House Power Failures and Mac

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:40:13 -0500, bud-- wrote
(in article <d23ee$47b7e359$4213ea3b$23372@DIALUPUSA.NET>):

> And still *NEVER* answered - simple questions:
> - Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
> suppressors?

Obviously, the IEEE is full of naive people who believe in myths... if you
believe what a ranting nutcase says, that is.

> - Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
> solution"?

See above. Substitute NIST for IEEE.

> - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
> IEEE example, pdf page 42?

Magic.

> Why can’t you answer simple questions w_?

I think that I know the answer to _that_.

>
> For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
> suppressors are effective.

And so do power utilities. Hmmm. Who to believe, the IEEE, the NIST, and
power companies on the one hand, or a ranting, frothing, terminally confused
anonymous in-duh-vidual on USENET on the other? Tis a puzzlement...

>
> 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.

He's simply nuts, that's all.

He's on his own. I'm outtahere. It's obvious that absolutely nothing will
ever clue the in-duh-vidual into anything even vaguely approaching reality.
If he doesn't like surge protectors or UPSes, and thinks they don't work,
more power to him. He can keep on keeping on. The rest of us can simply
ignore him and his fact-free screeds.

His problem is very simple: he says that surge protectors and UPSes don't
work. Some of his comments appear to be directed against SPSes... and there
he might have a point. A SPS will _NOT_ provide _ANY_ protection against a
high-energy surge, the switch isn't fast enough. However, a UPS _will_
provide such protection, as any AC surge must go through the AC/DC converter,
the battery, and the DC/AC converter before hitting the equipment behind the
UPS... and the AC/DC converter, the battery, and the DC/AC converter simply
can't handle that level of power and will burn before they allow the surge
past. I've seen it happen. I repeat: I Have Seen It Happen. His rants are
without value until he can explain the evidence of my eyes... and saying that
I'm a naive believer in myths ain't a good start.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 17, 4:19 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not....RemoveThis@but.see.sig> wrote:
> His problem is very simple: he says that surge protectors and UPSes don't
> work. Some of his comments appear to be directed against SPSes... and there
> he might have a point. A SPS will _NOT_ provide _ANY_ protection against a
> high-energy surge, the switch isn't fast enough. However, a UPS _will_
> provide such protection, as any AC surge must go through the AC/DC converter,
> the battery, and the DC/AC converter before hitting the equipment behind the
> UPS...

I never said surge protectors and UPSes don't work. That intentional
distortion comes from Bud whose profits are at risk, who posts lies,
and who is not even honest enough to admit why he is posting.

Why does J J also distort using sound bytes? Did you learn by
using only sound bytes; like a political extremist? Why do you ignore
both science and the numbers? A UPS and surge protector without that
required and essential earthing connection cannot provide surge
protection. Major difference between the posted science verses what J
J O'Shea selectively reads.

If J J's UPS AC/DC converter works as speculated, then all computer
supplies make that UPS or surge protector completely unnecessary. So
J J ignores that contradiction. J J O'Shea must ignore facts to
discount his technical mistakes. J J O'Shea also attacks the
messenger. He must ignore his contradictions. He must never cite
from responsible sources. He must ignore scary pictures - what
happens when we install grossly undersized plug-in protectors that
work by burning out.

What provides surge protection? Earth ground. Do we spend $2000 to
protect everything including the dishwasher, smoke detectors, dimmer
switches, computers, TV, etc? Of course not. All those obscenely
priced plug-in protectors with no earth ground. Instead, spend tens
of times less money on the one 'whole house' protector that actually
does protect everything. Upgrade earthing so that surges will not
seek earth ground, destructively, through appliances. Install a
solution so that protectors do not fail especially in FL and Jamaica.
Protectors that fail in 18 months mean 'scary pictures' and undersized
protection advocated by J J, who does not even know how electricity
works.

Protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Surge energy must
be dissipated. "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients" discusses what provides protection - earth ground.
Explained without sound byte reasoning.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 17, 2:52 am, bud-- <remove.budn....DeleteThis@isp.com> wrote:
> The usual bullcrap based on religious dogma.

Again Bud wil not provide manufacturer spec numbers for protection
inside his 'complete' protector. Bud claims a 'magic box' will
provide complete protection. More money means it is even better? But
the manufacturer will not make that claim. Where are those spec
numbers? Why does Bud never provide those spec numbers? Intead Bud
must reply with disparaging remarks. I get it. Posting profanity is
science proof. No wonder disparaging remarks are routine from one who
routinely 'forgets' facts. Bud will not even admit who he promotes
for.

Where does that surge energy get dissipated? Page 42 Figure 8 - a
protector too close to electronics and too far from earth ground
earths that surge, 8000 volts destructively, through the adjacent TV.
Bud calls that effective protection. Even after his own ciations say
earth ground is necessary, Bud sitll claims a protector without earth
ground provides protection. No problem . Bud's science proof is
provided by insults. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground which is the point of every professional citation posted
previously.

But says the plug-in protector is the 'easiest solution'. Then he
forgets the other part. They show how the easiest solution also
earths 8000 volts destructively through that TV - Page 42 Figure 8.
Bud calls that effective protection. No wonder Bud ignores reality -
threat of fire - in those scary pictures. So where is this
manufacturer claim of surge protection? Oh. Bud forgot again. No
problem. Insults are better that science fact.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 17, 4:02 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... DeleteThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
> 320 joules is sufficient for the purpose, whether you like it or not.

Same person also claims a burning component will stop an electrical
surge. 320 joules is grossly undersized. Even protectors in those
'scary pictures' were larger. Those 'scary picture' protectors were
also sufficient? J J O'Shea says so. Therefore it must be true.

Damn those numbers! We will believe it anyway!! Also called junk
science. J J's UPS does not provide surge protection. UPS is only
for data protection. A data problem made less problematic by
journalling disk systems and backup. See David C's posts for facts on
data protection - what does and does not need protection. See J J
O'Sheas post for how a burning component will 'magically' stop what
even three miles of sky could not.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 17, 11:50 am, sham....DeleteThis@techie.com (David C.) wrote:
> Normal human beings know that power problems come from many more sources
> than just lightning strikes, and that the losses due to a power outage
> are a lot more than just physical damage from the startup surge when it
> comes back.

That startup surge is what? What is different than when starting a
computer by pressing its power switch? More often, the hardware
damage was created before power was lost. Some will then assume
damage is instead created by power on. So tell me what components get
damaged why? There are other reasons for damage exist besides
lightning. But solutions advocated by others will not avert that
damage. A most common reason for damage is lightning. No plug-in
solution claims to provide that protection which is why that plug-in
solution also is not used in high reliability facilities.

Rather than say other sources exist, instead, list those sources?
That would be a list of other sources that a plug-in protector does
not protect from. I am not a normal human being. I also ask daming
questions at every failure. Plug-in protectors even made surge damage
possible - even created damage to a network of powered off computer.
How often do you learn what those 'sources' are by literally replacing
individual semiconductors? Normal people are not that curious. I
always have been.

List those other sources. And what is this startup surge that
somehow creates hardware damage?
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

Dudley Henriques <dhenriques.RemoveThis@rcn.com> writes:
>
> I let it sleep all night usually and it's here I'm worried about a
> power failure and what that might do to the Mac.
>
> Obviously I could purchase a battery power supply backup system but
> that's a fairly large expense for a home user.

Have you actually gone shopping for a UPS? They're not all very
expensive. You don't need hours of run-time, just enough battery to let
the Mac perform an automatic shut-down.

Most UPSs sold these days let you attach them to your computer with a
USB cable. Mac OS automatically detects this an adds a new page to the
"Energy Saver" preference pane, where you can configure the on-battery
behavior, including one to perform a shutdown when the UPS's battery
starts to run low.

> Can you let me in on how some of you deal with this issue?

I have a UPS. I bought a big one (an APC SmartUPS 1000 with a spare
battery pack) so I can keep working for 90 minutes before the battery
runs out, but you obviously don't need one that big if you just want to
protect your equipment.

> One thing I'd like to know is how my Mac would suffer or not suffer in
> the event of a house power failure. My PC with Windows was a mess when
> this happened (twice) but so far I've been lucky with the IMac.

Assuming you have journaling turned on for your HFS+ volumes (you can
turn it on from Disk Utility, if it's not already on), then the file
system damage will be minimal, or maybe even non-existant. Journaling
is designed to protect against that.

It will not, of course, protect you from data that apps haven't yet
written to disk.

> If I do get nailed, what's the prospect for damage and are there built
> in utilities in my OSX that I can run after a failure to help restore
> things back to normal?

If your file system gets damaged, Alsoft's Disk Warrior has a good
reputation. It helped me once when something made a disk volume
unreadable.

You should be making regular backups, however. Even if a power failure
doesn't destroy your disk, other things still can. They can wear out,
malware or software bugs can corrupt data, etc. When this happens (and
I mean when - it's always just a matter of time), your only solution
will be to restore your data from a recent backup.

Apple's Time Machine (part of Mac OS 10.5) is a fairly good solution.
Periodically making backups to off-line media (tape, DVD, or a hard
drive that isn't normally attached to the computer) is even better.

> How do you other home users deal with this?????

UPS, plus weekly hard-drive backups of the whole system, plus monthly
tape backups of the system for off-site storage. (I keep the most
recent tape at work, in case something should happen to my home.)

-- David
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

C J Campbell <christophercampbell.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> You probably do not need battery backup. In theory, if your computer
> was writing to the hard drive at the exact moment that the power went
> out, you could corrupt that sector. If not that, you will certainly
> lose whatever it was that was being saved.

Journaling will protect the file system against that.

But only a UPS will give you a chance to click "File->Save" in your
application and then perform a shutdown. Not losing the last hour's
worth of work is every bit as important as protecting the file system's
internal structures.

-- David
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

Jolly Roger <jollyroger.RemoveThis@pobox.com> writes:
>
> You can talk until you are blue in the face about how you believe the
> need for a UPS is a myth, and how it won't protect anything.

Ignore him. Every time anybody, anywhere on USENET, mentions the word
"surge", this guy pops up, with the same pile of articles.

He thinks that all you need is a lightning arrestor, and that you should
actively remove all other forms of power protection.

Normal human beings know that power problems come from many more sources
than just lightning strikes, and that the losses due to a power outage
are a lot more than just physical damage from the startup surge when it
comes back.

-- David
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

w_tom wrote:

>
> I never said surge protectors and UPSes don't work.
>
> A UPS and surge protector without that
> required and essential earthing connection cannot provide surge
> protection.
..
Compare the mutually contradictory statements above.
>
> Protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
..
And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.


As always, *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. Just the ravings of a lone lunatic.

As always *NEVER* answers to 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 

w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:52 am, bud-- <remove.budn... DeleteThis @isp.com> wrote:
>> The usual bullcrap based on religious dogma.
>
> Again Bud wil not provide manufacturer spec numbers for protection
> inside his 'complete' protector.
..
Numbers were posted twice, but as I said “w_ just ignores information
that does not fit his religious beliefs.”
>
> But says the plug-in protector is the 'easiest solution'.
..
Of course it was the NIST guide that said plug-in suppressors are the
“easiest solution”.

But w_ is working hard to become the official village idiot.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides.

--
bud--
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 18, 1:30 am, bud-- <remove.budn....DeleteThis@isp.com> wrote:
> As always, *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
> suppressors are NOT effective. Just the ravings of a lone lunatic.

Links that demonstrate a plug-in protector as ineffective are even
provided by Bud - Page 42 Figure 8. Why does the adjacent plug-in
protector earth that surge 8000 volts destructively through a TV?
Protector is too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. A
fundamental violation. What is avoided where damage is not an
option. So Bud again ignores the point of his own citation to promote
grossly overpriced protectors.

Bud claims a plug-in protector provides protection. He even claims
it stops surges by absorbing energy. How curious. Bud's citation
says effective protectors must earth that energy - where a surge is
dissipated harmlessly. Bud says otherwise. Bud ignores that required
and missing earth ground connection. He avoids all discussion about
why earthing is essential. Bud pretends his own citations don't
demand earthing. Even both front page articles from Electrical
Engineering Times on protection (Oct 2007 articles for engineers)
discuss the only required component for protection - earth ground.

Where is a manufacturer spec for a plug-in protectors that defines
this protection? That protection does not exist according to IEEE
Standards, NIST, EE Times, British Standards, US Air Force, every
telco, FAA, ... Bud claims plug-in protectors are effective. But no
plug-in protector will even provide spec numbers that make that claim.

Bud cannot provide what does not exist - a plug-in manufacturer
claim for protection. So why are such protectors effective? Because
Bud says so. Bud - where is that manufacturer spec that provides
protection? Bud instead must disparage this poster. He will not even
admit for who he promotes these myths.

A 'magic box' protector from Bud does not protect from the typically
destructive surge. As every engineering source notes, protection from
such surges requires that short connection to single point earth
ground. Responsible manufacturers (that Bud does not promote for)
sell the one 'whole house' protector that has that dedicated earthing
wire. One 'whole house' protector does more than $2000 for plug-in
protectors promoted by Bud. The effective solutions costs tens of
times less money - about $1 per protected appliance. The effective
protector comes from responsible manufacturers such as GE, Siemens,
Levition, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, Polyphaser,
Keison, .... Such protectors put more money into protectors and less
money into profits and myth purveyors.

Bud's objective: promote myths so that the naive will even believe a
protector can fail every 18 months or 3 years. Such protectors meet
the definition of ineffective; but are so profitable. Plug-in
protector will not even claim to provide protection from the typically
destructive surge. So where are Bud's spec numbers for that
protection? He cannot provide what does not exist. So Bud must
attack the messenger. Effective (and earthed) protectors are provided
by responsible manufacturers. Bud's profits are at risk. Bud fears
you might learn the one simpler and less expensive solution that
actually does earth surges. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Bud must deny this with venom. Venom because plug-in
protector manufacturers will not provide spec numbers for that
protection.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 18, 1:30 am, bud-- <remove.budn....DeleteThis@isp.com> wrote:
>> As always, *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
>> suppressors are NOT effective. Just the ravings of a lone lunatic.
>
And more of the usual lies, misrepresentations and other ravings.
>
> The effective
> protector comes from responsible manufacturers such as GE, Siemens,
> Levition, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, Polyphaser,
> Keison, ....
..
Looking at w_'s favorite SquareD "whole house" suppressors:
<http://ecatalog.squared.com/pubs/Electrical%20Distribution/Surge%20Protective%20Devices/OEM%20Panel%20Mount%20TVSS/6671CT9701.pdf>
or
http://tinyurl.com/yuekdo

For the `best' suppressor - SDSB1175C
- The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in TVSS [surge suppressor] devices at the
point of use." Why does SquareD also want plug-in suppressors??
- The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is
used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."
Doesn't SquareD have confidence in "whole house" suppressors???

For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
- The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
equipment, televisions, and computers."
Plug-in suppressor warranties include electronics. Why doesn't your
favorite brand??
..
> A protector is only as effective as its
> earth ground.
..
The required statement of religious belief in earthing.
Never take airplanes - they aren’t earthed at all.


As always, *NEVER* a link to another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. No one in the known universe agrees with
w_.

As always *NEVER* answers to 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 did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors?

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 still a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 19, 1:54 am, bud-- <remove.budn... RemoveThis @isp.com> wrote:
> - The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
> protection by installing plug-in TVSS [surge suppressor] devices at the
> point of use." Why does SquareD also want plug-in suppressors??

"... electronic equipment *MAY* need..." In most cases 'never'
because electronics already contain effective protection. Protection
inside a computer is even more robust (as required by Intel
standards).

A plug-in protector is ineffective without properly earthed 'whole
house' protection. Bud again forgets that part. Profits would be at
risk. Bud avoids earthing discussions to promote obscenely priced
and grossly undersized protectors.

Why do telcos not install Bud's plug-in protectors? Telcos
eliminate the reason for *may*. Responsible facilities such as Orange
County FL's emergency response facilities upgraded the earthing -
eliminated damage:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Where does Bud's plug-in protector claim to provide protection from
type of surges that typically do damage? Bud still refuses to provide
those specs. Bud cannot post specs when the manufacturer will not
even claim that protection.

A plug-in protector can protect from a type of surge that typically
does not cause damage. The rare event. We are not discussing rare
events. Objective: eliminate typical damage. A solution that does not
require $2000 of plug-in protectors - and that still requires one
properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrated the failure. Destructive surge was
not earthed by a 'whole house' protector. Plug-in protector earthed
that surge 8000 volts destructively. Bud again forgets to mention
that part. Why does the plug-in protector earth surges through that
TV? Properly earthed 'whole house' protector is missing. Homeowner
installed what Bud recommends - not an effective solution.

How do high reliability facilities eliminate surge damage? Did they
install plug-in (point of use) protectors. Of course not. Better
protection costs less money. Same principles for every home are
demonstrated by both front page articles from EE Times and even this
Nebraska radio station:
http://www.copper.org/applications/electrical/pq/casestudy/nebraska.html

Same solution that required inspection of the 'primary' protection
system (which Bud also forgets to discuss):
http://www.tvtower.com/grounding_and_bonding.html

What is that utility wire out on the street? To lightning, it is an
antenna that connects directly to every household appliance. Same
problem found in a radio station. Same principles used 100 years to
eliminate lightning damage is the principle used in broadcast
stations, FAA facilities, military facilities, telephone COs, and
homes. Surges earthed by a 'whole house' protector need not find
earth ground via household appliances. Protector is only as effective
as its earth ground.

It is not *my* Square D product, as Bud would post to insult. There
are scam protectors promoted by Bud. Then there are properly earthed
protectors promoted by engineers. The responsible solution also costs
tens of times less money. The responsible solution also uses
protectors that remain functional after every surge - for decades.
The responsible solution means a homeowner does not even know a surge
existed. 'Magic box' plug-in protectors will somehow absorb what
three miles of sky could not even stop? Nonsense. The effective
solution (especially required if using plug-in protectors) is only as
good as its earth ground. Responsible companies, that don't need Bud,
manufacturer protectors with that 'less than 10 foot' connection to
single point earth ground. 'Whole house' protection that costs tens
or even 100 times less money per protected appliance.

So where is that plug-in protector spec that claims to provide
protection? How many times here has Bud refused to provide that
spec? Ten times? Bud cannot provide what does not exist. No earth
ground means no effective protection - which Bud denies to promote his
obscenely profitable plug-in protectors. And then are those 'scary
pictures'. Another 'plug-in' reality that Bud cannot deny. A plug-
in protector without a properly earthed 'whole house' protector may
even create those 'scary pictures'.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac