Re: Backups

w_tom wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:14 pm, Bud-- <remove.BudN...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
A repetition of the same drivel.

And more drivel.


Since Bud promotes for plug-in protectors,

Ho-hum - repeating:
To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

then he must avoid
reality - no earth ground means no effective protection.

The required religious belief in earthing.
Repeating:
The IEEE guide makes clear that plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING, not earthing. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.


If selling a protector that claims to have protection but doesn't
provide protection, then why spend more money on internal protector
parts. That problem exists with grossly undersized plug-in
protectors.

Grossly undersized is a red herring. Plug-in suppressors are readily available with very high ratings.



UL1449 applies test
waveforms on a protector. The protector can even completely fail
during UL1449 testing - provide no protection - but obtain a UL1449
approval. UL1449 says the protector will not burn down the house when
testing with standard (ANSI C62.xx) waveforms.

That describes how UL applies to w_’s favorite whole house suppressors.


That fire threat still exists 20 years later - today. Most every
fire department has seen this problem with grossly undersized plug-in
protectors that might be on a rug or adjacent to a pile of desktop
papers:
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

Lacking technical arguments w__ resorts to pathetic scare tactics.
For anyone with minimal reading skills the hanford link talks about "some older model" power strips and specifically references the revised US - UL standard, effective 1998, that requires a thermal disconnect as a fix for overheating MOVs. Overheating was fixed in the US in 1998.

And according to w_ (above) “UL1449 says the protector will not burn down the house.”

None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors shouldn't be used. The links actually give info on how to use plug-in suppressors.


Bud will say anything to diminish a 'smoke and sparks' reality of
these 'scary pictures'. Notice I mentioned PC Magazine in 1980s.

A 27 year old article as a source - 18 years before the UL1449 revision?
And w_ just said “UL1449 says the protector will not burn down the house.”


Also note pictures in the last group. They even removed active
components (MOVs). Its indicator light said the protector was still
functioning.

This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.


Properly sized and properly earthed 'whole house' protectors also
are not located where fire threat is maximum. Just another reason why
money is better invested in a 'whole house' protector and upgraded
earthing.

Repeating rom the NIST guide:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV 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."

The question, despite w_ trying to change it, is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they do.

Where are your links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective? Still no links.
And why are the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide plug-in suppressors?
Why do you never answer the questions?

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Still sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Still distorts opposing sources, like hanford.
Still attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Surge protectors?
    ... religious belief in earthing - with no sources. ... Protector too close to electronics. ... The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop. ... Because plug-in suppressors violate w_?s religious belief in earthing he ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: Surge Protectors
    ... Plug-in suppressors with very high ratings are readily and cheaply available. ... lightning strikes do not cause protector failure. ... that all protection must directly involve earthing the surge. ... And "one effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: Surge protectors?
    ... w_’s opinions come from his religious belief in earthing - with no sources. ... Protector too close to electronics. ... The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop. ... “The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor. ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: Replacing electrical wall outlets...
    ... "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be sufficient for the whole house? ... Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. ... The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable service. ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: Fiber-optic isolator?
    ... That NIST guide says only earthing makes a protector effective. ... Both the NIST and IEEE guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. ... the IEEE guide says earthing occurs elsewhere. ...
    (alt.internet.wireless)