Computer turns on after a power outage (when power returns)

[bud--]

Bud promotes for plug-in protector manufacturers.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only
association with surge protectors is I have some.

With no technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose
him.

Therefore he will
forget to provide all facts. From his own citation on page 6 (Adobe
page 8 of 24):
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

"Forget to provide all the facts"???
What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link
appliances, No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power
AND phone or CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of
two-link appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO -
but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service
entrance is useless."

What does Bud's protector divert to? His protector has no dedicated
earthing connection.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge
protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors
(which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide
explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires
(signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Protection is earth ground. Effective protectors
(from responsible manufacturers) have a dedicated connection for that
'less than 10 foot' wire to earth.

The statement of religious belief in earthing.

Bud's plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide protection.
View that yourself. Get its numerical spec sheet. It does not list
each type of surge and protection from that surge for very good
reason. It does not claim to protect from destructive surges because
it does not have that earthing connection.

Complete nonsense. And w__'s preferred service panel suppressors
(which are a good idea) from SquareD do not "list each type of
surge". Plug-in suppressors have MOVs (protective elements) connected
from H-G, N-G, H-N. That covers all possible combinations and all
possible surges.

Bud's myth are promoted
by telling half truths.

My half truths come from the IEEE and NIST guides.

The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question
is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by
lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s myths based on
his religious belief in earthing.

w_ has never explained:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

 

[w_tom]

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

As usual, Bud must post incessantly and now post insult because
profits are at risk. Meanwhile IEEE makes recommendations in
standards. Those standards say nothing about plug-in protectors for
protection. Multiple IEEE Standards only define one thing essential
for protection - earthing. The protector that has an earthing
connection will earth surges - no damage. A protector without
earthing may even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV.

As IEEE Red Book (IEEE Standard 141) says:

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.

Diverting them to ground. That is what the protector with an
earthing wire does. That plug-in protector - where again is that
earthing wire? Why does Bud routinely avoid all discusson about
earthing? Why does he fear you might learn what an effective
protector must connect to?

Why does Bud posting mockery and insults. This is also a severe
problem with plug-in protectors that are built for maximum profits
rather than for protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING SURGE SUPPRESSOR FIRES.doc

Scary pictures are due to protector being grossly undersized and not
being protected by a 'whole house' protector. No wonder responsible
manufacturers such as GE, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens, Intermatic, Leviton,
and Square D manufacture 'whole house' protectors with that dedicated
earthing wire. One 'whole house' protector so that EVERYTHING in the
house is protected. Also protects life critical devices such as
furnace, smoke detectors, and kitchen / bathroom GFCIs. Where is the
plug-in protector for those devices?

Those responsible manufacturers have a reputation is based on
quality products - not spending massive profits promoting myth. Hell,
that plug-in protector (that Bud calls complete protection) will not
even claim to protect from each type of surge in its manufacturer spec
sheets. What kind of protection is that? Why would it claim to do
what it really does not do? Instead they have Bud to promote half
truths, myths, deception, and now insults.

 

[bud--]

As usual, Bud must post incessantly and now post insult because
profits are at risk.

Repeating:
"To quote w_ 'It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."
The source of insults is w_, who must incessantly post because his
religious belief in earthing has been challenged. Just like talking to
Jehovah's Witness.

Meanwhile IEEE makes recommendations in
standards. Those standards say nothing about plug-in protectors for
protection. Multiple IEEE Standards only define one thing essential
for protection - earthing.

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard,
recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This
is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

A protector without
earthing may even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV.

w__ is referring to an illustration in the IEEE guide (pdf page 42)
that has a surge coming in on a cable drop. There are 2 TVs, one is on
a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected
to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V.
With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply
a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to
the damage at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think,
is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is
required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example
a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection.
The problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power
service is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in
earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.

Diverting them to ground. That is what the protector with an
earthing wire does. That plug-in protector - where again is that
earthing wire? Why does Bud routinely avoid all discusson about
earthing?

The religious belief in earthing. The question is not earthing. The
only question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective.

I repeat what the IEEE guide says. Repeating again:
"The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires
(signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40)."

This is also a severe
problem with plug-in protectors that are built for maximum profits
rather than for protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare
tactics.

Hell,
that plug-in protector (that Bud calls complete protection) will not
even claim to protect from each type of surge in its manufacturer spec
sheets

I have often said service panel suppressors are a good idea. Read the
guides. Comments center on plug-in suppressors only because of the
nonsense w_ posts about them.

And repeating:
"w__'s preferred service panel suppressors (which are a good idea)
from SquareD do not "list each type of surge". Plug-in suppressors
have MOVs (protective elements) connected
from H-G, N-G, H-N. That covers all possible combinations and all
possible surges."
"Each type of surge" is nonsense.

Instead they have Bud to promote half
truths, myths, deception, and now insults.

The "old political trick" again - an insult from w_.

My "half truths, myths, deception" are from the IEEE and NIST guides.
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

w_ has never posted a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. All you get are his opinions based on his religious
belief in earthing.

w_ has never explained:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge rotection device.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for deflating that truth-twisting ignorant pompous airhead. Well
done.

 

[XenaFury]

Problem with my pc something to do maybe because of power outage. My pc was
on when it occurred power outage in my town only for few hours. My pc was
fine, I thought so, until every time I start or turn on my pc it should go
directly to window xp. Instead it stopped at black screen with listing
scrolling, as it should do when starting up and going to window but stopped
in middle there, with notice saying "Hardware monitor detects problem: go to
power option to fix". I have to hit F1 every time in order to go to window. I
look around in Power option through control panel, see that UPS stopped
working. Uninterruptible Power Supply, I thought it has to do with plug I
have outlet plug with multiple plugs for other appliances. I couldn't figure
out or find other way around, when I only wish is for my pc to turn on
normally and go straight to window xp instead of stopping in the middle of
black screen waiting for my command, either F1 or Del for setup at BIOS area.
Suggestion?