky could not?
Meanwhile, a typical 'burning' creates plasma. Plasma that
maintains an electical connection until that electric current has
sufficiently diminished. Again - no protection by a part burning.
See that long glass fuse? It typically can only stop 250 volts when
it burns out. What component inside the UPS is so much longer AND
burns so completely in microseconds as to stop thousands of volts?
Fastest fused take tens of milliseconds. Tell us what this magic part
is that burns only in microseconds.
What - four reasons why protection never comes from something
burning. Surges are not stopped - except in myths. Surges can only
be diverted as every responsible technical citation notes. No
effective protector stops surges. And yet that is the myth promoted
by those who don't even know electricity. Same (without electrical
knowledge) would ignore tens of reasons why burning does not stop
surges - therefore believe myths that a UPS provides protection.
The effective protector *diverts* (shunts, clamps, connects) and
then remains functional. Any protection that fails or burns provided
no effective protection AND gets the naive to promote protection
myths.
320 joules in a UPS means maybe only 100 joules actually does any
protection (never more than 200). Even 320 joules is grossly
undersized (near zero) protection. But you would know that had you
designed surge protectors that actually earthed direct lightning
strikes. I probably did that before you even existed. One here has
significant experience. 320 joules is near zero protection - but
sufficient to hype half truths to the naïve. >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 11, 2008
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 89) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:40 am
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:05 am, bud-- <remove.budn....TakeThisOut@isp.com> wrote:
>> Francois Martzloff, who was the NIST guru on surges and wrote the NIST
>> guide, also wrote a technical paper that looks at a *very* strong
>> 100,000A strike to the primary wire on the pole directly behind a house
>> for a typical urban distribution system. This is a near worst case.
>> Only 30,000A of the strike flows toward the house on the neutral. The
>> current on the neutral is directly earthed by the N-G bond in (US)
>> services. A fraction is coupled to the hot wires. If the strike was
>> further away, there would be many more paths to earth and the surge
>> reaching the house would be far smaller.
>
> In his 1994 IEEE paper, Francois Martzloff defines what a plug-in
> protector (without that essential connection to earth ground) can do
> to household appliances. A conclusion so fundamental that this "NIST
> guru" makes it his first conclusion:
w_ forgets to mention 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 surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.
Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what Martzloff says about them. Poor w_’s universe is in
danger of collapse.
The usual lies, misrepresentations and other drivel follow.
But still *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w_?
And 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
Why can’t you answer simple questions w_?
For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.
Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Invents opinions and attributes them to opponents.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.
--
bud-- >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 11, 2008
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 90) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:52 am
Post subject: Re: House Power Failures and Mac [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... RemoveThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
>> ... and, if a surge gets past the surge protector, will either
>> stop the surge with its surge protection or burn before
>> the surge gets to the computers.
>>
>> As I have _seen_ this happen on several occasions, anyone (such
>> as, oh, a certain very confused in-duh-vidual) who wants to
>> convince me otherwise has a very difficult job.
>
> JJ O'Shea claims a protector does what even Bud's NIST citation says
> a protector does not do.
..
The usual bullcrap based on religious dogma.
..
> How many times will J J defend a myth before learning
> how electricity works?
..
The confused in-duh-vidual creates myths because he can’t figure out how
plug-in suppressors work. Clearly explained in the IEEE guide for people
not confused.
>
> Did you also believe Saddam had WMDs?
..
The confused in-duh-vidual not only was an advisor to W on WMDs. He was
also president of the Flat Earth Society, but had to give up the post so
he could google newsgroups to defeat the menace of plug-in suppressors.
To the in-duh-vidual - deprogramming has helped others.
--
bud-- >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
