recommend a good surge protector?

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:18:09 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels RemoveThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kornball" tries to change the subject:
>> Pity you can't grasp that I am able to use ATX fine while
>> you find continual problems.
>
> Please supply a link where I indicated that I was having
> *any* problems at *all* with my ATX systems.

You are the one suggesting ATX is a problem.
So it would appear you have either deviated from ATX, or you
imply that only OTHER people are going to have problems,
when you are the one claiming it's problematic?
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On 4 Oct 2006 03:55:35 -0700, "bud--" <budnews.RemoveThis@isp.com>
wrote:

>
>w_tom wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>Airplane uses the same principles - it requires an earth ground to
>protect it?

It requires a path to IT'S ground, for parts relative to it,
so yes it is the same principle because we don't care about
this floating ground potential relative to earth ground.

>
>>
>> One can reconstruct the entire room in a Faraday cage with careful
>> engineering - and have protection.
>
>Entirely asinine. Plug-in suppressors are easily applied, as seen in
>the IEEE guide examples (Only plug-in surge suppressors are used in the
>examples).

Applied <> 100% effective.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"kornball" faked:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>
>>"kornball" tries to change the subject:
>>> Pity you can't grasp that I am able to use ATX fine while
>>> you find continual problems.
>>
>> Please supply a link where I indicated that I was having
>> *any* problems at *all* with my ATX systems.
>
> You are the one suggesting ATX is a problem.
> So it would appear you have either deviated from ATX, or you
> imply that only OTHER people are going to have problems,
> when you are the one claiming it's problematic?


Why are you changing the subject, and where's the LINK
I asked you for?


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

On 2006-10-04, kony <spam.TakeThisOut@spam.com> wrote:
>
> Applied <> 100% effective.

I don't think any manufacturer would claim 100% protection - any system
has its limits and beyond those anything.

Although surge protection isn't the primary motivation, my father
is an electrician for a company supplying high-end UPSs and back
up generators. They're a quantum leap above anything suggested
here. (A typical computer UPS will power a single machine for
maybe half an hour whereas these will power an entire building for
a week). They're used, amongst other things, where life really is
on the line (hospitals and the like) and they still get plenty of
emergency call outs. Usually it's mechanical failiure of course,
but ISTR hearing about a generator that received a direct lightening
strike a few years back. Would you expect anything to cope with
that?

Protection is never absolute - if these high-end (maybe 100K)
systems can't cope with everything, something picked up of the
shelf for $100 or whatever certainly isn't. What matters is
protecting against probable events - the laws of diminshing returns
apply as you go higher up the scale.


--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews.TakeThisOut@sdf.lonestar.org
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:27:06 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels RemoveThis @NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"kornball" faked:
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>>"kornball" tries to change the subject:
>>>> Pity you can't grasp that I am able to use ATX fine while
>>>> you find continual problems.
>>>
>>> Please supply a link where I indicated that I was having
>>> *any* problems at *all* with my ATX systems.
>>
>> You are the one suggesting ATX is a problem.
>> So it would appear you have either deviated from ATX, or you
>> imply that only OTHER people are going to have problems,
>> when you are the one claiming it's problematic?
>
>
> Why are you changing the subject,

Ok then, let's not post off-topic anymore but then why are
you asking for a link to continue this discussion in this
thread?


>and where's the LINK
> I asked you for?

You really expect us to believe that ATX is a problem that
you secretly understand, but that doesn't effect you- while
it must be all those other people that haven't reported any
problems, that must be effected?

Could it be that you were just making up nonsense, that
there are no real problems with ATX and that's why you don't
have problems with your ATX systems? Or did you use this
nonsense to dork up an ATX system till it was no longer
reasonable to call it ATX, and thus, you can claim your
system problems aren't ATX problems per se?

Nobody said ATX was absolutely perfect, but neither are
other alternatives. Once again it is important to not just
randomly claim something is important to change without
actually testing, measuring all consequences of such a
change.

You are big on ideas and little on demonstrated benefit.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"kornball" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>and where's the LINK I asked you for?
>
> You really expect us to believe that ATX is a problem that
> you secretly understand, but that doesn't effect you- while
> it must be all those other people that haven't reported any
> problems, that must be effected?


The LINK, kornball, the LINK. Back up your cockamammy
off-topic claim with a LINK.

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

kony wrote:
> 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,

No, it isn't.

> because the plane chassis is already the system
> ground for that system,


Just like the local surge protector is.

> 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? 

w_tom wrote:

> What is David Maynard's purpose when he posts?

Facts, unlike your huckster babble.

<snip of babble>
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

kony wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2006 03:55:35 -0700, "bud--" <budnews RemoveThis @isp.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>w_tom wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Airplane uses the same principles - it requires an earth ground to
>>protect it?
>
>
> It requires a path to IT'S ground, for parts relative to it,
> so yes it is the same principle because we don't care about
> this floating ground potential relative to earth ground.
>
>
>>> One can reconstruct the entire room in a Faraday cage with careful
>>>engineering - and have protection.
>>
>>Entirely asinine. Plug-in suppressors are easily applied, as seen in
>>the IEEE guide examples (Only plug-in surge suppressors are used in the
>>examples).
>
>
> Applied <> 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective.

So stock up on it.
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

Bud spins more myths to promote for plug-in protector manufacturers..
He cites an IEEE paper that discusses how a plug-in protector might be
installed AND how it may fail. Putting two TVs at 8000+ volts (figure
is somehow effective protection? Total nonsense AND not a
recommendation.

A TV at 8000+ volts then connected to an Xbox suddenly is not
protected. Plug-in protection so ineffective that even a kid with an
Xbox can compromise it. Bud hopes you did not understand that part.
Too profitable if you don't learn about earthing.

IEEE does recommend effective protection in something called
*standards*. For example, IEEE Red Book (Std 141) recommends
protection:
> In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
> process of interception of lightning produced surges,
> diverting them to ground, and by altering their
> associated wave shapes.

Interception and diverting to ground? A 'whole house' protection
system does just that - as IEEE recommends. Effective protection was
routinely installed that way even many generations ago - long before
WWII. 'Intercepting lightning and diverting it to ground' is what
both industry professionals and IEEE recommend. 'Diverting to ground'
is what plug-in protectors cannot do. Bud's agenda hopes you don't
learn this.

Meanwhile the IEEE also makes recommendation in another standard:
IEEE technical papers discuss alternatives. IEEE recomendataions,
instead, are found in iindustry *standards*. Why does Bud forget to
quote from those standards? Bud is promoting a product that is not
recommended by those standards. Promoting a product that does not even
claim such protection is its own numerical specificaitons. Bud is,
instead, promoting myths and half truths as an industry representative.

Quoted are recommendations from IEEE Standard 141 and IEEE Standard
142. Bud's plug-in protectors don't even have that earthing
connections, don't divert surges to earth, and may be undersized to
promote more plug-in protector sales.

Bud also says:
> A plug-in surge protector is a local single point ground.

If his rationalization was accurate, then we can connect protectors
to a computer motherboard ground. That also is a single point ground.
- and therefore provides protection? He intentionally mocks your
intelligence. Bud knows what single point ground the IEEE recommends.
Quoted directly from the IEEE Standards: earth ground. A protector
requires a single point *earth* ground. Instead, Bud wants you
confused so that more money is wasted on his plug-in protectors.

What does IEEE recommend? See IEEE Red Book and IEEE Green Book.
Protection is about earthing - which is what effective 'whole house'
protectors do and what plug-in protectors do not accomplish. No earth
ground means no effective protection. So plug-in manufacturers don't
even claim such protection in their numerical specs. Bud hopes you
don't notice that fact.

bud-- wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> Industry professionals routinely demonstrate effective protection.
>> They don't use plug-in devices.
>
> The IEEE and NIST apparently do not include industry porfessionals.
>
>> Protection system is repeatedly -
>> almost religiously - based in a single point earth ground.
>
> A plug-in surge protector is a local single point ground.
> ...
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Oct 5, 6:15 am, "w_tom" <w_t... RemoveThis @usa.net> wrote:
> Bud spins more myths to promote for plug-in protector manufacturers..
> He cites an IEEE paper that discusses how a plug-in protector might be
> installed AND how it may fail. Putting two TVs at 8000+ volts (figure
> is somehow effective protection? Total nonsense AND not a
> recommendation.
>

If you could read, you could figure out that fig 8 is part of an
explanation fo how plug-in suppressors work.

"Not a recmmentation"? To take only one example: the IEEE guide,
chapter 6, "SPECIFIC PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2 examples of surge
protection. Both use SREs.
Saying the guides take a lot of space describing, but not recommending
plug-in surge protectors is stupid. Repeatedly making this claim
requires willful stupidity.


>
> IEEE does recommend effective protection in something called
> *standards*.

The 5 authors of the IEEE guide read all the IEEE standards.


>
> Bud's plug-in protectors don't even have that earthing
> connections, don't divert surges to earth, and may be undersized to
> promote more plug-in protector sales.
>

Actually they do have earthing connections, but as stated numerious
times and explained by the IEEE guide, plug-in suppressors protect by
CLAMPING the voltage on all wires to the common ground at the
suppressor. Earthing is secondary.




The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0

And of course still missing - your links to sites that have common and
transverse mode ratings for service panel suppressors, ratings which
you say are essential. Given up on that one?

bud--
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

On Oct 4, 3:32 pm, kony <s... RemoveThis @spam.com> wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 03:55:35 -0700, "bud--" <budn... RemoveThis @isp.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >w_tom wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> >Airplane uses the same principles - it requires an earth ground to
> >protect it?

> It requires a path to IT'S ground, for parts relative to it,
> so yes it is the same principle because we don't care about
> this floating ground potential relative to earth ground.
>

I agree with David: "Just like the local surge protector is."

>
> >> One can reconstruct the entire room in a Faraday cage with careful
> >> engineering - and have protection.
>
> >Entirely asinine. Plug-in suppressors are easily applied, as seen in
> >the IEEE guide examples (Only plug-in surge suppressors are used in the
> >examples).
>
>Applied <> 100% effective.

I seem to agree with David a lot: "Nothing is 100% effective."
Seems like deja vu - protection is always a trade off of cost of
protection/risk/value of what is protected.

bud--
 >> Stay informed about: recommend a good surge protector? 

"kornball" faked:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>
>>"kornball" tries to change the subject:
>> Pity you can't grasp that I am able to use ATX fine while
>> you find continual problems.
>>
>> Please supply a link where I indicated that I was having
>> *any* problems at *all* with my ATX systems.
>
> You are the one suggesting ATX is a problem.
> So it would appear you have either deviated from ATX, or you
> imply that only OTHER people are going to have problems,
> when you are the one claiming it's problematic?


We're still waiting for that link to prove your claim that
I "suggest" ATX is a problem. Without a link, you're just
your usual fart in a storm, kornball. Where's the LINK?

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