Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

[w_tom]

Somehow DanS assumes a 900 joule or 1600 joule MOV protector will
absorb what three miles of sky could not. DanS has so little grasp as
to assume a 100 amp transient is a typical surge. Surges are on the
order of 10,000 amps. Cited was a tiny 100 amp surge that wall
receptacle wire could not conduct DanS had little knowledge and then
assumed that was a good earthing ground. It could not even conduct a
tiny 100 amp surge which DanS assumed is a typical surge.

Somehow, DanS confuses 12,000 volts on 50 feet of wire inside wall
with 12,000 volts across a protector. Apparently done to deceive the
lurker. Electronics charged to 12,000 volts will simply leak
electricity destructively through other paths to earth ground because
that wall receptacle ground wire is too long, too many bends, bundled
with other wires, etc. A protector will not absorb voltage to earth
because protector has no connection to earth. Why? Wire is at 12,000
volts.

But again, DanS assumes that APC's undersized 900 joules will somehow
stop what three miles of sky could not. DanS does not even know what
'joules' measure. And yet he is an expert on surge protection?

DanS - both Monster Cable and sub-$100 protector use equivalent MOV
circuits in direct contradiction to what you have posted. Same circuit
as defined by numbers provided by you. Did you have insufficient
technical knowledge to understand the significance of those numbers?

Let's start by teaching what a surge protector does - Surge
Protector 101:
http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm

Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to ground.
Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning protection device
grounds the incoming signal connection point of the equipment
being protected. Thus, redirecting the threatening surge on a
path-of-least resistance (impedance) to ground where it is
absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of switching
circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow dissipation of the
surge energy.

Notice that surge and lightning protection are same thing. DanS
posted:

No, you are assuming that lightning arrestor = surge suppressor,
which is obviously not the case.

But as this industry professional demonstrates, surge protection is
about lightning protection - in direct contradiction to what DanS
posts.

So lightning of 50,000 amps dissipates maybe one million volts in
earth. That is maybe 1.5 million joules. How does a 900 joule
protector absorb that surge? It does not as taught in Surge Protector
101. Meanwhile effective 'whole house' protectors with short earthing
connections are rated for 50,000 amps - to remain functional. Don't
take my word for it. Learn about effective protectors. Read from boxes
in Lowes and Home Depot, or read internet posted specifications from
GE, Siemens, Cutler Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, and Leviton. DanS -
learn some facts before reiterating half truths from store shelves. You
did not even know a '900 joules' number until forcefully challenged.
You still don't know that 900 joules in that APC is woefully
undersized.

What do effective protectors provide? A dedicated wire for a 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth. What does your sub-$100 UPS and
Monster Cable both not discuss since neither even claims such
protection? Earthing.

Meanwhile DanS has just passively conceding that his recommendations
do not provide EMI / RFI protection. Concedes that the Monster Cable
and sub-$100 UPS have same protector circuit. Slowly he is being moved
to reality.

We should spend $100 to protect only one appliance? If not for
lightning, then what are we spending so much money to protect from?
DanS still will not say. Somehow there is this other mystery surge that
he will not define. Somehow spec numbers, literally based on timing
of lightning surges, are not really for lightning protection? But
again, we catch DanS speculating because he did not first learn spec
numbers.

Dan also believes a shunt mode protector will somehow operate in
series - to absorb surge energy. Again he is assuming without first
learning what MOVs do. They are shunt mode devices. Better MOVs that
conduct to earth are better shunt mode protection. They work by
shunting - not absorbing. Somehow DanS even assumes a protector will
somehow absorb 12,000 volts out of the 50 feet AC wire; confusing
voltage across a protector with voltage to earth ground.

If DanS really knew antennas, then he knew what industry
professionals say:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle
*direct lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some
planning and careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly
expensive. At WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning
strikes nearly every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime
from such strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went
down from a strike, it was due to a strike on the power
company's lines knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy
to go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than
just a low ohm DC path.

The lurker is cautioned about junk science experts who could not
bother to first learn the numbers, what numbers mean, and how a
protector really works (it shunts). DanS would have us believe shunt
mode protectors operate in series mode. That these devices do EMI/RFI
protection when their own numerical specs don't even make that claim.

Instead, protection is about earthing. Effective 'whole house'
protectors with responsible brand names also make that 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth. Somehow APC's undersized 900 joules will
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what DanS
claims. Be wary of 'experts' who could not even cite manufacturer's
numerical specifications and who did not know what numbers measured -
but somehow know that it works.

 

[w_tom]

interesting to see that you've changed your message to state "sub-$100"
instead of just UPS, as it appears you learned from your mistake in the
past.

I have not changed anything. We were always discussing what DanS has
now described as a sub-$100 UPS - also known as a computer grade UPS or
what most everyone has when they use UPSes. This was always defined as
different from other UPSes such as the building wide UPS that may do
power conditioning AND that has that dedicated earthing wire. But
computer users typically use the sub-$100 UPS - which is what was
discussed previously, These UPSes connect AC mains directly to
appliance. So where is this power conditioning? It exists in urban
myths.

 

[w_tom]

If one represents interests of plug-in protector manufacturers, then
one must deceive. Those six engineers note how a plug-in protector can
even put a TV at 8000 volts - damage the TV - which is why the
standards don't recommend plug-in protectors. Even a kid connecting
an Xbox to a TV can compromise plug-in protector protection -
contribute to TV damage. Bud hopes you ignore what they say about a
protector without proper earthing. Profits are too great. He hopes
you don't learn: no earth ground means no effective protection.

Bud spins a technical discussion into a recommendation. But
recommendations are instead found in Standards such as IEEE Red Book
(IEEE Std 141):

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.

No religion. Protection has always been about earthing. Do 911
emergency operators remove headsets as a thunderstorm approaches? Of
course not. Do they use plug-in protectors? Absolutely not.
Protection is same solution installed even in the 1930s - earthing.
Protector makes a short connection to earthing where wire enters the
building.

Bud intentional half truth lies and distortions were exposed six times
over:

1) Bud does not provide numerical specs for his recommendation.
2) Those profits are too outrageously high to be fully honest.
3) He intentionally misrepresents a technical discussion as a
recommendation - ignoring the TV charged to 8000 volts by a
plug-in protector.. 4) He routinely ignores IEEE recommendations
from the Red Book and Green Book - recommendations are made
in standards. 5) He hopes you will ignore that fire risk. And this
is most damning. 6) He completely ignores the need for earthing.

Oh yes. He hopes you will ignore these scary pictures:
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

UL1449 standards were created 25 years ago. Bud will try to claim
these failures did not meet UL1449. But then he must say something to
protect those he represents.

 

[Leythos]

I have not changed anything. We were always discussing what DanS has
now described as a sub-$100 UPS - also known as a computer grade UPS or
what most everyone has when they use UPSes. This was always defined as
different from other UPSes such as the building wide UPS that may do
power conditioning AND that has that dedicated earthing wire. But
computer users typically use the sub-$100 UPS - which is what was
discussed previously, These UPSes connect AC mains directly to
appliance. So where is this power conditioning? It exists in urban
myths.

And my SU2200 and SU3000 and even the APC Su700 and Backup ES700 units
have protected MANY devices from protective surges that damaged devices
connected to the same AC circuit.

We (myself and others) listed the above devices and you refused to reply
back about them, but, the fact is that no matter what you say, what you
type, those devices, in my experience, have clearly shown to protect
devices against surges while other unprotected equipment of the same
protected type has been damaged.

 

[w_tom]

Leythos - we go through this time and again. All those other
appliances also were not damaged. Using your reasoning, then they were
protected by invisible protectors. After all, your repeated assumption
says devices on protectors were not damaged. Those maybe 100 other
appliances - dishwasher, smoke detector, furnace controls, bathroom
GFCI, refrigerator, etc - therefore also must have been protected by a
protector. Therefore they are all on invisible protectors. When you
will stop denying all these invisible protectors that are necessary so
that damage did not occur?

Or maybe protection inside each appliance protected that appliance -
without or without a plug-in protector. Which is it? You are wrong
or invisible protectors did all that protection?

You know they were protected only because you 'feel' they were
protected. You spent so much money. Therefore those devices (like
Monster Cable products) must have done something useful. Money amount
proves it. Ironically the invisible protectors cost less money. Why
do you not give credit to those so many more invisible protectors that
"have clearly shown to protect devices against surges while other
unprotected equipment of the same protected type has been damaged"?

 

[DanS]

TO ANYONE FOLLOWING THIS THREAD......

I SHOULD HAVE REALIZED IT MANY POSTS BACK, BUT W_TOM IS A GOOGLE GROUPS
POSTER, WHICH EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.

Somehow DanS assumes a 900 joule or 1600 joule MOV protector will
absorb what three miles of sky could not. DanS has so little grasp as
to assume a 100 amp transient is a typical surge. Surges are on the
order of 10,000 amps. Cited was a tiny 100 amp surge that wall
receptacle wire could not conduct DanS had little knowledge and then
assumed that was a good earthing ground. It could not even conduct a
tiny 100 amp surge which DanS assumed is a typical surge.

No......I did math on numbers YOU provided. I am not a moron like you. I
kow that lightning can be thousands of amps and millions of volts. Great,
you are telling me that 12 gauge house wiring couldn't take a 100 amp surge
of ANY length of time ?

Somehow, DanS confuses 12,000 volts on 50 feet of wire inside wall
with 12,000 volts across a protector. Apparently done to deceive the
lurker. Electronics charged to 12,000 volts will simply leak
electricity destructively through other paths to earth ground because
that wall receptacle ground wire is too long, too many bends, bundled
with other wires, etc. A protector will not absorb voltage to earth
because protector has no connection to earth. Why? Wire is at 12,000
volts.
But again, DanS assumes that APC's undersized 900 joules will
somehow
stop what three miles of sky could not. DanS does not even know what
'joules' measure. And yet he is an expert on surge protection?

No a**hole, YOU do not know what a joule measures.

-1 joule equals the work needed to produce one watt of power continuously
for one second.

-A joule is a measurement of energy. It is the amount of energy that is
being consumed when one watt of power works for one second. This is also
known as a wattsecond.

This also scales linearily.

DanS - both Monster Cable and sub-$100 protector use equivalent MOV
circuits in direct contradiction to what you have posted. Same
circuit as defined by numbers provided by you. Did you have
insufficient technical knowledge to understand the significance of
those numbers?

I never said they did not have similar circuitry.. It would be interesting
to see what kind of reading comprehension scores you would get on a test.

Let's start by teaching what a surge protector does - Surge
Protector 101:
http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm

So lightning of 50,000 amps dissipates maybe one million volts in
earth. That is maybe 1.5 million joules. How does a 900 joule
protector absorb that surge?

No, your math is flawed. 50,000 Amps x 1,000,000 volts = 50,000,000,000
watts. That's 50 billion watts. If that was for 1 ms, it would be
50,000,000 joules. Me thinks YOU don't know what your talking about.

Now, cut & pasted from one of _YOUR_ sources.....

"The first stroke of lightning during a thunderstorm can produce peak
currents ranging from 1,000 to 100,000 Amperes with rise times of 1
microsecond. It is hard to conceive of, let alone protect against, such
enormous magnitudes. Fortunately, such threats only apply to direct hits on
overhead lines. Hopefully, this is a rare phenomenon."

"More common is the induced surge on a buried cable. In one test,
lightning-induced voltages caused by strokes in ground flashes at distances
of about 5 km were measured at both ends of a 448 meter long, unenergized
power distribution line. Typical test results are illustrated in Figure 18.
Notice that the maximum-induced surge exceeds 80 Volts peak-to-peak. This
is more than enough to destroy semiconductor devices and computer related
equipment. Yet, 80 Volts is well within the range of affordable
protection."

So the more violent rarely occurs, and that is direct hit to the above
wiring. the next paragraph goes on to describe the most common hits, and
then says this "well within the range of affordable protection".

It does not as taught in Surge
Protector 101. Meanwhile effective 'whole house' protectors with
short earthing connections are rated for 50,000 amps - to remain
functional. Don't take my word for it. Learn about effective
protectors. Read from boxes in Lowes and Home Depot

So you are learning from advertising literature on product boxes ?

, or read internet

posted specifications from GE, Siemens, Cutler Hammer, Square D,
Intermatic, and Leviton. DanS - learn some facts before reiterating
half truths from store shelves. You did not even know a '900 joules'
number until forcefully challenged. You still don't know that 900
joules in that APC is woefully undersized.

Well geez d*ickhead, I did know that 900 rating, which was contained in the
link to the APC product I mentioned, AND in the body of the post as well.
Again, you are not reading most things.

What do effective protectors provide? A dedicated wire for a 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth. What does your sub-$100 UPS and
Monster Cable both not discuss since neither even claims such
protection? Earthing.

Meanwhile DanS has just passively conceding that his recommendations
do not provide EMI / RFI protection. Concedes that the Monster Cable
and sub-$100 UPS have same protector circuit. Slowly he is being
moved to reality.

No, I said they DO contain EMI/RFI protection. I have conceded to NOTHING,
other than you are an a**hole.

We should spend $100 to protect only one appliance? If not for
lightning, then what are we spending so much money to protect from?
DanS still will not say. Somehow there is this other mystery surge
that he will not define. Somehow spec numbers, literally based on
timing of lightning surges, are not really for lightning protection?
But again, we catch DanS speculating because he did not first learn
spec numbers.

Dan also believes a shunt mode protector will somehow operate in
series - to absorb surge energy. Again he is assuming without first
learning what MOVs do. They are shunt mode devices. Better MOVs that
conduct to earth are better shunt mode protection. They work by
shunting - not absorbing. Somehow DanS even assumes a protector will
somehow absorb 12,000 volts out of the 50 feet AC wire; confusing
voltage across a protector with voltage to earth ground.

No, I do know what MOV's are and how they operate.

If DanS really knew antennas, then he knew what industry
professionals say:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

The lurker is cautioned about junk science experts who could not
bother to first learn the numbers, what numbers mean, and how a
protector really works (it shunts). DanS would have us believe shunt
mode protectors operate in series mode. That these devices do EMI/RFI
protection when their own numerical specs don't even make that claim.

No, I would NOT have you believe it operates in series. I know what it does
and how it operates. I never claimed that any surge protection offered
EMI/RFI protection. I did say that a not-super-cheap UPS's contain EMI/RFI
protection, which is documented in product literature.

Instead, protection is about earthing. Effective 'whole house'
protectors with responsible brand names also make that 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth. Somehow APC's undersized 900 joules will
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what DanS
claims. Be wary of 'experts' who could not even cite manufacturer's
numerical specifications and who did not know what numbers measured -
but somehow know that it works.

NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT DANS CLAIMS.

DanS claims that you are a troll retard loser that when confronted with
articles from learned, experienced people and are supplied product
literature when asked, and presented even more facts, you can do know more
that CHANGE what you are saying I claimed, and try to change the entire
context of what had been said that did not agree with your arguments.

 

[DanS]

I have not changed anything. We were always discussing what DanS has
now described as a sub-$100 UPS - also known as a computer grade UPS or
what most everyone has when they use UPSes.

That is correct, $80 - $100'ish UPS's was the subject, but the subject was
NOT specifically about lighting protection, you turned it into that one and
continue to twist words and fail to acknowledge any counterpoints what-so-
ever, no matter how valid they are.

 

[Leythos]

Leythos - we go through this time and again. All those other
appliances also were not damaged. Using your reasoning, then they were
protected by invisible protectors. After all, your repeated assumption
says devices on protectors were not damaged. Those maybe 100 other
appliances - dishwasher, smoke detector, furnace controls, bathroom
GFCI, refrigerator, etc - therefore also must have been protected by a
protector. Therefore they are all on invisible protectors. When you
will stop denying all these invisible protectors that are necessary so
that damage did not occur?

Let's make this clear, again, for you:

1) Same AC line in a building
2) Same outlet used for two computer/monitors (different cubes)
3) One user connected to APC UPS their computer and all connected parts
4) One user used outlet with a power strip (no surge protection)

5) Electrical Storms in area, lights flicker, power goes on/off several
times, then off for 30 minutes.

When power returns we have the following results:

6) protected devices, even by cheap surge protection, were undamaged and
worked, came back online.

7) Computer in #4 above would not POST, no sign of life, found PSU and
motherboard dead, monitor would not work in anything except 800x600 mode
for some reason. Replaced parts, computer works, drives fine.

8) Lost a microwave, couple personal radios, and misc other devices that
were not connected to UPS devices.

I've seen this SAME situation over a dozen times in the last 10 years,
and it's always been the same, protected devices remain undamaged, and
there are always at least one unprotected device that's damaged.

Nothing Invisible about it - UPS devices DO protect, it's proven by
field testing, as shown above.

 

[Pappion]

I only wanted to know if I should keep my Zone Alarm operating when I have
XP Pro, and a DSL firewall in the modem--it was turned on by going to my IE
browser and entering my IP address, and clicking "ON." That's all I needed.

the only time I've had a fried situation was after leaving home for a week,
and returning I had no Internet. It was really the phone cord (I'd forgotten
to unplug it from the wall outlet), and it was a 50' cord that had to go
from my office, over the doorways, into another room, and it was fried. My
modem did have to be replaced, but nothing else was affected, except my
pride.
thank you.

 

[DanS]

I only wanted to know if I should keep my Zone Alarm operating when I
have XP Pro, and a DSL firewall in the modem--it was turned on by
going to my IE browser and entering my IP address, and clicking "ON."
That's all I needed.

Sometimes the topic gets a little off-track.

 

[w_tom]

Let's make this clear but again. Does not matter if everything is
connected to same AC line. The circuit even involves things sometimes
considered non-conductive; that are conductive to surges.

Let's make this clear but again. To make your assumptions valid,
then explain why all those devices not on surge protectors were not
damaged. IOW you have no idea what was and was not protected by
plug-in protectors.

Let's make this clear but again - VCR and TV connected to same AC
wall receptacle. Neither on a surge protector. One damaged. The
other not. Why? Is one connected to the invisible surge protector?
No. Leythos makes assumptions as to how surges damage electronics.
His speculations cannot explain why only one of two appliances in same
wall receptacle are damaged because his assumptions ignore the most
critical component in surge protection: earthing.

Let's make this clear but again. Where do those protectors even
claim to provide protection for each type of surge. Where are the
numbers? Why are various surges not listed in numerical specs?
Because one would learn a protector designed for one type of surge does
not protect from a typically destructive surge. Plug-in protectors
manufacture hope you will assume as you have done ... and forget about
so many other undamaged devices apparently on 'invisible' protectors.

Leythos cannot explain why so many other unprotected devices were not
damaged because he ignores the complete circuit and ignored the most
critical protection component - earthing. It's called learning
details before assuming blanket conclusions.

IEEE Standards make it obvious. Protection is about earthing. Those
plug-in protectors have no earthing connections that routine in
effective protectors. No earth ground means no effective protection -
as was well understood even 70+ years ago.

70 years ago, they also did not use invisible protectors. 70 years
ago, Ham radio operators eliminated damage by earthing incoming antenna
wires. Same principle well proven that long ago.

Your examples tell us nothing useful because other relevant circuit
components (wires inside walls, location of earth ground electrodes,
incoming utility wires, what was the incoming and outgoing surge path,
etc) have not been provided. Therefore we can only speculate. What
do we know from well proven papers even from 1930s Westinghouse and GE?
Protection is about earthing. Protectors without that essential earth
ground connection are not effective. Without a protection 'system',
then protection even inside a DSL modem may be overwhelmed.

Leythos concludes only from observations, without first learning the
surge circuits, and by denying well proven engineering principles about
earthing. This is how junk science is also promoted. No earth ground
means no effective protection. No way around that well established
fact - as even stated in IEEE standards and routinely demonstrated in
virtually every town every year.

 

[Leythos]

I only wanted to know if I should keep my Zone Alarm operating when I have
XP Pro, and a DSL firewall in the modem--it was turned on by going to my IE
browser and entering my IP address, and clicking "ON." That's all I needed.

Sorry, to address your question:

I would hazard a guess that your DSL is not actually providing a
Firewall, but just a NAT - NAT is not a firewall, it's a routing methods
that has firewall LIKE features, but it's not really a firewall.

Now, NAT can protect you quite well, it can block unsolicited inbound
traffic, and let you share your internet connection with the rest of
your network.

So, if you only have your computer on your network, have an internet
connection, and have a NAT router, there is only a limited benefit from
ZAP or any other personal firewall. As long as you don't run as an
admin, have a clean machine to start, and as long as you implement all
other security practices, you won't need ZAP or any other personal
firewall.

 

[Leythos]

Let's make this clear but again. To make your assumptions valid,
then explain why all those devices not on surge protectors were not
damaged. IOW you have no idea what was and was not protected by
plug-in protectors.

And here is where you fall apart - I said that devices ON the same AC
supply line WERE DAMAGED.

Sure, not all devices were damaged, but, all computers on that AC line
that were unprotected were damaged.

I already made this clear, don't try and change what I said.

 

[DanS]

@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:

Leythos concludes only from observations, without first learning the
surge circuits, and by denying well proven engineering principles about
earthing. This is how junk science is also promoted. No earth ground
means no effective protection. No way around that well established
fact - as even stated in IEEE standards and routinely demonstrated in
virtually every town every year.

OK, now, you have hit the name on the head.

"Leythos concludes only from observations...."

Science IS observation.

What you speak of is pure electrical theory.

Noone is disputing that earth grounding is important. You are disputing
the fact that surge suppressors (especially contained within UPS's) do
not work, and can not work based on pure theory.

If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type, and 50
w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the 50 NON-
protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are not damaged,
based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to conclude that the surge
suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected items does it not ?

Now if you OBSERVE these same results over 10 events, and each time it is
only the non-protected items that are fried, it is COMPLETELY SAFE to
believe that the surge protectors did their job.

 

[Leythos]

If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type, and 50
w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the 50 NON-
protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are not damaged,
based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to conclude that the surge
suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected items does it not ?

That last part should have been "...suppressors saved 100% of the 50
protected items..."

 

[DanS]

That last part should have been "...suppressors saved 100% of the 50
protected items..."

Well, that was just going according to tom's logic, that suppressors
don't work.

If 50% of the unprotected devices fried, that gives a 50% failure, by
that ratio and t-Logic, 50% of the protected devices would have been fine
on their own because they are protected by some 'invisible' surge
supressor put in place on many devices by the 'surge supressor
fairy'....I've never seen her......

 

[Leythos]

Well, that was just going according to tom's logic, that suppressors
don't work.

If 50% of the unprotected devices fried, that gives a 50% failure, by
that ratio and t-Logic, 50% of the protected devices would have been fine
on their own because they are protected by some 'invisible' surge
supressor put in place on many devices by the 'surge supressor
fairy'....I've never seen her......

LOL, I see why I missed it, I wasn't thinking like w_tom

I have an old experience with a guy that was a EE when I was fresh out
of high-school, I was running an electrical design shop and had about 20
college kids going for their EE working for me (don't ask, it's just the
way life has always worked for me).

I was designing a UART based system that would transmit 64 sets of BCD
across two wires for a distance of 10,000 feet. I had worked on the
design for about a week, build the prototype, but I could not get the
current circuit down and I could only get about 1000 feet. I had hired a
EE a few weeks before that and let him have a go at it - this guy was
sharp as a tack when it came to theory and he figured out my problem and
solution in a couple hours. This same chap was unable to diagnose any
problems in the field, unable to solder anything, unable to explain why
things that didn't follow theory worked time and time again, etc...

The problem is that while we may not always be able to find mathematical
solutions to why things work, we can show a repeatable history that they
still work, and I'm convinced that, based on years of history, that a
quality UPS device does indeed protect devices connected to it.

 

[DanS]

LOL, I see why I missed it, I wasn't thinking like w_tom

It was kind of a lame joke anyway

I have an old experience with a guy that was a EE when I was fresh out
of high-school, I was running an electrical design shop and had about
20 college kids going for their EE working for me (don't ask, it's
just the way life has always worked for me).

I was designing a UART based system that would transmit 64 sets of BCD
across two wires for a distance of 10,000 feet. I had worked on the
design for about a week, build the prototype, but I could not get the
current circuit down and I could only get about 1000 feet. I had hired
a EE a few weeks before that and let him have a go at it - this guy
was sharp as a tack when it came to theory and he figured out my
problem and solution in a couple hours. This same chap was unable to
diagnose any problems in the field, unable to solder anything, unable
to explain why things that didn't follow theory worked time and time
again, etc...

That's it, theory is just theory. It's a starting point for a design.

As with your EE, that happens time and time again. I've had to deal with
a lot of EE's in my time (believe me, NONE of them can solder), and to
me, many of them, while _extremely_ intelligent within their field, lack
quite a bit other qualities/skills.

One EE, possibly the most book and theory intelligent EE I know (well,
knew as he has passed) could have been considered brilliant, and he
seriously lacked any type of personal hygiene and people skills.

 

[DanS]

I'm (hopefully) bowing out of this thread, but an interesting point
regarding w_tom.....

According to a Google Groups search, he has posted thousands of messages
preaching his surge suppressor theories starting in mid-2001. That seems
to be his main interest, and is called an idiot, moron, and almost every
other derogatory name in the book on threads just like this one that go
on and on about lightning protection insisting that evryone knows nothing
and he is the surge suppressor god.

Funny thing. Posts from years back saying the exact same things of this
post, like a cut & paste. He's apparently had that 200 V square-wave UPS
since 2001. Just go to show you that technology changes, Usenet kooks
don't.

I wish I would have seen it earlier.

Apparently, w_tom is to surge supression as _______ is to Windows
licensing.

I apologize to you and all following this thread. And to 'you-know-who'
for the licensing remark.

DanS

 

[Leythos]

According to a Google Groups search, he has posted thousands of messages
preaching his surge suppressor theories starting in mid-2001. That seems
to be his main interest, and is called an idiot, moron, and almost every
other derogatory name in the book on threads just like this one that go
on and on about lightning protection insisting that evryone knows nothing
and he is the surge suppressor god.

In almost every thread I've seen where ANYONE brings up UPS or POWER or
SURGE, he's there within hours, almost like he used Google Groups to
find those words and then posts ONLY about those subjects.