The other post did not provide numbers. So now you have provided
numbers. Good. 20-55dB of filtering. At what frequencies? IOW an
incomplete number that should be obvious if you had technical
knowledge. Furthermore, what filtered noise frequencies cause damage
to a laser printer? Now that you have provided numbers, you are being
challenged to prove your claim with those numbers. Numbers do not
support your claim that:
It's generally not a good idea to power laser printers (or any other
devices that draw large amounts of current, ...) through a surge
protector because they interfere with the surge protection capability.
Am I to assume that 20-55 dB filter is damaged by high current
devices? Am I to assume that 20-55 dB filter no longer filters if high
current devices are used? Clearly you don't make the point. You don't
even provide a technical explanation of "interfere". You only post
numbers that apparently you don't understand and that are not relevant
to your claims. This is about your integrity which the numbers should
cause all to suspect.
Provided was the joules number: 2030. OK. What was the let-through
voltage for those 2030 joules? Another number not provided. So I will
guess. 330 volts. IOW those 2030 joules are electrically non-existent
(open circuited, disconnected, not shunting) when AC voltage remains at
a normal 120 volts. So again, how do those 'disconnected' parts prove
a power strip protector harms a laser printer? Once we include the
number you did not provide - 330 volts - then the laser printer
connects direct to AC mains.
EMI/RFI filtering for 100,000 to 10,000,000 Hz. Why provide that
number? They are limits defined by FCC so that appliances don't radiate
noise. Where does that number have any affect on 60 Hz electricity or
on how the laser printer works? What does the laser printer already
have? Filters for those same frequencies. So that filter inside the
laser printer harms or "interferes" with the laser printer? Why do you
provide numbers that prove nothing?
Same applies to claims about heat doing damage. Total speculation.
Where are the numbers from that manufacturer warning about not removing
power? Yes, you provide numbers this time ... that are totally
irrelevant ... which makes me wonder how many more technical claims are
made without first learning.
Why do we demand numbers? So that a poster demonstrates a grasp of
the technology. Junk scientists don't provide numbers because they
will be exposed as liars. In this case, I still see no numbers that
demonstrate how high current devices "interfere" with surge protector
abilities. I don't see any numbers that even claim those surge
protectors' abilities. And I don't see any technical facts that
suggest removing power from a power strip or wall switch is
destructive. I see lots of speculation that is not justified by the
numbers provided.
You do have the right to lie to others. And others have the right to
challenge you to provide the numbers. You still have not provided any
numbers to justify your claims that high current devices "interfere"
with surge protector abilities. These claims are too common among
those who never first learn the technology. I hope these bruises will
reming you to first learn science before speculating.
Brutal response? Yes. I did not spend decades learning this stuff
only to have a wild speculator claim to be just as knowledgeable. Junk
science reasoning is too common among mankind. Too many English majors
are now technical experts. If you post wild speculation - if you post
to intentionally deceive others - then expect to be challenged this
vigorously.
Meanwhile, you don't have numbers that show this protector
"interference" AND you are only speculating about heat damage.
Your reasoning: a fan spins - therefore damage will obviously result
if the fan does not spin. Wild speculation, no numbers, and not even a
manufacturer citation.
John said:
w_tom:
You seem to like the phrase, "junk science reasoning without numbers."
Other than to use that phrase a few times to describe EMI/RFI filtering in
surge protectors, you offer nothing to back up your argument.
I'm looking at a new-in-the-box APC surge protector, Model SurgeArrest
Essential P6B. It took me about 5 seconds to find the following technical
specification numbers on the box:
20-55dB EMI/RFI Filtering
A quick check of APC's web site found the surge protector section. Partial
specs for one device
(
http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=PF11VNT3)
include:
Surge energy rating: 2030 Joules
eP Joule Rating: 3400
EMI/RFI Noise rejection (100 kHz to 10 MHz): 70 dB
So your claim that EMI/RFI filtering is promoted "without numbers" is
groundless. In fact, in light of your claim that "
n reality, a power
strip protector [sic] does nothing useful for a consumer," I realize you are
confusing the terms "power strip" and "surge protector." Though you may
have seen the insides of a common power strip, I suspect you have never seen
the insides of a surge protector. (Whatever you wish to call it, I also
dispute your claim that for a consumer the power strip / surge protector
device is useless.)
Meanwhile your logic is that if a fan in a printer or a car runs
after power off, then if fan does not run, damage will result.
Nonsense. Spin that only a politician could love. Does the laser
printer or car get hotter when powered off? Of course not. If a fan
does not spin, the laser printer and car still cool - just slower.
I did not say that damage will result after power off if a fan does not run.
I said that you may shorten the product's life by repeatedly letting it bake
in its own heat. If you had experience with leaky electrolytic capacitors
you would know that.
Your ad hominem attack is out of place in this technical debate.
Finally, I never said that the printer gets hotter when it's powered off.
(Although a car's engine block may get hotter immediately after the water
pump stops circulating cooling water, that's a discussion for another
forum.) I said exactly what you wrote: After being turned off, without
benefit of a fan the printer or car eventually gets cooler, but it takes
more time. Since heat can damage electronics by shortening its useful life,
it's advantageous to get rid of that heat whenever possible. That's why
most electronic equipment cases contain air vents. Thus, if an engineer has
designed a product so that its cooling fan continues running after the
product is turned off, turning off that cooling fan before it has finished
ridding the electronics of heat is counterproductive.
I mentioned overhead projectors earlier. After most models are turned off
with their switch, the fan continues to run for a few minutes to cool the
bulb. Unplugging the projector before the fan automatically turns off
defeats the cooling mechanism. The same principle applies to printers. See
http://www.modernsoundpictures.com/neumade-overhead-2002.html
This being a free country, you are of course free to cool or not cool your
own laser printer in any manner you so choose. Heck, if you don't think
they're important you can even disconnect the fans if you feel like it! But
I question the wisdom of second-guessing the engineering team that designed
the printer's fan cooling system in the first place: If they didn't think
it was necessary, they wouldn't have chosen a circuit that keeps the fan
running after power off.