House Power Failures and Mac

In article
<87923493-35a2-4808-bcdf-ec42c7b71d0d.RemoveThis@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
w_tom <w_tom1.RemoveThis@usa.net> wrote:

> On Feb 12, 9:53 pm, Jolly Roger <jollyro....RemoveThis@pobox.com> wrote:
> > My single intent in asking that question is to find out if you are
> > tired of saying the same things over and over yet, because, as I
> > said, all your talk doesn't change my observed experience that UPS
> > systems do work.
>
> blah lah blah blah blah *GASP* blah blah blah blah blah blah

No gasping allowed - that's cheating!

I notice you are conveniently ignoring replies to your posts by someone
else who is actually knowledgeable in the field.

Is your face blue yet?

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:28:38 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote
(in article <x5qdnac6O9KaYTPanZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d.RemoveThis@rcn.net>):

> I guess I'm a normal home user with an IMac. I've been thinking about
> how I use the computer vs a potential house power failure and how that
> might effect the computer if it's on or sleeping when that happens.
>
> My system is up for about 18 hours a day; either in use, on the screen
> saver; or in sleep mode. Sometimes when we go out I'll shut it down in
> case of a Thunderstorm, but otherwise it's up and running.
>
> 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.
>
> Can you let me in on how some of you deal with this issue?
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> How do you other home users deal with this?????
>
> Thanks much
>

Gat a UPS, as some others have said.

Note: the cheaper battery-backed systems on the market are really _SPS_
systems, _Standby_ Power Systems, not _UPS_ systems, _Uniterruptable_ Power
Systems. In a SPS, what you have is a box which contains surge protection, an
AC/DC converter, a battery, a DC/AC converter, and a very fast switch. The
battery is trickle-charged by power from the mains via the AC/DC converter
and the surge protection. In the event of a power failure, the very fast
switch cuts off the mains connection and cuts on the DC/AC converter. It
happens so quickly that most systems won't notice the fact that they
momentarily lost power. However, SPS systems give you only the protection
that a good surge protector gives you, plus battery backup. This will not do
much against large surges, which will blow past your surge protector. Also,
most surge protectors are built around MOVs, metal oxide varistors, which
take a hit each time they stop a surge and which die after they take enough
hits. 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. Or less.
As a SPS is a surge protector...

A UPS is a box with surge protection, an AC/DC converter, a battery, and a
DC/AC converter... but no switch. What happens is that power comes in, goes
to the AC/DC converter after being filtered by the surge protector, feeds the
battery, which feeds the DC/AC converter, which feeds your system. The
battery is being continuously charged and is continuously feeding power. This
means that after a while you'll have to exchange the battery. Higher-end
UPSes also allow you to replace the surge protection. In any case, nothing
can get to your system without first going past the AC/DC converter and the
battery. Typically you'll end up with a dead UPS and no power on your system,
but you can replace the UPS and your system should still be operational.

Note that if you put a surge protector between the UPS and the wall socket
you'll protect the surge protection on the UPS. You'll have to replace the
surge protector every ever so often, but that'll be cheaper than replacing
the UPS if you don't have one of those which allows you to replace the
built-in surge protection periodically.

I live in Florida. Lots of thunderstorms. I used to live in Jamaica and St.
Lucia. Lots of thunderstorms. I lost a lot of equipment due to thunderstorms
and other system problems before I started using UPSes. Since then, I've lost
several UPSes, but nothing else. And that includes the time that I came into
the office in Jamaica one morning to find that my large Liebert 250 kVA
central-model UPS was smoking... Central-model UPSes work by being plugged
into the electrical system at the main panel. Main power, 220 volt or 400
volt three-phase, depending on the size of the UPS, is fed to the UPS, and it
then feeds a particular circuit. Users plug equipment into wall sockets using
that circuit. Yes, we needed 250 kVA, we had a _lot_ of systems installed. We
had a contract with the local Liebert dealer, who came out and replaced the
dead machine in under 3 hours. They blamed it on a major surge due to a
lightening strike close aboard. If that UPS had not been present, I would
have lost some/most/all of my computer equipment.

YMMV. But I use UPSes at home and at the office, and plan to continue to use
'em so long as the power gird is less than perfect.

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

w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:59 pm, Fred Moore <fmo... DeleteThis @gcfn.org> wrote:
>> Tripp Lite Isobars and Isotels have been the most prominent to do
>> so in the consumer market, historically. Of course, you pay much
>> more for them. Part of the price is for a better mechanism (Tripp
>> Lite's are some of the best in the business); part is an imputed
>> insurance premium.
>>
>> With surge protectors, and surge protection built into UPSes, you get
>> what you pay for.
>
> Tripplite is not listed.
..
Because the “good” and “bad” lists are from w_.
..
>
> Numerous responsible sources state that earthing provides hardware
> protection. An effective protector is only a connecting device to
> earth ground. Earthing (not a protector) defines protection.
..
The statement of religious belief in earthing. For plug-in suppressors
the IEEE does not agree. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors
work primarily by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor, not earthing.
..
> Who should we believe?
..
I believe the IEEE and NIST.
..
> A protector is only as
> effective as its earth ground.
> No earth ground means no effective protection.
..
Statement of religious belief in earthing #2 & 3.
Everyone is in favor of earthing. The question is whether plug-in
suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors
are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

w_ has 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"?

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

In article
<31d898b0-6303-48ee-aced-84ee28a6e4ea RemoveThis @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
w_tom <w_tom1 RemoveThis @usa.net> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 1:59 pm, Fred Moore <fmo... RemoveThis @gcfn.org> wrote:
> > Tripp Lite Isobars and Isotels have been the most prominent to do
> > so in the consumer market, historically. Of course, you pay much
> > more for them. Part of the price is for a better mechanism (Tripp
> > Lite's are some of the best in the business); part is an imputed
> > insurance premium.
> >
> > With surge protectors, and surge protection built into UPSes, you get
> > what you pay for.
>
> Read the long list of exceptions embedded in that warranty.

In the part of my post you chose not to quote, I SAID THAT.

> But those effective protectors don't
> have poor reputations such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Panamax.
> Responsible surge protector manufacturers have names well known for
> reliability and integrity: GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler Hammer,
> and Leviton.

These are not generally/easily available to the _consumer_ public,
and/or they are more expensive than the equipment they are protecting.

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

In article <7c271$47b47749$4213ebb9$378@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
bud-- <remove.budnews.TakeThisOut@isp.com> wrote:

> w_ has 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"?

He's avoided answering those questions from the start.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 14, 1:13 pm, Jolly Roger <jollier... RemoveThis @pobox.com> wrote:
> He's avoided answering those questions from the start.

Questions from a plug-in promoter have been answered aa hundred
times using numerous engineering citations. But facts are not relevant
to Bud. Bud preaches to those who need sound byte answers by using
half truths and myths. That is the profitable market.
> Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are
> "the easiest solution"?

Bud's "easiest solution" results in appliance damage. Page 42
Figure 8 - the "easiest solution" earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through adjacent electronics. Bud's NIST citation says
every protector requires an earth ground connection to divert surges
into earth. It could not be blunter. Bud promotes protectors that
have no earthing connection. Why does Bud forget to mention that
part? Why does Bud recommend only protectors that have no earthing?
Why does the NIST require an earthing for an effective protector?
Why do effective 'whole house' protectors have that dedicated earthing
connection? Manufacturers known as responsible include Intermatic,
Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, GE, and Square D. If only one protector is
installed and properly earthed at the service entrance, then effective
protection exists AND Bud's profits are at risk. Spend tens of times
less money for superior protection that earths surges from direct
lightning strikes AND remain functional.

How do we know these protectors are effective? A human does not
even know a surge existed. But having a protector fail promotes more
sales of grossly overpriced (Bud's) protectors.

Responsible sources also note problems created by Bud's "easiest
solution". Numerous scary pictures created by his grossly undersized
protectors exist. Some examples:
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

Why does Bud ignore this threat? Bud promotes an "easiest
solution"; not an effective solution? The "easiest solution" provides
obscene profits.

Since 1986, protectors have UL approval. Bud will 'cut and paste'
a reply to confuse that reality. UL approval and still those scary
pictures exist - including the recent fire in Boston. Grossly
undersized protectors promoted by Bud ("the easiest solution") create
these scary pictures. Where is surge energy dissipated harmlessly?
What does the effective protector do? Earths a surge and remains
functional. Energy dissipated in earth would not create those scary
pictures. However Bud claims his grossly undersize protector will
stop or absorb all surges. No effective protection is when his plug-
in protectors fail during a surge; as indicate by that failure light.
Undersizing promotes more sales and excessive profits. Failure (the
indicator light) gets the naive to promote even more plug-in
protectors - more profits. But the effective 'whole house' protector
dissipates surge energy in earth, does not fail, costs less, and does
not earth surges through adjacent appliances. It also threatens Bud's
profit margins.

Type of failure reported by the light is the same failure that
creates those scary pictures. Just another fact that Bud forgets to
mention. Bud's reasoning: it is the "easiest solution". Therefore it
must be better?

Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent parts. Sell it in Best
Buy, Circuit City, and Radio Shack for $100 or $150. Does that $150
protector claim to provide protection? Of course not. Otherwise Bud
would have posted those spec numbers.

A same protector circuit also found in the $5 super market protector
is also inside the $150 protector. A higher price (and no
manufacturer specs) is proof of better? Bud says so because it is the
'easiest solution". But Bud's citations show failures created by the
"easiest solution". 8000 volts earthed destructively through an
adjacent TV. An effective protector (see the list of responsible
manufacturers that Bud did not recommend) has that dedicated earthing
wire. Wire that makes a short connection to single point earth ground
as defined in both front page EE Times articles entitled "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" . Wire that does not
exist in products recommended by Bud. What does that engineering
article not recommend? Bud's "easiest solution". EE Times is
promoting a solution; not profits, myths, and personal attacks.

Where does any plug-in protector claim to provide protection from
the typically destructive surge? Bud always remains silent. Profits
would be at risk if he admitted facts. His complete solution - his
plug-in protector - does not even claim to provide that protection.

Only relevant number for a protector is that manufacturer spec that
defines protection. Oh. That number does not exist AND Bud will never
provide one. Bud's obscenely profitable and grossly undersized
protectors are for profit - not for protection. And then are the scare
pictures when the protector is grossly undersized. How does Bud deal
with reality. He is a technical spin doctor. But those scary
pictures were not posted for profit. If only Bud could say same.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 14, 11:26 am, Fred Moore <fmo....TakeThisOut@gcfn.org> wrote:
>> But those effective protectors don't have poor
>> reputations such as APC, Belkin, Tripplite, and Panamax.
>> Responsible surge protector manufacturers have names
>> well known for reliability and integrity: GE, Siemens,
>> Intermatic, Cutler Hammer, and Leviton.
>
> These are not generally/easily available to the _consumer_ public,
> and/or they are more expensive than the equipment they are protecting.

Effective 'whole house' protectors are commonly available. For over
a decade,, 'whole house' protectors occupied shelf space in Home Depot
and Lowes. Both companies are moving some product lines to
professional installers. Those 'whole house' protectors can be
installed through both chains on any home. Same protectors are also
available in any electrical supply house. Any electrician can install
one along with the other critical 'system' component:(earthing) that
meets and exceeds post 1990 National Electrical Code requirements.
All this is commonly available and mostly unknown to a public that
also *assumes* surge protector and surge protection are same.

How expensive? About $1 per protected appliance. We routinely
install one 'whole house' protector to spend tens of times less money
AND to install a protector that actually provides protection.

Protection so effective and so inexpensive that phone lines also
have a 'whole house' protector installed by the telco - for free. Did
you know that? Promoters of plug-in protectors need you to not know
about that existing protection. Same protection is also installed
routinely by cable companies (without wasting money using a
protector). Cable company will even recommend removing plug-in
protectors that only degrade a TV signal, provide no useful
protection, and may even earth a surge destructively through that TV.

Wires highest on utility poles are the most common source of
surges. Lightning striking AC electric down the street is a direct
lightning strike to household appliances; if one 'whole house'
protector is not installed and properly earthed. What appliance is
most critical when a lightning strike happens? Smoke detectors. What
protects that smoke detector at the time it is most needed? As usual,
the same properly earthed and effective 'whole house' protector is the
only solution.

Defined above is secondary protection. The primary surge protection
system also should be inspected:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Mentioning the primary protection system would demonstrate the only
'system' component necessary in every protection 'system' - earth
ground. 'Whole house' protectors from responsible manufacturers are
available to the public, cost tens of times less money per protected
appliance, AND have that dedicated earthng wire. No earth ground
means no effective hardware protection by that UPS. No wonder it does
not even claim to provide that protection.

Listed is hardware protection that costs tens of times less money,
that actually does provide protection, that is the secondary
protection system, and that requires the same thing in your primary
surge protection system. No way around technical reality.
Protection is only as effective as the earth ground. Surge energy
dissipated in earth will not seek earth ground, destructively, through
household appliances - with or without the assistance of a UPS.
Assitance? Page 42 Figure 8 - a protector too close to appliance and
too far from earth ground may even earth surges, destructively,
through the appliance.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

On Feb 14, 8:49 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not... RemoveThis @but.see.sig> wrote:
> A UPS is a box with surge protection, an AC/DC converter, a battery, and a
> DC/AC converter... but no switch. What happens is that power comes in, goes
> to the AC/DC converter after being filtered by the surge protector, feeds the
> battery, which feeds the DC/AC converter, which feeds your system.

J J O'Shea describes a UPS that typically costs $500. The typical
$100 UPS (a computer grade UPS) connects directly to AC mains when not
in battery backup mode. When in battery backup mode, UPS outputs a
modified sine wave. Two 200 volt square waves with a spike of up to
270 volts between those square waves. Modified sine wave? Yes.

Internal computer protection is so robust that even a 270 volt spike
is not harmful.

If a UPS output is so clean and conditioned, then why do UPS
manufacturer say to not put a protector on its output? That DC/AC
converter only operates when in battery backup mode. When in battery
backup mode, a UPS output is so dirty that either the power strip
protector or UPS would be damaged. But since computer power supplies
are so robust, that dirty electricity is not harmful. Spikes that may
even harm a power strip protector are irrelevant to computer power
supplies. Computers are that robust as required by industry
standards.

Meanwhile, a UPS typically needs10 miliseconds to switch to battery
backup. No problem. All computer power supplies must maintain
uninterrupted power output when AC power is lost for more than 17
milliseconds. Another industry standard.

A UPS that does provide surge protection is the building wide
system; that also has a necessary connection to earth ground. Many
confuse this UPS with $100 UPSes.

More numbers that J J O'Shea did not provide. Many UPSes list 200
joules. Near zero protection. But large enough so that some will
believe a UPS provides surge protection. How many know what 200
joules is? Near zero surge protection. But enough to promote myths.

A typically $100 UPS does not work as described. If a UPS's AC/DC
converter and battery provided surge protection, then the computer's
power supply (required by industry standard to be a more robust AC/DC
converter) is better and total protection. Then the computer power
supply makes UPS surge protection irrelevant. No, then don't add up.
The only protection that matter is the one with higher voltage.
Computer's power supply would make that UPS protection completely
irrelevant. So even the $500 UPS does nothing relevant in surge
protection.

J J O'Shea - did you use your oscilloscope to confirm the UPS
outputs? I did. Just a little hint how many generations of design
experience is behind this post. Where on that schematic is the
protection circuit? Where are manufacturer spec numbers to confirm
what you posted here? Provided numbers define that protection as near
zero. Where are your manufacturer numbers? No numbers is how those
myth purveyors get us to believe them. Where is the required
connection to earth ground? No earth ground means no effective
protection.

Building wide UPSes that do provide surge protection (with specs
that define that protection) have a dedicated earthing wire and
contain more than a few hundred joules. Plug-in UPS does not. The
typical computer grade UPS connects AC mains directly to the computer
when not ijn battery backup mode. Direct with only a relay in
between. Get out your oscilloscope. Read the manufacturer specs.
The UPS does not provide and does not claim to provide surge
protection from a surge that typically does damage.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

> 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.

Yes, if a protector is grossly undersized. Install and size one
'whole house' protector for decades of protection. But many somehow
believe those 'magic boxes' sold on shelves as complete protectors are
effective. Power strip protectors so often grossly undersized to
promote protection myths and maximize profits. Did the light
indicate a protector failed? The protector was only one thermal fuse
from creating a fire hazard - those scary pictures.

Get a protector to fail quickly - in 18 months? Then the naive will
claim "a surge protector sacrificed itself to save my computer".
Reality. A surge too small to overwhelm a robust computer power
supply, instead, destroyed the grossly undersized protector. (Why do
they recommend no protector on a UPS output?) The naive will assume a
protector provided protection. Protector disconnected grossly
undersized MOVs leaving computer to fend for itself. Internal
computer protection that may be overwhelmed if one properly earthed
'whole house' protectors is not installed.

Let's see. A $3 power strip with some ten cent components selling
for $20 or $150. With profit margins that high, then myths must be
promoted. The properly earthed protector means surges are earthed for
decades without a human even knowing the surge existed. Required is a
'less than 10 foot' wire to dissipate surge energy in earth. The
protector is only as effective as its earth ground - as multiple IEEE
standards and so many others demonstrate. How many hundred examples
do you want?

A protector failing in 18 months? Then suspect a scam. See the
Atlanta Scientific citation. An effective protector diverts a surge
AND remains functional. Just one of so many sources state that sizing
reqirement. It must not fail in 18 months. But that failure light
can promote protection myths. MOV failure that would trigger that
light is MOV operation in direct violation of the MOV manufacturer
specs. In short - grossly undersized.
 >> Stay informed about: House Power Failures and Mac 

w_tom wrote:
> On Feb 14, 1:13 pm, Jolly Roger <jollier....DeleteThis@pobox.com> wrote:
>> He's avoided answering those questions from the start.
>
> Questions from a plug-in promoter
..
To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him.
..
>
> Bud's "easiest solution"
..
It is the NIST’s “easiest solution”.
..
> results in appliance damage. Page 42
> Figure 8 - the "easiest solution" earths a surge 8000 volts
> destructively through adjacent electronics.
..
w_ is referring to an illustration in the IEEE guide which has a surge
coming in on a cable service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in
suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to lie about what the IEEE guide says about them.
..
> Why does Bud recommend only protectors that have no earthing?
..
I recommend only accurate information, not dogma. Read the sources.
..
> Why does the NIST require an earthing for an effective protector?
..
Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution"?
..
> Why do effective 'whole house' protectors have that dedicated earthing
> connection?
..
Service panel suppressors are a good idea.
What does the NIST guide say about service panel suppressors?
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
cable or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."
..
> Numerous scary pictures created by his grossly undersized
> protectors exist. Some examples:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
..
w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. None of w_’s
sources say there is a problem with UL listed suppressors made after 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics.
..
> However Bud claims his grossly undersize protector will
> stop or absorb all surges.
..
Bullcrap.

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.

Neither service panel suppressors or plug-in suppressors protect by
absorbing surges. Both absorb some energy in the process of protecting.

The amount of current that can make it to a plug-in suppressor is very
limited because of the impedance of the branch circuit wiring. This is
the same impedance that makes w_ claim that plug-in suppressors are not
earthed. With limited current, the amount of energy absorbed from a
surge is also very limited.

In w_’s mind, plug-in suppressors have miniscule ratings, service
panel suppressors have mega ratings. But plug-in suppressors are readily
available with very high ratings for relatively low cost. A plug-in
suppressor with high ratings is not likely to ever fail. That is why
some manufacturers have warrantees on protected equipment. As covered in
another post, these suppressors probably also connect the protected load
across the MOVs so if a MOV did fail and be disconnected by thermal
disconnects, the protected load is also disconnected.
..
>
> Take a $3 power strip. Add some ten cent parts.
..
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.


w_’s post is an example of willful stupidity.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Read the sources.

Still *NEVER* seen - 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?

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:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, if a protector is grossly undersized.
..
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.
..
> But many somehow
> believe those 'magic boxes' sold on shelves as complete protectors are
> effective.
..
Among those who believe are the NIST and IEEE.

They are 'magic boxes' to w_ because he still can't figure out how
they work. If only w_ could read and think....

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

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:01:05 -0500, w_tom wrote
(in article
<a8263620-c039-4f4a-8c05-b99513c6085a.RemoveThis@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):

> On Feb 14, 8:49 am, J.J. O'Shea <try.not....RemoveThis@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> A UPS is a box with surge protection, an AC/DC converter, a battery, and a
>> DC/AC converter... but no switch. What happens is that power comes in, goes
>> to the AC/DC converter after being filtered by the surge protector, feeds
>> the
>> battery, which feeds the DC/AC converter, which feeds your system.
>
> J J O'Shea describes a UPS that typically costs $500.

Err... no I didn't. I described a UPS which cost me, personally, $150.

> The typical
> $100 UPS (a computer grade UPS) connects directly to AC mains when not
> in battery backup mode.

Err... no. That's an SPS, as noted in the part you snipped. Prices for UPSes
and SPSes used to be higher. You don't seem to have kept up with the
industry.

> When in battery backup mode, UPS outputs a
> modified sine wave. Two 200 volt square waves with a spike of up to
> 270 volts between those square waves. Modified sine wave? Yes.

Yes, it's a modified sine wave. No, it doesn't deliver anywhere near 270 volt
spikes.

>
> Internal computer protection is so robust that even a 270 volt spike
> is not harmful.
>
> If a UPS output is so clean and conditioned, then why do UPS
> manufacturer say to not put a protector on its output?

so that you don't overload the system. I, for example, _do_ have surge
protectors on the outlets. Two of them. However, I have made sure that the
total power consumption going into the unit is under 800 VA, which is the
rating for my main UPS. (I have two other, smaller, units... precisely
because I don't want to overload any one UPS, and I don't want to put too
much power on any single circuit.)

If there was anything close to a 270 volt spike, my surge protectors would
have long since popped.

> That DC/AC
> converter only operates when in battery backup mode.

That's a SPS. My units are UPSes. I paid extra because I wanted UPS systems,
not SPS systems. I know the difference. You do not appear to.

> When in battery
> backup mode, a UPS output is so dirty that either the power strip
> protector or UPS would be damaged.

Incorrect. At least not in the case of my units. You might have a point wrt
to older SPS units. I don't know. I've never used SPS units, precisely
because I wanted the protection that true UPS delivers and SPS does not.

> But since computer power supplies
> are so robust, that dirty electricity is not harmful. Spikes that may
> even harm a power strip protector are irrelevant to computer power
> supplies. Computers are that robust as required by industry
> standards.
>
> Meanwhile, a UPS typically needs10 miliseconds to switch to battery
> backup. No problem. All computer power supplies must maintain
> uninterrupted power output when AC power is lost for more than 17
> milliseconds. Another industry standard.

You are again describing a SPS. I don't have a SPS. I have UPSes.

>
> A UPS that does provide surge protection is the building wide
> system; that also has a necessary connection to earth ground. Many
> confuse this UPS with $100 UPSes.

Again... my main UPS cost rather more than that. And it is properly grounded.
I know this because I checked the building circuitry myself.

>
> More numbers that J J O'Shea did not provide. Many UPSes list 200
> joules. Near zero protection.

Mine are rated at 320 joules each.

> But large enough so that some will
> believe a UPS provides surge protection. How many know what 200
> joules is? Near zero surge protection. But enough to promote myths.

I'm beginning to think that you're clueless. 320 joules is sufficient in most
situations. It won't do anything to defend against a direct hit from a
lightening strike, but then nothing will. 320 joules _will_ stop a _near
miss_ by lightening, which is the best I can expect.

And even a direct hit by lightening will usually do no more than fry the UPS
itself. Yes, it'll blow right past the 320 joule protection... but not past
the AC/DC converter and the battery and the DC/AC converter, all of which
will burn. You'll have to replace the UPS, but not your equipment.

You're talking to someone who has seen this kind of thing in action. Who
should I believe, you or my lying eyes?

>
> A typically $100 UPS does not work as described. If a UPS's AC/DC
> converter and battery provided surge protection, then the computer's
> power supply (required by industry standard to be a more robust AC/DC
> converter) is better and total protection. Then the computer power
> supply makes UPS surge protection irrelevant. No, then don't add up.

Err... one major reason to have a UPS (or even a SPS) is to have support in
the event of a power failure or a brownout. The computer's power system
cannot do anything about either of those. The batteries in the UPS can.

Yep, you're clueless.

> The only protection that matter is the one with higher voltage.
> Computer's power supply would make that UPS protection completely
> irrelevant. So even the $500 UPS does nothing relevant in surge
> protection.

So you deny my actual experience? Interesting. Again, who should I believe,
you or my eyes? Hint: it ain't you.

>
> J J O'Shea - did you use your oscilloscope to confirm the UPS
> outputs?

An oscilloscope program on a WinBox, yes.

> I did. Just a little hint how many generations of design
> experience is behind this post. Where on that schematic is the
> protection circuit? Where are manufacturer spec numbers to confirm
> what you posted here? Provided numbers define that protection as near
> zero. Where are your manufacturer numbers? No numbers is how those
> myth purveyors get us to believe them. Where is the required
> connection to earth ground? No earth ground means no effective
> protection.

The specs are in the bumf that came with the system. They said that I'd get
no more than 132 volts; my test showed 123 volts, max. (Less than half your
270 volt idiocy...) Given a choice between believing what the vendor said,
and my eyes confirm, and what you say, I go with the vendors. They're not
frothing and ranting and denying the evidence of many years (decades, in
fact...) experience. You, on the other hand, are doing exactly that.

My very first experience with a UPS was with my very first job. I was at a
SCADA system for an electrical utility. Strangely, they had a UPS installed
to keep the computers running until the backup generator could be started. It
appears that at least one power utility believes the 'myths' about UPSes...
Gee, who to believe, people who work with electric power for a living, or
you? Hmm. Tis a puzzlement.

>
> Building wide UPSes that do provide surge protection (with specs
> that define that protection) have a dedicated earthing wire and
> contain more than a few hundred joules. Plug-in UPS does not. The
> typical computer grade UPS connects AC mains directly to the computer
> when not ijn battery backup mode.

Again, that's a SPS, a system I specifically warned against. You don't seem
to be paying attention.

> Direct with only a relay in
> between. Get out your oscilloscope. Read the manufacturer specs.
> The UPS does not provide and does not claim to provide surge
> protection from a surge that typically does damage.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

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

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:26:20 -0500, bud-- wrote
(in article <b852d$47b53d30$4213eb82$4625@DIALUPUSA.NET>):

> w_tom wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, if a protector is grossly undersized.
> .
> 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.

> .
>> But many somehow
>> believe those 'magic boxes' sold on shelves as complete protectors are
>> effective.
> .
> Among those who believe are the NIST and IEEE.

And power companies...

>
> They are 'magic boxes' to w_ because he still can't figure out how
> they work. If only w_ could read and think....

Yeppers. If only.

>
> ---
> bud--



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