P
Pappion
PLEASE!
w_tom said:
P
Pappion
Will you two please change the Subject line? I don't want to be responsible
for this tirade between you two. It never fails, mention electricity to a
man, and a fight ensues based on their early education. Come on, you two,
give it over, or use email.
for this tirade between you two. It never fails, mention electricity to a
man, and a fight ensues based on their early education. Come on, you two,
give it over, or use email.
W
w_tom
Leythos said:
He does not post only there. For example a previous post is about
hardware damage - on a point that others don't fully grasp - apparently
don't have sufficient design experience. w_tom posts only when half
truths or myths are not challeneged. If it is a well accepted
comment, then w_tom does not respond. Others can just as easily answer
that question. But myths posted by Leythos and some others ill
informed regulars get an immediate reply. There is no excuse for myths
promoted in direct contradiction to 70+ year proven technology. Surge
protectors are promoted mostly by myths. Therefore even 'invisible'
surge protectors get challenged with long posts chock full of numbers,
citations, and contempt for junk science reasoning based in
soundbytes..
Leythos has a house full of 'invisible' surge protectors - which is
the only way he can claim his 'visible' protectors did protection.
Leythos will selectively strip down his data - ignore the exceptions -
so he can claim hardware without protectors were damaged and claim
hardware with protectors were not damaged. He ignores the exceptions.
Leythos selectively samples his data. Notice dishwasher, bathroom
GFCIs, furnace controls, dimmer switches, smoke detectors, etc not on
'visible' surge protectors were not damaged. Either these are on
'invisible' surge protectors OR appliances with and without plug-in
surge protectors protected themselves. Yes, all appliances already
contain internal protection. Since Leythos cannot dispute this, then
Leythos must attack (insult) the messenger.
Since w_tom takes on such myth purveyors, then he is used to being
insulted. Insult is the only way myth purveyors cannot reply since
even the manufacturer does not claim what Leythos, et al post. Leythos
posted junk science reasoning (selective data sampling) to prove his
plug-in protectors did something useful. I routinely expect him to
'attack the messenger' when he cannot challenge the science.
Number of insults demonstrates how often w_tom goes after junk
science promoters. Anyone can answer questions on how to reload a
BIOS. w_tom does not reply to such questions. Leythos somehow knows
that plug-in protectors saved his appliances using junk science
reasoning. Leythos has both 'visible' and 'invisible' protectors
protecting household appliances - or he is using junk science reasoning
(selective data sampling). His only defense is to attack this
messenger. Others do same when their junk science reasoning is
challenged.
Another classic myth: power cycling damages incandescant light bulbs.
Just another topic that, when challenged, results in personal attacks
rather than manufacturer specs. Many will post insults only because
junk science reasoning rationalized power cycling of bulbs as
destructive. Just another example of when w_tom goes after urban myth
purveyors - and then gets insulted. When the myth purveyor can neither
challenge nor provide science numbers, then he will resort to insults.
His 'invisible' surge protectors and his selective data sampling will
remain challenged when he can explain why appliances without surge
protectors were not damaged - and therefore ignores those undamaged
appliances.
B
bud--
To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." I haveno economic
interests in surge protection.
Anyone with minimal reading skills can determine 8kV is part of a
description of how Surge Reference Equalizers work
A kid with an Xbox can read the IEEE and NIST guides and understand
them. Sorry about your disability.
The IEEE and NIST guides do not share your religious views on earthing.
Both say plug--in suppressors are effective.
The political trick again.
The statement of religious belief again.
You have to be stupid to think IEEE and NIST guides intended for the
general public would waste a lot of space on "technical discussion'"
about a device the guides don't recommend.
The IEEE guide, chapter 6, "SPECIFIC PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2
examples of surge protection. Both use SREs. You have to be stupid to
say the IEEE guide does not recommend SREs.
You also have to be stupid to say the IEEE guide, released to the
general public, would conflict with the IEEE color books.
And religious belief again. Clearly described, for those who can read,
in the IEEE guide - plug-in surge suppressors work primarily by
clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common
ground at the surge suppressor. Earthing is secondary.
If you have no valid technical arguments maybe you could try pathetic
scare tactics.
For those who can read, this link specifically references a revised UL
standard, effective in 1998, that requires thermal disconnect as a fix
for overheating MOVs.
These links are the same. Both give guidelines for using plug-in
suppressors
None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.
This link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.
It si not stated any of the suppressors were listed UL1449. But anyone
who can read the hanford link can determine UL1449 was modified,
(effective 1998), to require overheating MOVs be disconnected. w_
can't understand his own links.
The political trick again.
The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
And add your horror pictiure sites
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still zero
43,782,942 internet sites run by crackpots and not even they agree with
you?
L
Leythos
And until you can explain why the protected devices, in every case where
unprotected devices were damaged, were not damaged, I'm going to
continue to follow the experience that shows that protected devices are
not damaged.
Now, this is simple, I've never had a protected device, not of my own or
a clients, damaged by any form of electrical surge, outage, brownout,
etc.. Not once, not in over 30 years of working with computer hardware.
At the same time, I've seen unprotected devices damaged, the same exact
hardware, on the same AC source, while the protected devices were not
damaged.
So, using your great science, explain why in EVERY case where
unprotected devices have been damaged, in the same electrical event, the
protected devices have NOT been damaged.
It's simple w_tom, it's not junk science, as it's factual, it's
repeatable, it's easy to see the results. So, now explain why two of the
same device (actually more than two in most cases) one protected and one
not protected, why the protected devices don't get damaged when there is
damage to the unprotected devices.
I await your simple answer.
W
w_tom
Pappion said:
I challenged, without apologies, those who would promote myths.
Accurate facts are always more important than personal emotions.
Observation must not be rebranded as a science fact. Leythos posts
this one observation as fact repeatedly. He knows only from what was
observed. He did not provide professional citations, underlying
reasons, numbers, and manufacturer numerical specs. Those other
prerequisites are required to convert an observation into fact.
Leythos even ignores undamaged appliances. No way around that
defective logic. E-mail would not solve this problem. Leythos even
uses selective data sampling. Error in his logic should be obvious to
anyone with science grasp - how to make a fact. Leythos rebrands only
an observation - without other prerequisites such as theory, numbers
manufacturer datasheets, etc. When challenged, he cannot admit his
obvious logical error.
Meanwhile the OP (Pappion) need not turn off DSL to protect software
(ie from viruses) and hardware (from transients). A most common source
of DSL damage is incoming transients on AC mains. Phone line already
(should) have a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Plug-in
UPS does not protect that DSL. Details provided repeatedly above -
even with industry numbers and a list of responsible manufacturers.
Listed is how, for example, the telco protects their hardware. Telco
do not use expensive plug-in protectors. Provided are reams of reasons
why 'whole house' and earthing solution is so effective. Cited
protection is especially important for DSL modems as defined by
previous technical reasons: how surges damage electronics and why
'whole house' protectors are so effective.
The OP (Pappion) should ignore incendiary claims from those promoting
plug-in solutions. The discussion is about protecting his DSL modem.
Effective and less expensive solution is what was installed even before
WWII. Effective is protector making a short ('less than 10 foot')
connection to earth. Alternative means even a powered off DSL can be
damaged (except those with 'invisible' protectors).
B
bud--
I do agree with w_ that surge suppressors can protect against
lightning, depending on suppressor rating, surge rating and where the
hit occurrs. They may not protect from an unlikely direct hit to a
house, but can protect from surges coming in on power and signal
wiring. (You may be talking about direct strikes and lightning rods. Or
tower antennas.)
Reading ahead I know you don't necessarily see these as realistic
numbers, but some comments. The energy dissipation in a MOV is based on
the clamping voltage across it. A surge suppressor may have a rated
clamp voltage of 400V, and the voltage across the MOV will go up to
maybe 500 or 600V with tens of thousands of amps in a service panel
protector. Wiring impedance significantly lowers the current for
plug-in suppressors unless very near the service panel. The clamp
voltage (400-600V here) determines the energy hit the MOV receives. The
most severe surges are typically lightning derived. A stroke is on the
order of 100 microseconds (but there may be multiple strokes).
If you had a 10,000A surge lasting 100 microseconds to a MOV that
clamped at 600V the device would dissipate 600J.
L
Leythos
And you've never been able to explain why I see what I see as being
incorrect.
D
DanS
Not personal emotions.
If is fact.
Fact, that in his experience, no items connected through plug-in surge
suppressors had been damaged while other item may have been, even
connected thru the same AC outlet.
It is NOT an opinion that they were not damaged. It is fact. Do they
still function ? Yes, fact, and, anyone that uses them will sate the same
thing, fact.
The real problem here, and with MANY, MANY people that think they are
smarter than eveyone else, is that you fail to realize that theory is
just that, theory, and once you apply that theory to REAL WORLD
situations, that theory may or may not pan out to be an exact science in
the REAL application.
W
w_tom
Appliances with better internal protection were not damaged.
Apparently a few with protection compromised by 'how transient found
earth ground' were damaged. Far more appliances survived even without
surge protectors. Leythos did 'selective data sampling' to ignore
those unprotected and undamaged appliances. For his conclusion to be
accurate, those other undamaged appliances must have 'invisible'
protectors. But then this has been posted to Leyhos tens of times. I
don't expect Leythos to acknowledge any of this. This post again
demonstrated how junk science recommends plug-in protectors.
Leythos claims protectors did what they don't even claim to do. Wild
speculation is not based in junior high school science principles.
Leythos observed something, ignored other undamaged appliances, and
then made a classic junk science decree. Based upon Leythos
conclusion, we have just proved the existence of 'invisible'
protectors.
Simple answer and it requires no electrical knowledge: either
'invisible' protectors have been discovered , or Leythos has
performed classic junk science reasoning using 'selective data
sampling'. Leythos insists those plug-in protectors performed what
even numerical specifications do not claim. Leythos demonstrates why
some recommend ineffective protection for that DSL modem. Some just
know - using observation, 'selective data sampling', and 'invisible'
protectors. Using junk science, anything becomes simple. Reality
requires more than a soundbyte. Protection requires earth ground.
Apparently a few with protection compromised by 'how transient found
earth ground' were damaged. Far more appliances survived even without
surge protectors. Leythos did 'selective data sampling' to ignore
those unprotected and undamaged appliances. For his conclusion to be
accurate, those other undamaged appliances must have 'invisible'
protectors. But then this has been posted to Leyhos tens of times. I
don't expect Leythos to acknowledge any of this. This post again
demonstrated how junk science recommends plug-in protectors.
Leythos claims protectors did what they don't even claim to do. Wild
speculation is not based in junior high school science principles.
Leythos observed something, ignored other undamaged appliances, and
then made a classic junk science decree. Based upon Leythos
conclusion, we have just proved the existence of 'invisible'
protectors.
Simple answer and it requires no electrical knowledge: either
'invisible' protectors have been discovered , or Leythos has
performed classic junk science reasoning using 'selective data
sampling'. Leythos insists those plug-in protectors performed what
even numerical specifications do not claim. Leythos demonstrates why
some recommend ineffective protection for that DSL modem. Some just
know - using observation, 'selective data sampling', and 'invisible'
protectors. Using junk science, anything becomes simple. Reality
requires more than a soundbyte. Protection requires earth ground.
W
w_tom
Surge damage occurs typically once every seven years. Sample the
neighborhood for a better local number. Damage may occur with or
without modem on. Depending on a human to disconnect wires (even to
furnace) is unreliable and unnecessary. An earthed 'whole house'
solution is so effective and costs so much less money.
Others erroneously suggested using a UPS. A recommended 'whole
house' protector costs about $1 per protected appliance - DSL modem and
other items essential to human safety would be protected. An
ineffective $25 or $100 plug-in solution obviously unnecessary,
ineffective, and expensive. Fact that previous damage existed (and you
got lucky with no modem damage) means a single and so effective 'whole
house' protector provides benefits - such as eliminating all that
unplugging.
neighborhood for a better local number. Damage may occur with or
without modem on. Depending on a human to disconnect wires (even to
furnace) is unreliable and unnecessary. An earthed 'whole house'
solution is so effective and costs so much less money.
Others erroneously suggested using a UPS. A recommended 'whole
house' protector costs about $1 per protected appliance - DSL modem and
other items essential to human safety would be protected. An
ineffective $25 or $100 plug-in solution obviously unnecessary,
ineffective, and expensive. Fact that previous damage existed (and you
got lucky with no modem damage) means a single and so effective 'whole
house' protector provides benefits - such as eliminating all that
unplugging.
L
Leythos
I snipped all your useless blather, as you've still not answered the
question: Why do protected devices survive in EVERY CASE, while many
unprotected devices get damaged?
Why do you ignore that protected devices NEVER GET DAMAGED?
L
Leythos
Well, w_tom, you had time to reply to others after I posted this, but it
seems to run and hide from logic again, as is your trolling style.
Let me ask you again, if you're so very right about what you say, that
UPS devices offer NO protection against surges, then explain this:
You've still not answered the question: Why do protected devices survive
in EVERY CASE, while many unprotected devices get damaged?
Why do you ignore that protected devices NEVER GET DAMAGED?
L
Leythos
Once again, when presented with facts, w_tom has run and hidden and
failed to even try and explain why protected devices, all of them, are
undamaged while unprotected devices of the same type are damaged.
Once again, w_tom is unable to address how devices were not damaged,
time and time again, instance after instance, always showing the same
results, while unprotected devices, many of them, are damaged during the
same event that doesn't damage the protected devices.
He's made more than a dozen posts since being asked to explain how it is
that the protected devices are never damaged while many of the
unprotected devices of the same type are damaged.
What do you want to bet that IF he replies he doesn't answer that
question.
D
DanS
He won't be back Leythos.
w_tom is exactly like a troll in new.software.readers named AlanConner.
AC is EXACTLY the same way.....makes claim's and when questioned about it,
or given info contradicting him, he NEVER addresses those. AC has been
around a LONG time too. So long that there is at least one web page about
him. http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/
Time to put this thread to rest.
Regards,
DanS
L
Leythos
Sorry, you're right, I think I actually let him get under my skin for a
moment. Dang, almost never had that happen in the 20+ years I've been on
Usenet.
Oh, and here is something interesting, I'm actually 70 miles from the
nearest city, moving 65mph, with my laptop connected to a 2000W
inverter, and my verizon wireless broadband card, and then VPN'd into my
office, where I'm bridging through my network to use the Usenet server
in my local area to post this
I'm amazed at how well connected we can be when we want to be - getting
almost 600kpbs and I'm 70! miles from any major city.
D
DanS
Sorry, you're right, I think I actually let him get under my skin for
a moment. Dang, almost never had that happen in the 20+ years I've
been on Usenet.
Oh, and here is something interesting, I'm actually 70 miles from the
nearest city, moving 65mph, with my laptop connected to a 2000W
inverter, and my verizon wireless broadband card, and then VPN'd into
my office, where I'm bridging through my network to use the Usenet
server in my local area to post this
I'm amazed at how well connected we can be when we want to be -
getting almost 600kpbs and I'm 70! miles from any major city.
People like that get under my skin too. Believe me, I'm all for
intelligent discussions, debates, and even some actual arguing. In the
help newsgroups though, there aren't many actual discussions that go on,
just helping people to get there stuff together. And really, how can you
debate a blown-up PSU, or whatever. But w_ (dubya_) needs to get a grip.
And about the mobile broadband........I'm just wrapping up a project to
provide wi-fi wireless to riders of mass transit. The first systems are
going in in California.
Just what people need, more opportunity to work on the way to work AND
the way back home !!!!
W
w_tom
DanS said:
DanS is invited to put forth some technical numbers. Those who
disagree post insults as technical proof. Where does the cadre of
nay-sayers post manufacturer numerical specifications for each type of
transient? They do not because those numbers - those technical facts
- do not exist.
Most damning is Leythos who ignores all those undamaged and
unprotected appliances to proclaim his few surge protectors did
something useful. Leythos uses 'selective data sampling'
apparently because he has 'invisible' protectors.
An informed person does not care what is under their skin. An
informed person has numbers, facts, industry professional citations,
etc to prove a point. So where are numbers from a UPS manufacturer
that define protection from a typically destructive transient? Those
numbers do not exist. DanS, et al never provide those numbers.
Leythos spins 'selective sampling' to prove his myth. Where is the
dedicated earthing wire necessary for effective protection? That
earthing wire does not exist for plug-in solutions. Damning facts.
What is necessary for protecting a DSL modem? Telco already
installed a 'whole house' protector with essential earthing connection
on phone line. Why? Because a well earth protector (installed for
free by the telco) is so effective and so inexpensive. But AC electric
has no such protection required by code. Responsible manufacturers of
effective protectors (Siemens, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Square D, GE,
Leviton, etc) sell effective solutions in Home Depot, Loews, and
electrical supply houses. How do we know these are effective? Each
has a necessary and dedicated earthing wire as 'recommended' by IEEE
Standards.. A 'whole house' protector is essential for protecting DSL
modem and every other household appliance. A protector that is not
'invisible' and that actually does earth transients.
That plug-in UPS does not even provide spec numbers for protection.
One is even a pathetic 900 joules. Another using the same circuit
sells for $160. Effective protectors cost about $1 per protected
appliance. Myths promote those grossly overpriced and ineffective
plug-in solutions.
One irrefutable fact as well proven by industry professional and
denied by those promoting 'miracle' plug-in solutions: no earth ground
means no effective protection. Good reason why responsible
manufacturers sell 'whole house' protectors with that necessary
earthing wire. No reason for skin to crawl. Effective solutions also
costs tens of times less money as well as provide effective protection
for everything inside a building.
W
w_tom
Pappion said:
A plug-in protector can be a kludge solution. First, building
earthing should be upgraded to post-1990 code which means an earthing
electrode is connected typically 'less than 10 foot' to AC breaker box.
Second, cut power cord short and connect it to AC receptacle on
breaker box. Now that AC phase has a short connection to earth - can
provide some protection.
Again, this is a kludge solution. One reason is because the power
strip protector is typically so undersized (and yet costs so much
money). Minimally sized protectors earth a nearby and direct strike -
and remain functional. That is but another reason why a 'whole house'
protector from Siemens, Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, Intermatic, GE, etc are
so effective.
Bud promotes plug-in protector manufacturers. Therefore he will avoid
some facts. His 'recommendation' is really a technical discussion
of how different protectors can and fail to protect. Recommendations,
instead, are found in standards. Bud will not challenge that blunt
IEEE statement from the Red Book:
To convert a plug-in protector to something useful, plug it into a
wall receptacle that makes a short connection to earth - as IEEE says
is necessary for protection. IOW cut that six foot power strip cord
short so that entire connection from power strip to earth ground is
'less than 10 feet'. A shorter connection to earth means even better
protection.
Earthing is the protection. Therefore each protected and incoming
utility wire makes a 'less than 10 foot' connection to same earth
ground. Defined above is 'secondary' protection.
Also confirm integrity of your 'primary' surge protection:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html
Finally, as a ham, then appreciate this figure from industry
professionals:
http://www.erico.com/public/library/fep/technotes/tncr002.pdf
Two structures (antenna and building): each has a single point earth
ground. To make both earthings more effective, a ground wire
interconnects both earthing electrodes. Yes, even the underground
phone wire is earthed where it enters a building - as the figure
indicates. Every incoming wire on every cable must connect to a common
earthing electrode - either directly or via a 'whole house' protector.
Effective protection is a building wide solution. Each protection
'layer' is defined by a common earthing electrode. Earthing should be
upgraded to meet and exceed post-1990 National Electrical Code
requirements because earthing provides appliance protection from direct
lightning strikes.
P
Pop`
Wah, what a bunch of blatant misinformation, misunderstanding and perversion
of the facts! This w_tom can be nothing but a blathering idiot looking for
attention by trolling with misinformed guesses and outright, incorrect
information and interpretations. Another name for the never-read file.
of the facts! This w_tom can be nothing but a blathering idiot looking for
attention by trolling with misinformed guesses and outright, incorrect
information and interpretations. Another name for the never-read file.