UPS battery backup?

[Bud--]

If that were true, then no protectors have tripped the indicator light
- are no longer operational. That light trips only when surges exceed
MOV Absolute Maximum Ratings - vaporize - or disconnect quickly

In a guide Martzloff said "In fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge
suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge."

Plug-in suppressors are available in ratings from junk to very high. Buy
a suppressor with adequate ratings. Manufacturers even provide connected
equipment warranties for some suppressors with high ratings.

- or
blow 'fire and sparks' as in these scary pictures do not happen:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm

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."

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 do give info on how to use plug-in suppressors.

If surges were so small, then those failed indicator lights would
never trip. Then those scary pictures would not happen. These scary
pictures exist because too much energy is absorbed by a protector in
direct contradiction to Bud's post. 'Sparks and fire' protection failed
to disconnect MOVs that were grossly undersized.

Grossly undersized is a red herring. Suppressors with high ratings are
readily available. Simply don’t buy junk. My post was based on research
by Martzloff. You disagree with Martzloff? Where is your source?

And again the fire scare tactic w_’s source said was fixed in 1998.

To achieve UL1449 ratings, many protectors disconnect protection
circuits so quickly that even the most trivial surge will trip an
indicator light. Why? Protector is grossly undersized. Undersized
plug-in protectors promote more sales. A surge too small to overwhelm
protection inside the adjacent computer still killed a plug-in
protector. But Bud says this protector only sees 35 joules. Therefore
those scary pictures and tripped indicator lamp do not exist?

Grossly undersized red herring #2.
Scare tactics, obsolete in 1998, #3.
No documentation for “disconnect protection circuits so quickly” -
another hallucination?
Buy suppressors with adequate ratings from reputable manufacturers - not
no-name Chinese junk.

So what happens when a grossly undersized protector does not abandon
an adjacent computer to surges fast enough? Above scary pictures of
protectors on a rug or adjacent to desktop papers.

Grossly undersized red herring #3.
Scare tactics, obsolete in 1988, #4.

Bud tells us that surges are so trivial - only 35 joules? In which
case, protection inside all appliances makes the plug-in protector
irrelevant.

Provide your source that all appliances have protection for 35 Joules.
Also document what surge current they are protected for. Why does the
IEEE guide as its only 2 examples of surge protection show plug–in
suppressors?

Just another reason why one 'whole house' protector is so
effective when combined with earthing and with protection already inside
appliances. One 'whole house' protector costing about $1 per protected
appliance.

$1 using w_’s cheap suppressors, that don’t exist in the real world, and
counting light bulbs as appliances. Provide a link for your $50 whole
house suppressors. Also provide specs.

If you buy Chinese junk made before 1998 read w_ rant.

Else read the IEEE and/or NIST guides. Both say plug-in suppressors are
effective.
For kony: nothing provides absolute protection from surges or any other
hazard; get suppressors with adequate ratings (see the IEEE guide) and
use them as advised in the IEEE guide.

 

[Bud--]

The lie is when you reinterpret the rating to say it's
"effective at stopping surges". An overly simplified
consumer guide with vague statements and pictures is hardly
evidence. Specifics matter.

The IEEE guide is aimed at “electricians, electronics technicians and
engineers, electrical inspectors, building designers”. Its authors are 5
electrical engineers experienced in surges and surge protection. The
guide was peer-reviewed in the IEEE and represents the views of the
IEEE. The IEEE is the largest association of EEs in the US and writes
many standards used in the electrical industry, including in the area of
surge protection. The IEEE guide is not “an overly simplified consumer
guide with vague statements and pictures”. It is very specific.
Apparently you haven’t read it.

"Can be", "at some".
Being overly vague is doing nobody any favors.
Depends on device design, magnitude, frequency of surges.
We can actually, completely ignore your vague claims and
consider each device and the ratings of components and
design. There is no need for a 3rd party reinterpretation
of it.

I offered very specific information based on a Martzloff paper. It was
not vague at all. You have made no comment on it. The comments that are
vague are yours.

This statement is a start. The more it is elaborated upon
towards a limitation for specific devices and surges, the
more true it becomes... which is the opposite of a
generalized statement that they're effective protection.

The IEEE guide in its section on examples says:
“The previous sections have shown, in general, how to protect electronic
systems
in houses:
1) Proper grounding and bonding, especially at the service entrance.
2) AC panel and primary signal surge protection at or near the service
entrance.
3) Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected.”
The IEEE guide has guidelines on ratings and application. I have said
plug-in suppressors should have adequate ratings and be used as
indicated in both guides. You are expecting a 10,000 word post?

It is really stupid to say that “effective protection” must protect in
all cases.
The following are not “effective protection”:
Fuses - are available in fault current ratings that will explode on
faults in many systems.
Plastic water pipe - will burst if the pressure is too high.
Steel frame structures - the World Trade Centers failed.
Sprinkler systems - the World Trade Centers failed.
Circuit breakers - may mechanically bind with aging.
Locks - can be picked.

I also said “ protection is always a trade-off of - degree of risk -
value of what you are protecting - cost of protection.” You can protect
your house from nuclear EMP if you want to. You wouldn’t like the price.
You also wouldn’t like the house.

 

[kony]

I offered very specific information based on a Martzloff paper. It was
not vague at all. You have made no comment on it. The comments that are
vague are yours.

You want to make claims about a paper, not addressing
specific design of specific products as comprehensive.

The specific product can be scrutinized instead, these are
not terribly advanced pieces of equipment. The discrete
parts manufacturers do provide specs for the parts and they
are essentially the bounds of operation no matter what an
overly vague paper meant for Joe Sixpack, seems to imply
when reinterpreted by another 3rd party.

The IEEE guide in its section on examples says:
“The previous sections have shown, in general, how to protect electronic
systems
in houses:
1) Proper grounding and bonding, especially at the service entrance.
2) AC panel and primary signal surge protection at or near the service
entrance.
3) Multi-port plug-in protectors near the equipment to be protected.”
The IEEE guide has guidelines on ratings and application. I have said
plug-in suppressors should have adequate ratings and be used as
indicated in both guides. You are expecting a 10,000 word post?

No, I'm expecting nothing. Rather, it still needed to be
said that an attempt to guard against surge damage depends
quite a lot on what, exactly, the devices are, and what
exactly, the surge magnitude, duration, and frequency of
occurance is.

To say "should have adequate ratings" is not the same as
"does have adequate ratings". You are talking about a
theory of what might protect, not what definitely will be
comprehensive protection, but deliberately erring on the
side of assuming protection before it is proven by
specifics.

It is really stupid to say that “effective protection” must protect in
all cases.

No at all, the stupid part would be to say "effective" means
anything other than the definition of effective. When you
use a word that generally means somewhat the opposite of
truth, it has to be taken aside and examined.

The truth is, surge protectors guard against some surges,
"can be" effective against "some". If you leave out these
disclaimers, it's a lie.

 

[w_tom]

I offered very specific information based on a Martzloff paper. It was
not vague at all. You have made no comment on it. The comments that are
vague are yours.

As usual, Bud takes selective editing from Martzloff. Martzloff was
once an advocate of plug-in protetors. Over the years, Martzloff
changed his conclusions. Especially important is what a more recent
paper from Martzloff states in his conclusions:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Yes, a plug-in protector can contribute to damage of adjacent
appliances.

In a 1985 paper, Martzloff noted how plug-in protectors may be
easily overwhelmed if a 'whole house' protector did not take the brunt
of that surge. In that paper, he describes the two types of
protectors as suppressors and arrestors.

In his 1998(?) paper, Martzloff also notes how plug-in protectors
can even contribute to damage of adjacent apliances. Curiously, that
is exactly what Bud's own citation Page 42 Figure 8 also demonstrates.

 

[w_tom]

Plug-in suppressors are available in ratings from junk to very high. Buy
a suppressor with adequate ratings. Manufacturers even provide connected
equipment warranties for some suppressors with high ratings.

Typical plug-in protectors that meet safety standards may still try to
protect electronics too long. Therefore this may happen - blow 'fire
and sparks' as in scary pictures:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm

Protectors have met UL1449 safety standards since the mid 1980s.
Bud knows this, so must create confusion. Scary pictures can happen
when grossly undersized protectors do not disconnect those protectors
- fast enough. Do not abandon electronics to a surge - fast enough.
So Bud 'cut and pastes' his standard half truth hoping other will
believe his myths.

Protectors even with UL approval can still blow 'fire and sparks'.
Why was UL1449 created? Because plug-in protector blew 'fire and
sparks' often in the early 1980s. 20 years after UL1449 was
created, some plug-in protector may still blow 'fire and sparks' if it
really tries to provide protection. Again, grossly undersized as well
as no earth ground.

Well if it fails on a first surge, then the naive will promote that
protector to friends. If a protector does as required, then the naive
would never know a surge even existed. That is what effective
protectors do. Earth a surge. No sparks or fire threat must happen
as demonstrated in scary pictures. Protector must remain operational
even after a direct lightning strike.

When promoting ineffective protection without earth ground to the
naive, then a protector that fails will be promoted my the naive.
"It sacrificed itself to protect my computer". Reality: protection
already inside protected electronics from a trivial surge that created
scary pictures.

No earth ground? Then why properly size the protector? But profits
- not protection - are the purpose. How profitable? Take a $3 power
strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it in Circuit City or Best Buy for
$100 or $150. Bud recommends this type of protector. Therefore he
repeatedly 'cut and pastes' the same half truth reply - hoping you
will not learn another problem with plug-in protectors. No earth
ground means no effective protection. Undersize it so that the naive
will promote it; maximize profits and sales.

Effective protection earths before a surge can enter the building.
No earth ground on that plug-in protector? No problem. An undersized
protector will promote more sales. Real world protectors earth surges
so that a homeowner never knew that surge existed. Real world
protectors also have an essential earthing connection. Real world
protector must not create those scary pictures; must not blow 'fire
and sparks'.

Responsible manufacturers provide real world - 'whole house' -
protectors. Manufacturers such as GE, Leviton, Cutler-Hammer,
Siemens, Square D. Intermatic, etc provide real world protectors.
Some are sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50. Again, any
protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Bud will say
anything to avoid what IEEE Standards demand for protection - earth
ground.

Bud fears this reality by 'cut and pasting' same confusion and half
truths everywhere. Those scary pictures come from where? Those
pictures are what happens when the plug-in protector tries to protect
for too long. Grossly undersized protectors must quit protecting as
fast as possible to avoid those scary pictures.

 

[w_tom]

But the IEEE and NIST guides both say plug-in suppressors are effective.
For kony: nothing provides absolute protection from surges or any other
hazard; get suppressors with adequate ratings (see the IEEE guide) and
use them as advised in the IEEE guide.

IEEE Standards - Red Book, Green Book, Emerald Book, etc all demand
one thing for protection: earthing. Bud says his protectors work
without earthing. He lies and his lies are becoming more deliberate.
What does Bud promote? Protectors that magically protect without
earthing. Even his own citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates what
happens when a protector is too close to TV and too far from earth
ground. 8000 volts destructively through the TV. Bud spins to deny
this. But then another of Bud's citations - Martzloff - also noted
problems with plug-in protectors:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Spend tens of times more money to protect individual appliances with
plug-in protectors. Even Morozoff's 1985 paper noted that such
protectors (which he calls suppressors) can be overwhelmed if the
'whole house' protector (that he calls an arrestor) is not installed.
Since then, 'whole house' protectors have been massively improved.
Same protectors that once triggered at 2000 volts now protect at 400
volts - making a plug-in protector redundant - as well as grossly
undersized, ineffective, tens of times more expensive ... and so
profitable for Bud.

Bud posts half truths hoping you don't realize that the 'whole
house' protector is required with plug-in protectors AND plug-in
protectors are ineffective without the earthing and 'whole house'
protector. Bud's plug-in protectors are so profitable. So Bud
forgets to mention what IEEE really recommends - earthing - and what
Martzloff also said - damage created by the plug-in protector as on
Page 42 Figure 8.

 

[Bud--]

As usual, Bud takes selective editing from Martzloff. Martzloff was
once an advocate of plug-in protetors. Over the years, Martzloff
changed his conclusions. Especially important is what a more recent
paper from Martzloff states in his conclusions:

w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

More recent? The paper quoted by w_ is from 1994. Even then, when
multiport surge suppressors were quite, new Martzloff said they work. In
2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.
Martzloff hasn’t changed his conclusions.

As usual w_ uses selective editing to try to make sources say the
opposite of what they actually say. Pathetic what w_ will do to protect
his religious belief in earthing.

On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ misconstrued the views of Arshad
Mansoor, another upside down house author, and provoked a response from
an electrical engineer:
"I found it particularly funny that he mentioned a paper by Dr. Mansoor.
I can assure you that he supports the use of surge equalization type
[multiport] plug-in protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from
me. LOL."

Curiously, that
is exactly what Bud's own citation Page 42 Figure 8 also demonstrates.

And the lie repeated yet again. The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors
are effective.



The IEEE and NIST guides, Martzloff and Mansoor all say plug-in
suppressors are “solutions” to surge problems.

And still never seen - a link from w_ that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective. Where are your supporting links w_. Why should anyone
believe you.


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
No sources.
Distort opposing sources.
Attempt to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Bud--]

Typical plug-in protectors that meet safety standards may still try to
protect electronics too long. Therefore this may happen - blow 'fire
and sparks' as in scary pictures:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/gen_saf/surgeprotectorfire.htm

Ho-hum - repeating:
“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.”

Protectors have met UL1449 safety standards since the mid 1980s.
Bud knows this, so must create confusion.

Repeating:
“ the REVISED US - UL standard, EFFECTIVE 1998".

Protectors even with UL approval can still blow 'fire and sparks'.
Why was UL1449 created? Because plug-in protector blew 'fire and
sparks' often in the early 1980s. 20 years after UL1449 was
created, some plug-in protector may still blow 'fire and sparks' if it
really tries to provide protection. Again, grossly undersized as well
as no earth ground.

Completely pathetic. UL 1449 was revised 9 years ago.
And the undersized red herring yet again.

Bud recommends this type of protector. Therefore he
repeatedly 'cut and pastes' the same half truth reply - hoping you
will not learn another problem with plug-in protectors.

I do not recommend people use plug-in suppressors. I recommend only
accurate information. I post “half truths” from the IEEE and NIST. w_
posts opinions based on his religious belief in earthing.

No earth
ground means no effective protection.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Undersize it so that the naive
will promote it; maximize profits and sales.

Lacking techincal arguments w_ has to use red herrings and impute evil
intent to manufacturers.

Some are sold in Lowes and Home Depot for less than $50.

Repeating:
“Never seen:
a link to any Lowes suppressor
a link to a Home Depot suppressor for sale near $50
Yet another stupid claim from w_ which he can not justify with a link.”

Again, any
protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

Statement of religious belief in earthing #2.

Bud will say
anything to avoid what IEEE Standards demand for protection - earth
ground.

The IEEE guide says plug-in suppressors work primarily by CLAMPING, not
earthing.


Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.

Still no link that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. The only
links are obsolete for 9 years.


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
No sources.
Use scare tactics.
Create a straw man — grossly undersized.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.