UPS in blackouts

[John Doe]

If a UPS already has surge protection, then 'extra' does nothing
but hurt the pocket.

MikeM already has a surge suppressor, moron.

John Doe also does not explain why a power strip protector must
not be plugged into a UPS. That would require technical knowledge

What are you, Tom, besides a freakish troll who searches the
archives for keywords like "surge suppressor" and "power supply" so
you can jump into the group/thread to spread your oddball ideas?

Whenever the subject "power supply" or "surge suppressor" comes up,
Tom, every regular knows you'll be here.

John Doe forgot to mention underlying facts that require technical
knowledge.

And nobody knows why on earth Tom runs around USENET spreading his
strange ideas about surge suppressors not working. My best guess is
that as a child Tom was connected to a surge suppressor and it
didn't work.

 

[John Doe]

JDoe is a bit of a troll in these groups

Says the very easily excited troll "geoff".

 

[geoff]

Hehe, responding to jdoe directly is useless, he just hurls insults.

--g

 

[John Doe]

Hehe, responding to jdoe directly is useless, he just hurls insults.

Is that what your imaginary kill file friend tells you, geoff?

 

[westom1]

Hehe, responding to jdoe directly is useless, he just hurls insults.

The review who he is. This posted from so many because John Doe
routinely posts insults and never posts any technically useful facts.

John Doe has a long history of attacking people he does not like. He
has a history of posting without technical knowledge. To appreciate
his integrity, search on posts using the search terms "John Doe" and
"Mark Bender".


John Doe, better known as Mark Bender, has a long history of attacking
others:
http://tinyurl.com/6or86k
rec.sport.tennis

http://tinyurl.com/6g9my5
in comp.speech.users
He claimed to be a speech recognition expert

In numerous other newsgroups, he has been identified under other
aliases selling PC and hotel rooms in Bejing.

Spam from John Doe identified
http://tinyurl.com/5729pb
in news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins

Make Money Fast has been posted many thousands of times,
enough to qualify as cancel-on-sight spam regardless of exact
content. Also, the scheme it describes is illegal in many
countries

Kevin O'Donovan asks in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic at
http://tinyurl.com/yct23p

Did anyone else think his jump from "Living with teenage
daughters" to trying to convince them to do dubious things
in front of webcams et al was a bit bizarre.

in alt.support.depression.medication
http://tinyurl.com/65kcxg
Fan accuses him of using another alias, LSHAPLING, to stalk women on
mental health groups

in rec.sport.skating.inline
http://tinyurl.com/59873r
His arrest records

John Doe has made and earned many enemies. So many enemies that
they collected and posted these facts about John Doe AKA Mark
Bender.

 

[geoff]

Lol, I'm not surprised but it seems odd that these kinds of groups are
magnets for these whackos/trolls.

--g

 

[Charlie]

I agree, the surge does not get 'stopped' it takes the shortest path to
ground, and it sometimes jumps systems to do that.

I believe the surge takes *all* paths to ground. The amount of current in
each path varies by the resistance in each path.

I had a lightning strike in the front of the house, four houses total were
affected.

Most likely because there were at least four paths to ground.

Charlie

 

[John Doe]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

....

The review who he is. This posted from so many because John Doe
routinely posts insults and never posts any technically useful
facts.

Tom needs his diaper changed.

John Doe has a long history of attacking people he does not like.

Me and other people, Bud for example, enjoy correcting Tom for
spreading hazardous nonsense on USENET. I have reserved the practice
for when Tom invades one of my favorite groups.

To appreciate his integrity, search on posts using the search
terms "John Doe" and "Mark Bender".

My USENET alias has remained the same for many years.

John Doe, better known as Mark Bender, has a long history of
attacking others

We will take good care of you here on USENET, Tom.

He claimed to be a speech recognition expert

That's false. I'm a proficient speech recognition user. I use SR for
automating Windows too, and that is a powerful thing IMO.

In numerous other newsgroups, he has been identified under other
aliases selling PC and hotel rooms in Bejing.
lol

Spam from John Doe identified http://tinyurl.com/5729pb in
news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins

The name John Doe is not unique, moron.

Maybe after you've done about five years of intensive
USENET/Internet research, Tom, you will recognize obvious
coincidences like that.

John Doe has made and earned many enemies. So many enemies that
they collected and posted these facts about John Doe AKA Mark
Bender.

I stopped a guy from using the speech recognition group as his
storefront, so he threw a fit. What's your excuse, Tom?

 

[westom1]

Lol, I'm not surprised but it seems odd that these kinds of groups are
magnets for these whackos/trolls.

John Doe AKA Mark Bender spent yesterday locating my every recent
post and posting his personal attacks in those newsgroups. Define
John Doe as technically naive - an incessent poster of no useful
information - and he fills the internet with his tirade. No wonder
others were so moved to identify him; even determine he is a convicted
felon.

 

[bud--]

Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at:
<http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/LightningGuide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf>
And one from the US-NIST at:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

That reasoning works when one does not know what a surge protector
does. Indeed, if a surge protector works by stopping or absorbing
surges, then it would work like a condom. Problem: surge protectors
do not work that way.

No one but w thinks surge protectors work by "stopping" or "absorbing".

A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must directly 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 (limiting) the voltage on all wires
(signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or
absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the
guide starting pdf page 40).

If using a plug-in suppressor all interconnected equipment needs to be
connected to the same suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go
through the suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to
go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor
prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These
multiport suppressors are described in both guides.

A plug-in suppressor can be before a UPS but not after.

How to make one or fifteen protectors work better? Upgrade
the earthing.

How to make protection more effective. Make sure phone and cable entry
protectors are connected with a *short* wire to the earthing wire at the
power service. The NIST guide suggests that most equipment damage is
from high voltage between power to phone/cable wires. A *short* wire is
necessary to limit the voltage. The IEEE guide has an illustration of a
ground wire that is too long starting pdf page 40. The author of the
NIST guide has written "the impedance of the grounding system to 'true
earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the
various parts of the grounding system."

Do those tens or hundreds of thousands of joules get
stopped by a 480 or 1000 joule protector?

w refuses to understand how suppressors protect.

François Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges. He wrote the NIST guide
as well as many technical papers. One of the technical papers looked at
the energy that reaches a plug-in suppressor with no service panel surge
suppressor. The maximum energy dissipated was 35 Joules. In 13 of 15
cases it was 1 Joule or less. That was with power line surges from 2,000
to 10,000A (the maximum that has any reasonable probability of occurring).

A major reason is that at about 6000V (US) there is arc-over from
service panel busses to the enclosure (also connected to the earthing
electrode). After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of
volts. That dumps most of the surge energy to earth.

John Doe a troll is an understatement.

Because w_ is evangelical in his belief in earthing, he trolls
google-groups to search for "surge" to spread his religious beliefs.
That is how he got here.

Never seen - a link to a source that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

 

[John Doe]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:
....

No one but w thinks surge protectors work by "stopping" or
"absorbing".

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge
protection must directly use earthing.

Because w_ is evangelical in his belief in earthing, he trolls
google-groups to search for "surge" to spread his religious
beliefs. That is how he got here.

Never seen - a link to a source that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

In your opinion, is there any rational motive for Tom's perpetual
denial and spreading of misinformation? Is he selling something? At the
moment, the closest rational reason I can guess is that he sells
lightning strike protection equipment that uses the keywords "whole
house".

 

[geoff]

I do not understand what you are writing. First you write:

No one but w thinks surge protectors work by "stopping" or "absorbing".

.. . . then you write:

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must directly use earthing.

.. . . so, which is it, does he believe that protection must use earthing or
does he think surges are stopped?

You are putting a whole lot of fluff into the basic idea that surpressors
and UPS' work by either clamping/absorbing/etc. (whatever you want to call
it) or by redirecting surges to ground.

For mild surges that come from the power company, I'm sure both a good UPS
or surge protector can successfully clamp the voltage. In fact, on my UPS
software, it has a panel that asks for the voltage range. If the power goes
above or below that range, the UPS switches to the battery.

For a lightning strike, unless one has some expensive equipment, then you
are SOL.

--g

 

[John Doe]

John Doe AKA Mark Bender spent yesterday locating my every recent
post and posting his personal attacks in those newsgroups.

Violating the privacy of innocent people who have nothing to do with
your personal problems will be corrected, Tom.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

John Doe is making recommendations

That's not me, Tom, you messed up the quoting.

rather than suggesting how to
discover the problem. Nobody can answer this question until the UPS
power plug is disconnected to learn if the computer keeps working.

I recall an Uninterruptible Power Supply maker saying that removing the
power plug is not the way to test, because it removes the connection to
ground? And here we have (westom1, w_tom) telling someone to do exactly
that.

 

[bud--]

I do not understand what you are writing. First you write:


. . . then you write:


. . . so, which is it, does he believe that protection must use earthing or
does he think surges are stopped?

Both were right.

w believes the only effective way to protect against surges is earthing
- as in the post I responded to:
"Protection is about diverting surges into earth."

Because *plug-in* suppressors do not work primarily by earthing w
believes they must work by "stopping" or "absorbing" (which I agree
won't work). They don't. If w was not blinded by his religious belief
in earthing he could read in the IEEE guide that plug-in suppressors
work primarily by clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal)
to the ground at the suppressor. The voltage going to the protected
equipment is safe for the protected equipment. (See the IEEE guide
starting pdf page 40.)

You are putting a whole lot of fluff into the basic idea that surpressors
and UPS' work by either clamping/absorbing/etc. (whatever you want to call
it) or by redirecting surges to ground.

The question is basic to understanding how plug-in suppressors work. It
is basic to understanding why w is wrong when he says plug-in
suppressors do nothing useful. And it is important in understanding how
to apply plug-in suppressors - particularly why phone and cable wires
that go to protected equipment have to go through the suppressor.

For mild surges that come from the power company, I'm sure both a good UPS
or surge protector can successfully clamp the voltage. In fact, on my UPS
software, it has a panel that asks for the voltage range. If the power goes
above or below that range, the UPS switches to the battery.

Switching to battery won't protect against surges - they are too fast (I
am not sure you are saying switching to battery will protect).

A UPS will probably protect against overvoltage (which is far longer
duration than a surge). (As my post said, overvoltage is more likely to
damage suppressors than surges.)

My reservation about UPSs is that, in general, the surge protection
ratings are lower than what is readily available in plug-in suppressors.
And any suppressor (in the US) should be listed under UL1449 (surge
suppressors) - a lot of UPSs aren't.

For a lightning strike, unless one has some expensive equipment, then you
are SOL.

Everything I have read indicates that a plug-in suppressor with high
ratings, wired correctly, is very likely to protect from a very near
lightning strike (but not a direct strike to the house, which requires
lightning rods). That is why some manufacturers can have warrantees on
protected equipment.

(In part repeating from my last post

François Martzloff was the NIST guru on surges. He wrote the NIST guide
as well as many technical papers. One of the technical papers looked at
the energy that reaches a plug-in suppressor (with no service panel
surge suppressor). The maximum energy dissipated was 35 Joules. In 13 of
15 cases it was 1 Joule or less. That was with power line surges from
2,000 to 10,000A (the maximum that has any reasonable probability of
occurring).

35J is well within the rating of plug-in suppressors. And 10,000A is
well within the rating of service panel suppressors.

If a large surge enters on the power service, when the voltage from
busbars to the enclosure reaches about 6,000V (US) there is arc-over.
After the arc is established the voltage is hundreds of volts. Since the
enclosure is connected to neutral and “ground” (US) that limits the
voltage that equipment in the building “sees”. Since the enclosure is
also connected to the earthing electrode most of the incoming surge
energy is dumped to earth. This is one reason the energy reaching a
plug-in suppressor is so low.

The other reason is the impedance of the branch circuit. A surge is, by
definition, a very short event. That means it is a relatively high
frequency event. So the inductance of the wire is more important than
the resistance. The impedance of the branch circuit wiring limits the
current to the plug-in suppressor, which limits the energy that reaches
the suppressor.

The 10,000A maximum likely power line surge came from another Martzloff
paper which had a 100,000A lightning strike (only 5% are stronger) to
the utility pole behind a house. A stronger surge is very unlikely -
average calculated probability of a stronger surge is one in 8,000 years.


Add a service panel suppressor and protection is better.

Have short wires connecting phone and cable entry protectors to the
earthing wire at the power service and you increase protection.

 

[geoff]

My reservation about UPSs is that, in general, the surge protection

ratings are lower than what is readily available in plug-in suppressors.
And any suppressor (in the US) should be listed under UL1449 (surge
suppressors) - a lot of UPSs aren't.

Not sure where you buy your UPS's but mine is an APC, and their website
says, for my model, on the surge protection capabilities:

http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BE750G
'Full time multi-pole noise filtering : 5% IEEE surge let-through : zero
clamping response time : meets UL 1449'

.. . . however, if someone is going to buy a UPS made by the 'billy-bob
company' (ie not a UPS company) then I doubt the UPS would meet UL1449. I
also doubt their surge supressor would either.

--g

 

[thanatoid]

That's not me, Tom, you messed up the quoting.


I recall an Uninterruptible Power Supply maker saying that
removing the power plug is not the way to test, because it
removes the connection to ground? And here we have
(westom1, w_tom) telling someone to do exactly that.

Leaving aside who is talking to whom, pulling out the cable from
the AC socket is the simplest and fastest - and most impressive
- demonstration of what a UPS does. Ground is just ground, it is
purely a safety measure (not denying its importance /as such/)
and has nothing to do with the main function of a UPS.

You would be surprised how much of the worlds' (mainly 3rd
world's if there is such a thing still) AC equipment has no
ground and works fine. There are countries where you can not buy
a grounded extension cord because there is nothing to use it
with anyway (ie pure pignoses in walls, assuming there ARE
walls).

 

[John Doe]

Leaving aside who is talking to whom, pulling out the cable from
the AC socket is the simplest and fastest - and most impressive
- demonstration of what a UPS does. Ground is just ground, it is
purely a safety measure (not denying its importance /as such/)
and has nothing to do with the main function of a UPS.

You would be surprised how much of the worlds' (mainly 3rd
world's if there is such a thing still) AC equipment has no
ground and works fine. There are countries where you can not buy
a grounded extension cord because there is nothing to use it
with anyway (ie pure pignoses in walls, assuming there ARE
walls).

Ten out of ten results in the following search say you should not
pull the plug of a UPS. Leave it plugged in and use a circuit
breaker.

http://search.yahoo.com/
"test a UPS by"

"Most UPS manufacturers suggest that you not test a UPS by pulling
the plug from the wall"

"don't test a UPS by unplugging it from the wall"

"It is not safe to test a UPS by disconnecting the power at the
receptical. The reason is that you also lose your ground, which
means the entire system can float above ground. If it is connected
to other equipment like a router, etc, then those components can
experience a common mode voltage"

"never test a ups by just unplugging it, you need to keep it
grounded so go plug it in to a switched outlet to test or use the
circuit breaker"

"I had a client test a UPS by pulling the UPS power plug from the
wall - and at that instant everything crashed. I don't recall
if we lost hardware on that one"

"DO NOT test a UPS by pulling the plug from the wall. This is
dangerous (creates a "floating ground" shock hazard), and its bad
for electronic devices"

"You are not supposed to test a UPS by unplugging it since you have
then removed the ground"

"This incident shows why you should never test a UPS by pulling the
utility power cord"

"Never test a UPS by pulling its power cord or the local network
wire will float above ground and you might fry the router and
everyone's NIC"

 

[bud--]

Not sure where you buy your UPS's but mine is an APC, and their website
says, for my model, on the surge protection capabilities:

http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BE750G
'Full time multi-pole noise filtering : 5% IEEE surge let-through : zero
clamping response time : meets UL 1449'

What I said was UL *listed*.

I don't know what "meets UL 1449" means. It probably means APC claims
the UPS meets the UL standard. That is not how UL works. UL listed means
the device was tested by UL to meet the standards. If the UPS is tested
by UL I know it meets all parts of the standard. I don't trust
manufacturer self certification to meet all parts of the standard (or
any part of the standard). APC may be fine, but why don't they just have
the UPS UL listed?

UPSs often have UL listing for several features that are included (such
as UL497A for surge protection for a telephone line)in addition to
UL1778 for the UPS. Those listings often do not include UL1449.

I personally would not buy either a plug-in suppressor or UPS (that
claimed surge suppression) if it was not UL listed.

 

[geoff]

What I said was UL *listed*.

I don't know what "meets UL 1449" means. It probably means APC claims the
UPS meets the UL standard.

I can tell you exactly how it works, APC sells a lot of UPS's, since they
specialize in this, and to claim it meets a UL spec when it does not, opens
the company up to major lawsuits should there be an incident.

In fact, it would be pretty stupid for a major UPS company to falsly
advertise their product, meaning, they claim the product meets a UL spec
when in fact it does not and they never tested it for that. APC would have
been out of business a long time ago.

I went to the ACE Hardware (a reputable store) website and typed in 'surge
protector' and they sell a protector made by Power Squid. I went to their
website and they do not even mention being UL listed (nor meets a UL spec),
etc. for any of their products.

http://www.powersquid.com/surge-protectors-and-ups-c-74.html

You said you do not trust a UPS since they do not meet 1449 but in this
case, it is the surge protector that makes no mention of meeting a UL
standard.

I next went to Lowe's Home Improvement (a reputable store) website and typed
in surge protector. They sell protectors made by Prime. I went to Prime's
website and no mention of UL at all for their surge protection products.

http://www.primewirecable.com/surge8.aspx?CatSubID=87

I next looked at Belkin, a reputable company, and found surge protectors
that mention UL.

http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatSectionView.process?Section_Id=207100

I went to the UL website and looked up their name. UL lists their products
but not as 'UL 1449 certified'. Their chart says:

'These products have been tested to verify that transient voltage surges are
limited to the maximum applitudes specified by the manufacturer.'

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073995792&sequence=1


--g