recommend a good surge protector?

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 03:47:32 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels.TakeThisOut@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"David Maynard" replied:
>> kony wrote:
>>> This is a computer hardware forum.
>>
>> Do tell. It doesn't, however, alter the laws of physics.
>
>
> Bingo!! Kornball (aka Kone-Head) doesn't trust physics.


Tim, you're the last person on earth that uses any kind of
science in your oddball ideas about (damn near anything).
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:38:49 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam DeleteThis @private.net> wrote:

>> We were not talking about airplanes, unless you were
>> attempting to introduce them into the conversation without
>> atually making mention of them.
>
>Huh? Since I mentioned them they're... well... mentioned.

Then the new question is WHY? Why introduce something
non-applicable to computer parts as if it is a proof of
anything?

It is not, was a very poor example because the plane DOES
still need a shunt to ground like any other parts we had
discussed. The only difference is that the plane chassis
ground is a reference that is not at same potential as true
earth ground. Otherwise, everything still applies, the
parts moving around in this new environment (Plane) must
have surge provisions same as with any other, the only
difference being where the ground is derived.




>> This is a computer hardware forum.
>
>Do tell. It doesn't, however, alter the laws of physics.


Right, so introducing something that has the same technical
requirements (ground at same potential as it's environment,
which in this case is isolated from earth ground) as if an
argument against grounding, is still false. There IS a
strap needed on airplanes. If you want to argue the
airplane itself doesn't need a strap to earth ground, it
would be nonsensical, the same as noting that earth ground
doesn't need a strap to some other planet because these are
both closed systems.


>
>> We are (were) talking
>> about devices plugged into a surge protector (or we seemed
>> to be, until you introduced airplanes and space shuttles,
>> which I doubt will have any potential to be plugged into
>> surge protectors we had been discussing).
>
>Back to that physics thing, 'potentials' is how electronics works.

Never claimed they weren't, but this is not applicable to
the discussion either. You're drifting around on tangents
that ultimately lead back to same things already stated.


>
>> The only relevant
>> context here for parts "moving around in transit"
>
>I'd certainly say that airplanes and space shuttles were "moving around in
>transit." Just more complicated because the parts are 'working' and not
>sitting dormant in an electrostatic carrier.

OK, a rephrase- moving around relative to a fixed ground
potential. The plane's fixed ground is part of that
(plane). The computer or other electronics part ground is
not, assuming it's plugging into something else as most are.



>> That ground strap is the purpose-built path to resolve the
>> situation.
>
>What resolves the situation is bringing them to equipotential and the
>ground strap doesn't help that at all.

Yes it does.


>What does is the protective *shunt*
>(the electrostatic carrier) around the sensitive device, which you don't
>remove till it, and so the device, are equipotential with the surface
>you're going to put it on.

You fail to see the same situation with the ground strap.
Either that, or you are failing to consider that a ground
strap is not necessarily connected to earth ground, it is
connected to the system ground which can be earth ground, or
may not be. For convenience sake, a workstation that works
on parts with a system ground at earth ground, OR other
parts in the vicinity (such as a table or whatever) that
might be an alternate path to earth ground, will make the
earth ground strap useful.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"korny" wrote:
> You fail to see the same situation with the ground strap.
> Either that, or you are failing to consider that a ground
> strap is not necessarily connected to earth ground, it is
> connected to the system ground which can be earth ground, or
> may not be. For convenience sake, a workstation that works
> on parts with a system ground at earth ground, OR other
> parts in the vicinity (such as a table or whatever) that
> might be an alternate path to earth ground, will make the
> earth ground strap useful.


<LOL> Is Who on First, or is He on First?
Kornball's last resort: Doubletalk.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:34:39 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels.TakeThisOut@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"korny" wrote:
>> You fail to see the same situation with the ground strap.
>> Either that, or you are failing to consider that a ground
>> strap is not necessarily connected to earth ground, it is
>> connected to the system ground which can be earth ground, or
>> may not be. For convenience sake, a workstation that works
>> on parts with a system ground at earth ground, OR other
>> parts in the vicinity (such as a table or whatever) that
>> might be an alternate path to earth ground, will make the
>> earth ground strap useful.
>
>
> <LOL> Is Who on First, or is He on First?
> Kornball's last resort: Doubletalk.
>
>*TimDaniels*


Translation: Anything Tim can't understand must not exist
and is an excuse for troll mode.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:38:49 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam.TakeThisOut@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>We were not talking about airplanes, unless you were
>>>attempting to introduce them into the conversation without
>>>atually making mention of them.
>>
>>Huh? Since I mentioned them they're... well... mentioned.
>
>
> Then the new question is WHY? Why introduce something
> non-applicable to computer parts as if it is a proof of
> anything?

Because it is a slam dunk obvious example.

>
> It is not, was a very poor example because the plane DOES
> still need a shunt to ground like any other parts we had
> discussed.

The discussion was whether a shunt is effective. It is.

> The only difference is that the plane chassis
> ground is a reference that is not at same potential as true
> earth ground.



Which has been the point all along. That an 'earth ground' reference is
irrelevant to protecting the device.

> Otherwise, everything still applies, the
> parts moving around in this new environment (Plane) must
> have surge provisions same as with any other, the only
> difference being where the ground is derived.

The point was that shunting protects the device, in this case an airplane,
regardless of where 'earth' is.

>
>>>This is a computer hardware forum.
>>
>>Do tell. It doesn't, however, alter the laws of physics.
>
>
>
> Right, so introducing something that has the same technical
> requirements (ground at same potential as it's environment,
> which in this case is isolated from earth ground) as if an
> argument against grounding, is still falsee. There IS a
> strap needed on airplanes. If you want to argue the
> airplane itself doesn't need a strap to earth ground, it
> would be nonsensical, the same as noting that earth ground
> doesn't need a strap to some other planet because these are
> both closed systems.

You're just blind arguing to be arguing. I did not make an argument
'against' grounding. I said w_tom's, and your, insistence that an 'earth
ground' is 'the only way to have protection' is wrong, and it is wrong.


>>> We are (were) talking
>>>about devices plugged into a surge protector (or we seemed
>>>to be, until you introduced airplanes and space shuttles,
>>>which I doubt will have any potential to be plugged into
>>>surge protectors we had been discussing).
>>
>>Back to that physics thing, 'potentials' is how electronics works.
>
>
> Never claimed they weren't, but this is not applicable to
> the discussion either. You're drifting around on tangents
> that ultimately lead back to same things already stated.

Good grief Kony. You're the one who tried to inject nonsense like "I doubt
will have any potential to be plugged into."

>>> The only relevant
>>>context here for parts "moving around in transit"
>>
>>I'd certainly say that airplanes and space shuttles were "moving around in
>>transit." Just more complicated because the parts are 'working' and not
>>sitting dormant in an electrostatic carrier.
>
>
> OK, a rephrase- moving around relative to a fixed ground
> potential.


The 'earth' is still a "fixed ground potential" even in the airplane's case.

> The plane's fixed ground is part of that
> (plane). The computer or other electronics part ground is
> not, assuming it's plugging into something else as most are.

That isn't what you and w_tom were arguing. You say ONLY 'earth' can be a
ground point.

The airplane example quite apropos. It's 'ground' wanders all over the
place with the plane and in the local surge protector the 'ground' it has
can wander in the same manner. The electronics don't care in either case
and are 'protected' by the shunt.


>>>That ground strap is the purpose-built path to resolve the
>>>situation.
>>
>>What resolves the situation is bringing them to equipotential and the
>>ground strap doesn't help that at all.
>
>
> Yes it does.

Glad we agree on at least that.

>>What does is the protective *shunt*
>>(the electrostatic carrier) around the sensitive device, which you don't
>>remove till it, and so the device, are equipotential with the surface
>>you're going to put it on.
>
>
> You fail to see the same situation with the ground strap.

No, I know exactly what it's there for.

> Either that, or you are failing to consider that a ground
> strap is not necessarily connected to earth ground,

It's you and w_tom who are insisting that's the ONLY place that matters.

> it is
> connected to the system ground which can be earth ground, or
> may not be.

Precisely. Just as the 'computer' connected to a local surge protector
doesn't have to be.

> For convenience sake, a workstation that works
> on parts with a system ground at earth ground, OR other
> parts in the vicinity (such as a table or whatever) that
> might be an alternate path to earth ground, will make the
> earth ground strap useful.

Useful, yes. Necessary to protect the device? no.

As I've said, you're arguing just to be arguing and ignoring what the
claims were.

A local surge protector shunts everything around the device. W_tom claims
it is no good because the 'earth' connection is high impedance, and it is,
relatively speaking. But it makes no difference to what's inside the device
because the 'ground reference' you, yourself, mentioned is the point right
at the surge protector, regardless of where 'earth' is, and that 'ground
reference' can wander any place it likes, as far as the insides of the
device is concerned, just as the 'ground reference' of the airplane can
wander all over the place relative to the same 'earth'.

To put it simply, the local surge protector *IS* the 'ground reference' and
it matters not if its 'different' than 'earth' as long as everything is
connected to the same surge protector reference (and it doesn't fail).
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"David Maynard" wrote about kornball:
> You're just blind arguing to be arguing.

Amen to that. Kornball defines himself by the
number of arguments he "wins", and he can
feel himself shrinking away if he feels he's
"losing" an argument. He's fighting for his
very existence, David.


> As I've said, you're arguing just to be arguing
> and ignoring what the claims were.


Even Rod Speed has said that. We all know it,
David. Let him lie.

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:32:25 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam RemoveThis @private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:38:49 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam RemoveThis @private.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>We were not talking about airplanes, unless you were
>>>>attempting to introduce them into the conversation without
>>>>atually making mention of them.
>>>
>>>Huh? Since I mentioned them they're... well... mentioned.
>>
>>
>> Then the new question is WHY? Why introduce something
>> non-applicable to computer parts as if it is a proof of
>> anything?
>
>Because it is a slam dunk obvious example.

No, we were talking about parts with later potential to have
ESD to ground, while with the plane, there could still be
ESD to the plane ground but not to earth- it is not at all a
good example because the same situation applies, it is
necessary to use a ground strap even when the ground is in a
different system.


>
>>
>> It is not, was a very poor example because the plane DOES
>> still need a shunt to ground like any other parts we had
>> discussed.
>
>The discussion was whether a shunt is effective. It is.

Who said it wasn't?
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:15:42 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels.DeleteThis@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"David Maynard" wrote about kornball:
>> You're just blind arguing to be arguing.
>
> Amen to that. Kornball defines himself by the
> number of arguments he "wins", and he can
> feel himself shrinking away if he feels he's
> "losing" an argument. He's fighting for his
> very existence, David.

Tim, do you understand usenet?
Generally the goal in posting is to proving information
ON-TOPIC.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"kornball" effluviated:
> Tim, do you understand usenet?
> Generally the goal in posting is to proving information
> ON-TOPIC.


So what's your complaint? We've proven that you're
an argumentive fake

*TimDaniels*
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

What is David Maynard's purpose when he posts? When he cannot defend
his point - when he does not understand the purpose of single point
earth ground - then he throws in an irrelevant grenade such as
references to airplanes. He did this often and previously to confuse
layman:
> Depends on what it's going into and not everything is earthed.
> Airplanes come to mind, as well as the space shuttle.

Posted was a standard response to his myths - including the same
picture of a struck 747 - to demonstrate that even airplane lightning
protection uses same principles.

To promote myths and distortion, David writes:
> I said w_tom's, and your, insistence that an 'earth ground'
> is 'the only way to have protection' is wrong, and it is wrong.

Nobody said that. But again, David's intentionally misrepresents
only to argue. If he understood effective protection and wanted to be
honest, then he would have never posted an outright lie.

One can reconstruct the entire room in a Faraday cage with careful
engineering - and have protection. $Hundreds of thousands are spent in
nuclear hardened facilities to accomplish same. Massive expenses to
protect a computer? Apparently that is David's idea of effective
protection. Effective protection - not the only way. Protection that
is superior and also costs so little money? Such protection is also
installed where damage can never happen. Earthing defines each 'layer
or protection'. David Maynard would have you install protection
without earthing? Good luck and be a very careful designer. Even heat
ducts and table tops must be integrated in his solution.

Yes, protection can be installed without earthing - and don't let
your kid use an Xbox on the TV. Or instead install effective
protection.

Industry professionals routinely demonstrate effective protection.
They don't use plug-in devices. Protection system is repeatedly -
almost religiously - based in a single point earth ground. Effective
protectors even have that dedicated earthing wire to make a 'less than
10 foot' earthing connection. No, it is not the only solution as David
intentionally misrepresents. But earthing is, by far, the most
effective, inexpensive, and standard building protection 'system':
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm
http://www.polyphaser.com/ppc_TD1003.aspx
> An adequate ground system, designed for lightning fast
> rise time current pulses, is essential for long term equipment
> survival.

http://www.psihq.com/iread/strpgrnd.htm
> Ten years ago it would have been rare for anyone to talk
> about the importance of low resistance grounding and
> bonding except where mainframe computer systems,
> telecommunications equipment or military installations
> were being discussed. Today, we live in a world controlled
> by microprocessors so low resistance grounding is now
> critical and is a popular topic of conversation.
> ... Today, the requirements of the NEC should only be the
> starting point for grounding systems and bonding.
http://www.arcelect.com/lightnin.htm
> As previously mentioned, the connection to earth ground can
> not be over emphasized.
http://www.knology.net/~res0958z/
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
> Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
> 30 years, that you can design a system that will handle *direct
> lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some planning and
> careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly expensive. At
> WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning strikes nearly
> every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime from such
> strikes is almost non-existant. ...
> The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
> and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
> a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
> And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy
> to go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than
> just a low ohm DC path.

David Maynard's intentions make confusion using myths and lies. He
even said:
> ... your, insistence that an 'earth ground' is 'the only
> way to have protection' is wrong

He intentionally misrepresents so that you, the reader, will be
confused.

Effective protection is simple and is not found in plug-in solutions.
The most essential component in every protection system is a single
point earth ground - as professional after professional - even Ben
Franklin in 1752 - demonstrate. Notice it is what that shunt connects
to that makes protection so effective. David forgets to mention a
shunt to nothing does nothing. Shunting to single point earth ground
is both for equipotential and for conductivity. Effective protection
systems do both.

As professionals demonstrate, earthing is standard of an effective
protection system. David Maynard insists those overpriced and undersize
'plug-in' protectors - that don't do both - are sufficient. Both
equipotential and conductivity are necessary when we consult those who
install effective protection. Somehow, equipotential is only necessary
according to David. Earthing is the most critical component of a surge
protection 'system'.

David Maynard wrote
> ...
> Because it is a slam dunk obvious example.
> ...
>
> The discussion was whether a shunt is effective. It is.
> ...
>
> Which has been the point all along. That an 'earth ground' reference is
> irrelevant to protecting the device.
> ...
>
> The point was that shunting protects the device, in this case an airplane,
> regardless of where 'earth' is.
> ...
>
> You're just blind arguing to be arguing. I did not make an argument
> 'against' grounding. I said w_tom's, and your, insistence that an 'earth
> ground' is 'the only way to have protection' is wrong, and it is wrong.
> ...
>
> The 'earth' is still a "fixed ground potential" even in the airplane's case.
> ...
>
> That isn't what you and w_tom were arguing. You say ONLY 'earth' can be a
> ground point.
>
> The airplane example quite apropos. It's 'ground' wanders all over the
> place with the plane and in the local surge protector the 'ground' it has
> can wander in the same manner. The electronics don't care in either case
> and are 'protected' by the shunt.
> ...
>
> A local surge protector shunts everything around the device. W_tom claims
> it is no good because the 'earth' connection is high impedance, and it is,
> relatively speaking. But it makes no difference to what's inside the device
> because the 'ground reference' you, yourself, mentioned is the point right
> at the surge protector, regardless of where 'earth' is, and that 'ground
> reference' can wander any place it likes, as far as the insides of the
> device is concerned, just as the 'ground reference' of the airplane can
> wander all over the place relative to the same 'earth'.
>
> To put it simply, the local surge protector *IS* the 'ground reference' and
> it matters not if its 'different' than 'earth' as long as everything is
> connected to the same surge protector reference (and it doesn't fail).
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:32:25 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam DeleteThis @private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:38:49 -0500, David Maynard
>>><nospam DeleteThis @private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>We were not talking about airplanes, unless you were
>>>>>attempting to introduce them into the conversation without
>>>>>atually making mention of them.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? Since I mentioned them they're... well... mentioned.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then the new question is WHY? Why introduce something
>>>non-applicable to computer parts as if it is a proof of
>>>anything?
>>
>>Because it is a slam dunk obvious example.
>
>
> No, we were talking about parts with later potential to have
> ESD to ground, while with the plane, there could still be
> ESD to the plane ground but not to earth-

Nonsense. Where do you think the ground strike lightning bolt is headed?

> it is not at all a
> good example because the same situation applies, it is
> necessary to use a ground strap even when the ground is in a
> different system.

Nice bit of disingenuously snipping out the explanation.


>>>It is not, was a very poor example because the plane DOES
>>>still need a shunt to ground like any other parts we had
>>>discussed.
>>
>>The discussion was whether a shunt is effective. It is.
>
>
> Who said it wasn't?

You
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:29:51 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels DeleteThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kornball" effluviated:
>> Tim, do you understand usenet?
>> Generally the goal in posting is to proving information
>> ON-TOPIC.
>
>
> So what's your complaint? We've proven that you're
> an argumentive fake


Pity you can't grasp that I am able to use ATX fine while
you find continual problems. You have a funny definition of
"fake".
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:43:13 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam DeleteThis @private.net> wrote:


>> No, we were talking about parts with later potential to have
>> ESD to ground, while with the plane, there could still be
>> ESD to the plane ground but not to earth-
>
>Nonsense. Where do you think the ground strike lightning bolt is headed?

Irrelevant, because the plane chassis is already the system
ground for that system, unlike some other part that may have
a path through a non-ground connection.


>
>> it is not at all a
>> good example because the same situation applies, it is
>> necessary to use a ground strap even when the ground is in a
>> different system.
>
>Nice bit of disingenuously snipping out the explanation.

How many times do we need to repeat it? Everyone had
already read it else these two posts would be without
context. Otherwise posts grow to mammoth proportions and
we've already spent far too much time on airplanes in a
comp.hardware forum.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector?