UPS in blackouts

[John Doe]

Everything from UL is about human safety. Surge protection is not
about human safety.

Tom feels betrayed... as a child, he was connected to a surge
suppressor, and it didn't work.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> thanatoid

I have brought this up /so many/ times that I am beginning to
forget to say /IN WINDOWS/.

OF COURSE you can do it in DOS. But that was not what I was
asking, my apologies for not making it clearer.

DOS box/command line from within Windows does not count either.
WINDOWS. Nothing else. No DOS, no add-ons, no plug-ins, no other
apps.

(It's never occurred to me, but I suppose one /could/ argue that
DOS is a third party app, or point out that most Windows OS's
were just very bloated DOS apps, but let's just pretend that DOS
and Windows came out of one garage but that Windows knows
nothing about DOS.)

Windows 95/98/ME were "bloated DOS apps". Modern versions of Windows
(2000 and up) aren't DOS based, and have precious little to do with DOS
beyond having a similar command line interface, and in some cases, the
ability to virtualize a DOS environment for backward compatibility.

A Windows command line is *not* DOS, it's exactly what it's called,
Windows command line. If you're going to rule out Windows components,
then you could just as easily argue that Windows doesn't have a way to
edit text files after ruling out Notepad and Wordpad.

 

[bud--]

Bud promotes plug-in protectors.

I promote only accurate information.
w promotes fantasies based on his religious belief in earthing.

Bud would have us believe UL1449 was created in 1998.

w is too stupid to know the difference between a creation date and a
revision date.

From w's hanford link:
"Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, 2nd Edition, Standard For
Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal
protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal
fuse located next to the MOV."

If w had any knowledge of surge suppression he would know that UL1449
*2ed* was effective 1998.

If Bud
admits to the problem in these scary pictures, then profits are at
risk:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat a lie often
enough, people will believe it.

Where does any source say UL listed plug-in suppressors made after 1998
are a problem?

In fact, where does any source even say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?

A protector can even fail during UL testing and still obtain UL
approval. UL is not testing for protector effectiveness. UL1449 is
testing for threats to human safety - ie fire.

As a Cutler-Hammer technical note at
http://tinyurl.com/63594d
makes clear, to pass UL 1449 a device must survive a series of surges
and remain functional.

But that doesn't fit w's religious beliefs.

Bud routinely posts half facts. For example, Bud cites François
Martzloff while forgetting what Martzloff says about plug-in (point of
connection) protectors. First conclusion in Marzloff's IEEE paper (on
the Upside Down house) says:

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 [multiport
plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which also says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

But w can't see anything that conflicts with his religious belief in
earthing.

Bud's IEEE guide further
demonstrates that problem with unearthed protectors. Page 42 (of 61
pages) Figure 8 shows a protector earthing a surge 8000 volts
destructively through the adjacent TV.

If poor w could only read and think he could discover what the IEEE
guide says in this example:

- A plug-in suppressor protects the TV connected to it.
- "To protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."
- In the example a surge comes in on a cable service with the ground
wire from cable entry ground block to the ground at the power service
that is far too long. In that case the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."
- w_'s favored power service suppressor would provide absolutely NO
protection.

It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor in the IEEE example
damages the second TV.

No protector absorbs or stops surge energy as Bud claims.

Ho-hum - repeating:
No one but w thinks surge protectors work by "stopping" or "absorbing".

If poor w was not blinded by a religious belief in earthing he could
read in the IEEE guide how plug-in suppressors work - clamping the
voltage on all wires to the common ground at the suppressor.
But since that is not primarily by earthing w can not read it.

Bud refuses to post specs

Posted often and ignored.

w can't see anything that conflicts with his religious belief in earthing.

Or IEEE Emerald Book:

Poor w.
Religious fanaticism can be so debilitating.
From the Emerald Book:
Multiport surge suppressor: "A surge-protective device used for
connecting equipment to external systems whereby all conductors
connected to the protected loads are routed, physically and
electrically, through a single enclosure with a shared reference point
between the input and output ports of each system."


Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. Just religious fantasies.

Never answers to simple questions:
- 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Where does any source say UL listed plug-in suppressors made after
1998 are a problem?
- Where does any source say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?

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

 

[bud--]

Model number of the suppressors you are talking about?

I have no idea if they are currently being sold.

Numbers are probably F9S820v06 add F9M923-08-CL

So you really think UL would let a major manufacturer fraudulently use
UL labels?

 

[thanatoid]

Windows 95/98/ME were "bloated DOS apps". Modern versions
of Windows (2000 and up) aren't DOS based,

You left out Win 1 through 3. And I said "most Windows". I know
the new ones are not DOS based, but they stll have to simulate a
DOS command line to get some things done. Ridiculous.

and have
precious little to do with DOS beyond having a similar
command line interface, and in some cases, the ability to
virtualize a DOS environment for backward compatibility.

Ah. "Virtualize a DOS environment". Isn't it ALL virtual? All
things digital?

A Windows command line is *not* DOS, it's exactly what it's
called, Windows command line.

Well, I disagree, but we'll have to leave it at that I am
afraid.

If you're going to rule out
Windows components, then you could just as easily argue
that Windows doesn't have a way to edit text files after
ruling out Notepad and Wordpad.

Well, I do not consider a (virtual DOS environment) command line
a "Windows component" but like I said, we should probably drop
it. Life is tool short even without going into the many virtues
of Notepad and Wordpad.

 

[westom1]

w  is too stupid to know the difference between a creation date and a
revision date.

Again the sales promoter does not post a single manufacturer spec
that claims surge protection. He cannot. No plug-in protector claims
protection which is why the sales promoter posts myths incessently.
Lie repeatedly and other will believe it. Bud will keep posting unitl
he gets the last reply because that (spin, myths, and half truths) is
his job.

Martzloff says plug-in protectors can contribute to damage. Of
course Martzloff is only discussing surges that typicallly cause
appliance damage. Bud forgets that part. Other surges are made
irrelevant by protection already inside appliances. Bud also forgets
that part. The IEEE repeatedly says protection is about diverting
surge energy into earth. IEEE even shows how plug-in surge protectors
can earth surges 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances.
Bud forgets that part. Bud's own citation shows that 8000 volt damaged
TV - Page 42 Figure 8.

Bud posts "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to
use a multiport
[plug-in] protector." when even Bud admits that a 'whole house'
protector is more than effective. Oh? Why do telcos not waste money
on Bud's plug-in protectors? Because those protectors are so grossly
overpriced? Maybe. But every telco in every town uses the most
effective protectors that cost much less money - a 'whole house'
protector and earthing. Why would telcos waste money on what Bud
recommends? Telco cannot afford to have any 8000 volts damaged. Why
would any telco anywhere in the world waste money on a protector that
does not even claim to provide protection. Oh. None do waste money.
They also know about the mythical numeric spec that Bud refuses to
provide.

Effective protection has always been about diverting surges before
that energy can even enter a building. A solution that costs tens or
100 times less money than Bud's solution. A solution that does not
earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent TV. Will
Bud's protector somehow stop what three miles of sky could not? Of
course not. And yet that is what Bud says it must do. Where does
that energy go if not dissipate inside the protector? Why does Bud
also ignore the important engineering questions - such as where energy
gets dissipated?

No wonder every IEEE Standard (see previous post) recommends what
always provides protection: earthing. No wonder Bud instead replies
with insults. His protectors have all but no earthing connection.
But then profit - not protection - is Bud's purpose. He even
intentionaly distort IEEE Standards. Profits are at risk.

Another Bud citation contradicts what Bud claims. Did Bud forgot
to mention what the NIST really says provides protection? Why should
a sales promoter be honest when he can instead post insults? On page
6 (Adobe page 8 of 24):

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

NIST also contradicts Bud; also says an effective protector connects
to earth. Then the NIST goes farther. On page 17 (Adobe page 19 of
24):

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

What does not have that necessary earthing connection? What Bud
promotes. Same protectors that do not even claim to provide
protection. What did that protector with no earthing do on Page 42
Figure 8? It earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV. Responsible sources says, the best surge protection in
the world can be useless if not properly earthed. Where does surge
energy get dissipated without damage? Earth ground - no matter how
many times Bud denies it.

Another common problem seen long after UL1449 was industry standard:
scary pictures Most every fire department has seen examples of what
Bud must deny to protect sales:
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
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/news/lesson-learned/surgeprotectorfire.htm

UL1449 is about human safety. During UL1449 testing, a protector can
completely fail and still obtain a UL1449 listing - as long as it does
not spit sparks and flame. Cutler Hammer even defines the purpose of a
surge test:

... it was used only to see if products fail safely. Cutler Hammer also states:
The unit must not fail unsafely.

Two front page articles in Electrical Engineering Times in Oct
2007 were entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning
Transients". Both artilces discuss what provides protection such as
earthing, short wires to ground, etc. What is never recommended?
Plug-in protectors. After all, the article is about "Protecting" from
"Lightning Transients". The article does not say plug-in protectors
are ineffective. Like most every responsible publication, it simply
ignores mythical solutions. What Bud posts has no credibility where
engineering principles are discussed. Bud claims his protectors will
magically make surge energy disappear. Of course not. So where does
surge energy go? Responsible publications repeatedly answer that
question - earth ground.

Many have seen plug-in protectors fail. Failure gets the naive to
recommend them. Should you purchase $2000 or $3000 of these
protectors that Bud recommends? Or do what every telco does to have
no damage? One 'whole house' protector currently selling in Lowes for
less than $50 provides effective protection for everything. That's
one protector earthing what Bud's $3000 of plug-in protectors do not
even claim to do. Where was that manufacturer specification provided
by Bud? He never provided it.

How does his protector stop or absorb all that surge energy? Bud
claims his protector makes surge energy dissappear. No responsible
source (not even his own) make that claim. Effective solutions
disspate surges harmlessly in earth - one 'whole house' protector -
for tens or 100 times less money. So Bud posts insults and quotes out
of context. Bud will post inecessently to make sure he has the last
post. Honesty is not Bud.

 

[geoff]

It is not fraudulent to use the UL label if the manufacturer says that their
product performs a certain way and UL says, 'yep, the manufacturer was
truthful'.

The same as medicine, if your medicine says 50 mg of aspirin on the label
and the FDA tests it and it indeed has 50 mg of aspirin, it is not
fraudulent to use the FDA name.

For one of the supressors you listed below, F9M923-08, UL lists it here:

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

.. . . the table says:

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

.. . . and if you read further into the links, the UL 1449 column means:

'"IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge Voltages in Low-Voltage AC Power
Circuits", using the test procedures specified in UL 1449'

.. . . meaning the testing procedures of UL 1449 were used to determine if
the SVR (supressed voltage rating) matches what the manufacturer says. If
it does match then Belkin can use their logo.

The table does not say that the product meets all the specs of UL 1449 and
the supressor is not marked:

"Classified in Accordance with IEEE C62.41-1991, Recommended Practice"

--g

 

[John Doe]

Another common problem seen long after UL1449 was industry
standard:
scary pictures

http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

"Surge protection devices in some older model multi-outlet power
strips can overheat and create a potential fire hazard."

Even your own citations prove that you are full of it, Tom.

So Bud posts insults

You receive a small fraction of the insults you deserve, Tom.

Honesty is not Bud.

Says a freakish troll who searches the USENET archive for terms like
"surge protector" and "power supply" so he can jump into the group
to spread his wrong and sometimes hazardous advice.













See also:
Google Groups
w_tom
westom1 gmail.com

 

[bud--]

Again the sales promoter

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.

But with no valid technical arguments, w has to discredit those that
oppose him.

does not post a single manufacturer spec
that claims surge protection. He cannot.

Posted often - such as less that a year ago on this newsgroup to the
same drivel from w (then known as w_tom).

Bud will keep posting unitl
he gets the last reply because that (spin, myths, and half truths) is
his job.

Poor w's religious belief in earthing has been challenged and he will
keep posting to try to stop the cracks in his universe.

Martzloff says plug-in protectors

On alt.engineering.electrical, w_ similarly misconstrued the views of
Arshad Mansoor, a Martzloff coauthor, 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 [multiport] plug-in
protectors. Heck, he just sits down the hall from me. LOL."

But with no valid technical arguments w has to twist what Martloff says.

IEEE even shows how plug-in surge protectors
can earth surges 8000 volts destructively through adjacent appliances.

The lie repeated.

In the IEEE example, without the plug-in suppressor at TV1 the surge
voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2
is 8,000V.

The point of that part of the illustration, for anyone with minimal
intelligence, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located
at TV2 is required."

It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way
contributes to the damage at TV2.

But with no valid technical arguments w has to twist what the IEEE says.

Bud posts "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to
use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."

bud repeats what the IEEE said in the example above where the voltage
between power and cable wires is 10,000V because the ground wire from
the cable entry ground block to the power service ground is too long.

w has not explained how a power service suppressor would help in that
case. It wouldn'’t.

when even Bud admits that a 'whole house'
protector is more than effective.

w hallucinates.
I do recommend service panel suppressors. But I agree with Martzloff in
the NIST guide:
"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
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable 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."

A service panel suppressor will not limit voltage between power and
phone/cable wires, as in the IEEE example above.

Why do telcos not waste money
on Bud's plug-in protectors?

They aren’t my protectors.

Why wouldn't a Telco use a plug-in suppressor to protect a high amp hard
wired switch with thousands of signal wires that would have to go
through the suppressor? I'll have to think about that.

No wonder every IEEE Standard (see previous post) recommends what
always provides protection: earthing.

The "Emerald Book" recommends plug-in suppressors.

So does the IEEE guide.

With no valid technical arguments w has to twist what the IEEE says.

No wonder Bud instead replies
with insults.

Poor sensitive w is insulted by reality.
I provide sources that talk about plug-in suppressors.

Did Bud forgot
to mention what the NIST really says provides protection?

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
- They are the "easiest solution".
- "One effective solution is to have the consumer install" a multiport
plug-in suppressor."

But with no valid technical arguments w has to twist what NIST says.

Another common problem seen long after UL1449 was industry standard:
Most every fire department has seen examples of what
Bud must deny to protect sales:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

The lie repeated.

With no valid technical arguments w has to twist what hanford (and
others) say.

Still missing - where does any source say UL listed plug-in suppressors
made after 1998 are a problem?

And where do any of these sources even say a damaged suppressor had a UL
label?

Cutler Hammer even defines the purpose of a
surge test:

For those not blinded by religious belief, CH clearly details that
suppressors must survive many surges in the UL test and remain functional.

What Bud posts has no credibility where
engineering principles are discussed.

Apparently the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology have no credibility
where engineering principles are discussed.

How does his protector stop or absorb all that surge energy?

It is willful stupidity. Only w talks about "stopping" or "absorbing".

Bud
claims his protector makes surge energy dissappear.

w is fond of inventing what people think.
But with no valid technical arguments w has to twist what everyone says.

Repeating:
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.

Honesty is not Bud.

Intelligence is not w.


Still no link to another lunatic that agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.
Still no answers to simple questions:
- 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Where does any source say UL listed plug-in suppressors made after
1998 are a problem?
- Where does any source say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?

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

 

[bud--]

It is not fraudulent to use the UL label if the manufacturer says that their
product performs a certain way and UL says, 'yep, the manufacturer was
truthful'.

You still don't get it.

UL 1449 listing means a device was tested *by UL* and found to meet all
the appropriate requirements of the UL 1449 standard.

UL listing is not based on testing by the manufacturer. UL doesn't care
what the manufacturer says (except the specs the manufacturer prints
have to be the same as those determined by UL - specifically SVR.)
(But UL does not, for example, test for a Joule rating and a
manufacturer is not constrained (by UL) in what they print for an energy
rating.)

The same as medicine, if your medicine says 50 mg of aspirin on the label
and the FDA tests it and it indeed has 50 mg of aspirin, it is not
fraudulent to use the FDA name.

For medicines the FDA has also reviewed extensive tests that show the
drug - acetylsalicylic acid - is safe and effective. The analogy breaks
down in that UL does its own testing (to a limited and defined standard)
and the FDA uses manufacturers tests (that are very expensive and vary
widely with what is being tested).

For one of the supressors you listed below, F9M923-08, UL lists it here:

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

. . . the table says:

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

. . . and if you read further into the links, the UL 1449 column means:

'"IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge Voltages in Low-Voltage AC Power
Circuits", using the test procedures specified in UL 1449'

. . . meaning the testing procedures of UL 1449 were used to determine if
the SVR (supressed voltage rating) matches what the manufacturer says. If
it does match then Belkin can use their logo.

You are reading summary information and think you understand UL.

Read the Cutler-Hammer technical note (posted in my response to w)
http://tinyurl.com/63594d
The technical note makes clear that testing is done by UL. Measuring the
SVR is only a part of the testing done by UL to determine if a device
can be UL1449 listed. UL listing only happens when a device passes all
the appropriate UL tests for that device.

The table does not say that the product meets all the specs of UL 1449 and
the supressor is not marked:

"Classified in Accordance with IEEE C62.41-1991, Recommended Practice"

I really don't want to wade through all the UL website.

As part of the UL1449 standard a manufacturer can have a suppressor
evaluated by a more stringent IEEE C62.41 test. It is optional. If the
suppressor passes it can be marked with the IEEE test in addition to
UL1449. If the manufacturer does not have it tested to the more
stringent IEEE test it is just marked UL1449. The more stringent IEEE
test is probably not relevant to plug-in suppressors.

 

[westom1]

A service panel suppressor will not limit voltage between power and
phone/cable wires, as in the IEEE example above.

A classic example of Bud posting a half truth. Yes, a service panel
suppressor - better known as a 'whole house' protector - will not
limit voltage between power and phone/cable wires for one obvious
reason. A protector does not provide protection. Bud will say
anything to avoid that reality. That voltage is limited (equalized)
by what provides surge protection - single point earth ground.

What does the effective protector do? Where does surge energy get
harmlessly dissipated? In the same earthing that limits voltage
between power and phone/cable wires. Even code requires those
utilities to share common earthing - a problem still too common in
many homes. Bud is spinning another half fact. Bud even spins a
urban myth that protectors provide protection.

Bud's myth is promoted using word association. Surge protector
sounds like surge protection. Therefore a surge protector MUST
provide surge protection. Nonsense. Protection is provided by single
point earth ground. Where does energy from a direct lightning strike
get dissipated so as to not enter a building? To not harm household
appliances? Exact same place that limits voltage between power and
phone/cable wires - and that is not Bud's plug-in protectors.

What makes a surge protector effective? Exact same earthing that
limits voltage between power and phone/cable wires.

Bud conveniently forgets to provide any manufacturer spec for surge
protection. As a sales promoter of surge protectors, Bud could easily
provide that specification if it existed. He cannot. No plug-in
protector claims to protect from such surges. UPSes that feature the
same protector circuit also do not claim such protection.

Another example of Bud spinning half truths. Yes, the IEEE Emerald
Book does discuss using plug-in protectors for special applications –
for a surge that typically causes no damage. And then the IEEE
Emerald book (like IEEE Red and Green books) defines what protects
from typically destructive surges. Earth ground connected via one
'whole house' protector.

Why spend $25, $80., or $150 on every appliance for Bud's plug-in
protector? Profits. It does not claim to protect from a destructive
type surge. It also can create 8000 volts damage of an adjacent TV -
Page 42 Figure 8. How to eliminate damage on Page 42 Figure 8?
Install and earth only one 'whole house' protector and eliminate the
hyped plug-in protector.

Yes, the IEEE Emerald book does discuss a plug-in protector. Then
IEEE, like others (Sun Microsystems, the IEEE, NIST, US Air Force, QST
(the ARRL), Dr Kenneth Schneider, Electrical Engineering Times,
Schmidt Consulting, Polyphaser's highly regarded application notes, a
station engineer from WXIA-TV, engineers who eliminated damage to
Orange County FL 911 facilities, every telephone company, commercial
broadcasters, nuclear hardened radio stations, etc) all recommend
protection that has that short (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to
earth.

But again Bud also avoids this question. Where does that surge
energy get harmlessly dissipated? Everyone who does this stuff
professionally defined that answer - single point earth ground.

In response to sales myths, consult people who actually do this
stuff:

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.

Surprisingly obvious. Provide a path for the energy to go - which
no plug-in protector does ... or will even discuss.

Norma on 27 Dec 2008 in alt.fiftyplus entitled "The Power Outage"
also describes the danger:

Today, the cable company came to replace a wire. Well the cable
man pulled a wire and somehow yanked loose their "ground" wire.
The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because sparks
and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

According to Bud, Norma was lying. Bud says that UL1449 makes that
smoke and sparks impossible. Of course not. Is that protector what
you want on a desktop covered with papers or on a rug behind some
furniture? Furthermore, if the power surge strip actually provided
protection, then it did not spark and smoke. Effective protectors
remain functional after every surge. Failing protectors get the naive
to promote them. An effective protector means nobody knew a surge
even existed.

Bud will not post a manufacturer spec that claims surge protection.
That spec does not exist. No wonder Bud will not admit where surge
energy must be harmlessly dissipated. No wonder Bud denies the human
threat in those scary pictures. Bud, who promotes plug-in protectors,
cannot admit to realities. No wonder Bud routinely posts half facts.
No wonder Bud cannot even admit the plug-in protector on Page 42
Figure 8 earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through the adjacent
TV. No wonder the engineer from WXIA says what provides surge
protection: earth ground. Bud even says the 'whole house' protector
will not limit voltage between power and phone/cable wires. Nobody
said it would. Every responsible source says where that voltage lets
limited AND what every effective surge protector must connect short
to ... single point earth ground. Earthing provides the protection.
Plug-in protectors without that earthing cannot harmlessly dissipated
surges in earth AND do not even claim in specs to provide protection.
Why would Bud recommend a protector that does not even claim to
provide protection? Profits would be at risk.

Of course Bud will reply incessantly and will not even discuss the
OPs problem. Bud must protect profit margins. That means Bud keeps
posting half truths, insults, and lies to get the last reply. How many
insults did he post this time? So where is that power strip or UPS
spec that actually claims surge protection? Bud forgets to provide
those numbers - that do not exist.

 

[geoff]

UL 1449 listing means a device was tested *by UL* and found to meet all

the appropriate requirements of the UL 1449 standard.

You will have to discuss that with UL. I am only quoting their website and
what they write about your supressor, and it does not state the above. It
is certainly your option to ignore and/or extend what UL writes to fit your
beliefs.

--g

 

[bud--]

A classic example of Bud posting a half truth.

My half truth came from the IEEE.

In the case of the "IEEE example above", a ground wire from cable entry
block to the power service ground that is too long, the IEEE guide says
"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
multiport [plug-in] protector." Many houses have cable or phone entry
points that are too far distant from the power service to adequately
limit the voltage between power and phone/cable wires.

w’s only answer - a service panel suppressor - won’t help.

Bud's myth is promoted using word association. Surge protector
sounds like surge protection. Therefore a surge protector MUST
provide surge protection.

Damn. Even fooled the IEEE and NIST.

Bud conveniently forgets to provide any manufacturer spec for surge
protection.

Provided in numerous posts and ignored.
Provided in my last post. And ignored.

As a sales promoter of surge protectors, Bud

w is so pathetic.

Another example of Bud spinning half truths. Yes, the IEEE Emerald
Book does discuss using plug-in protectors for special applications –
for a surge that typically causes no damage.

Gee - I don’t remember that discussion in the Emerald Book. Another w
hallucination.

But again Bud also avoids this question. Where does that surge
energy get harmlessly dissipated?

Repeating for at least the third time:
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.

There are multiple paths to earth, depends on where the surge is coming
from. All too complicated for poor w.

The question isn’t earthing, everyone is for it. The question is whether
plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say they are
effective.

Of course Bud will reply incessantly

Of course w will reply incessantly, like a Jehovah’s Witness, defending
his religious belief in earthing.

But he won’t answer simple questions:
- 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Where does any source say UL listed plug-in suppressors made after
1998 are a problem?
- Where does any source say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?

Why can’t you answer simple questions w????
Why should anyone believe you if you can’t answer simple questions???

And he can't find a link to another lunatic that agrees with him that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

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

 

[bud--]

You will have to discuss that with UL.

UL already knows how their listing process works.

I am only quoting their website and
what they write about your supressor, and it does not state the above. It
is certainly your option to ignore and/or extend what UL writes to fit your
beliefs.

The UL pages you looked are not intended to describe how UL listing works.

You ignored my link to a major manufacturer which describes the UL
listing process for surge suppressors.

Repeating:
Read the Cutler-Hammer technical note (posted in my response to w)
http://tinyurl.com/63594d
The technical note makes clear that testing is done by UL. Measuring the
SVR is only a part of the testing done by UL to determine if a device
can be UL1449 listed. UL listing only happens when a device passes all
the appropriate UL tests for that device.

It is certainly your option to ignore reality and write what fits your
beliefs.

 

[geoff]

You ignored my link to a major manufacturer which describes the UL listing

process for surge suppressors.

Repeating:
Read the Cutler-Hammer technical note (posted in my response to w)
http://tinyurl.com/63594d
The technical note makes clear that testing is done by UL.

I read what Cutler-Hammer wrote but I'm going by what UL writes. Since the
two do not match, I'm assuming UL is printing the correct information on
their web page.

--g

 

[westom1]

My half truth came from the IEEE.
In the case of the "IEEE example above", a ground wire from cable entry
block to the power service ground that is too long, the IEEE guide says
"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
multiport [plug-in] protector."

Why does every IEEE Standard require earthing for protection? Bud's
multiport (plug-in) protectors don't have earthing. How is surge
energy dissipated by a multiport protector next to the TV? Page 42
Figure 8 (in Bud’s IEEE guide) demonstrates the problem. Surge energy
is earthed 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. No earth
ground means no effective protection.

Bud quotes selectively and deceptively because that is what sales
promoters do. Meanwhile every responsible source says earthing
provides the protection. Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept
in 1752 with lightning rods.

Bud's posts are about denial. Another responsible source describes
what is required for surge protection. Sun Microsystems’ servers must
work even during every thunderstorm without failure. So Sun publishes
Section 6.4.7 in "Planning guide for Sun Server room":

Lightning surges cannot be stopped, but they can be diverted. The
plans for the data center should be thoroughly reviewed to identify
any paths for surge entry into the data center. Surge arrestors can
be designed into the system to help mitigate the potential for lightning
damage within the data center. These should divert the power of the
surge by providing a path to ground for the surge energy. ... The
specific design of the lightning protection system for the data center
will be dependent on the design of the building and utilities and
existing protection measures.

A utility also explains how to fix defectively installed utilities
by upgrading building earthing:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm
Just another responsible source defining what provides real world
surge protection.

Sun Microsystems does not recommend plug-in protectors that must
either stop, absorb, or make that surge magically disappear.
Protection is defined as _diverting_ surge energy to earth ground.
Bud denies this. Bud does not promote real world solutions.

Bud's multiport protector must stop or absorb the entire surge
because energy does not magically disappear. Bud's NIST document is
quite blunt about what Bud's multiport protector must do:

A very important point to keep in mind is that your
surge protector will work by diverting the surges to
ground. The best surge protection in the world can
be useless if grounding is not done properly.

Sun Microsystems says same. But Bud’s recommendation has no
earthing AND avoids all discussion about earthing. Plug-in protectors
are about profits; not protection.

A protector circuit inside a plug-in UPS is the same circuit
promoted by Bud. That protector circuit is so small as to be always
zero. Well, it’s not zero. Therefore their sales brochure can claim
surge protection – subjectively. No numbers because it is virtually
zero surge protection. But it is surge protection. And that gets the
technically naive to recommend a UPS for surge protection.

That UPS has one function - to protect hardware from power loss.
Not from hardware damage. Not from the typically destructive surge.
Only from power loss.

Where is the UPS numeric specification that actually defines surge
protection? Right there alongside specs that Bud has provided. Oh.
You can't find Bud's specifications? Nobody can. Bud cannot provide
what does not exist. Like Bud's plug-in protectors, those plug-in
UPSes also do not claim to protect from surges that typically cause
damage. Even Sun Microsystems defines effective protection as a short
connection to earth ground. To _divert_ surge energy harmlessly into
earth.

How curious. An effective solution also costs tens or 100 times
less money compared to what Bud recommends. It protects everything.
Sun needs it so that server rooms can operate without damage during
every thunderstorm. A protector is only as effective as its earth
ground.

As Bud replies with more myths and insults, then more responsible
sources will be quoted. In every case, surge protection has always
been about earthing surges. Even the NIST is quite blunt about Bud's
mythical solution:

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

Bud claims a protector works without earthing. He must. Otherwise
profits would be at risk.

Why did Norma's grandkids come running when a surge protector spit
sparks and smoke? Just another problem with plug-in protectors that
Bud denies. After all, that sparking protector was effective ...
according to Bud. House did not burn down.

 

[John Doe]

My half truth came from the IEEE. In the case of the "IEEE
example above", a ground wire from cable entry block to the power
service ground that is too long, the IEEE guide says "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector."

Why does every IEEE Standard require earthing for protection?

Because it doesn't.

Bud quotes selectively and deceptively because that is what sales
promoters do.

You are dizzy, Tom.

Meanwhile every responsible source says earthing provides the
protection.

Tom has been in these arguments with hundreds of well-educated
people, but he still doesn't get it.

Even Ben Franklin demonstrated the concept in 1752 with lightning
rods.

Bud's posts are about denial.

Says the all-time expert on the subject of denial.

Another responsible source describes what is required for surge
protection. "Planning guide for Sun Server room"

So if anyone here is planing to build a massive server room, take
heed.

Just another responsible source defining what provides real world
surge protection.

You aren't from the real world, Tom.

plug-in protectors must either stop, absorb, or make that surge
magically disappear.

They have to absorb only enough energy to clamp the circuit's
terminals to an equal voltage so that current doesn't flow through
the circuit, Tom, surge protectors do not have to absorb a lightning
bolt.

Protection is defined as _diverting_ surge energy to earth ground.
Bud denies this.

Everyone you have met denies that, Tom.

Bud does not promote real world solutions.

You aren't from the real world, Tom.

Bud's multiport protector must stop or absorb the entire surge
because energy does not magically disappear.

Sure it does, that's why it's called a "surge". In the real world,
there are a million examples of withstanding a surge until it
subsides.

That UPS has one function - to protect hardware from power loss.
Not from hardware damage. Not from the typically destructive
surge. Only from power loss.

Tom's nonsense knows no bounds.

Tom has been corrected here on USENET a thousand times.
Unfortunately, Tom is on a mission to misinform people who don't
know better.

 

[bud--]

My half truth came from the IEEE.
In the case of the "IEEE example above", a ground wire from cable entry
block to the power service ground that is too long, the IEEE guide says
"the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a
multiport [plug-in] protector."

No earth
ground means no effective protection.

w's religious mantra protects him from conflicting thoughts (aka reality).

w's religious blinders only allow him to read about earthing.
He can't read what numerous sources in this thread say about plug-in
suppressors.

So w just repeats the same drivel. Maybe repeating it will make it true.

w can't find a link to another lunatic that agrees with him that
plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.

w can't even answer simple questions:
- 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"?
- Why does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]"?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge protection device?
- Where does any source say UL listed plug-in suppressors made after
1998 are a problem?
- Where does any source say a damaged suppressor had a UL label?


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

 

[bud--]

I read what Cutler-Hammer wrote but I'm going by what UL writes. Since the
two do not match, I'm assuming UL is printing the correct information on
their web page.

You are going by your misreading of what UL writes on a site that is
used mostly by people who understand UL (inspectors) and is not intended
to explain the UL1449 listing process. I have explained how you
misinterpreted some of that information.

There is no conflict between the UL site and CH because the UL sites you
have looked at do not explain the UL1449 listing process. They were not
intended to explain it.

Apparently, like w, you ignore what does not fit your beliefs. (Or
maybe it is CYA.) So you ignore a technical note from a major
manufacturer that clearly describes some of the UL listing process for
1449 (and is intended to describe the process). CH makes equipment
listed under UL1449. Why should anyone believe CH got it wrong in a
publication aimed at technical people?

By the way, I used to work for a UL panel shop (UL508A).

 

[westom1]

w's religious blinders only allow him to read about earthing.
He can't read what numerous sources in this thread say about plug-in
suppressors.

Rather than post facts, a sales promoter replies with mockery and
insults. It worked for Rush Limbaugh. Therefore plug-in protectors
also must work?

Both of Bud's citations (IEEE and NIST) contradict Bud; state that
protection means earthing. One even shows how a Bud protector earthed
a surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV Page 42
Figure 8. The other was even blunter on Adobe page 19 of 24:

The best surge protection in the world can be useless
if grounding is not done properly.

Bud never discusses earthing because Bud is promoting protection
that makes surge energy magically disappear. Even both front page
articles in Electrical Engineering Times entitled "Protecting
Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" do not agree. But then
EE Times is discussing protection among engineers - not myths.

An engineer from WXIA described how even direct lightning strikes
result in no damage: earthing and protectors connected short (ie
'less than 10 feet') to earth. Sun Microsystems installation handbook
defines how server rooms are constructed to never suffer surge
damage. Telcos worldwide don't waste money on plug-in protectors;
instead earth 'whole house' protectors. A utility (Cinergy) even
describes how to upgrade earthing for surge protection. Why upgrade
earthing when Bud says earthing is unnecessary?

Bud even misrepresented what Martzloff stated. Martzloff was quite
blunt about plug-in (point of connection) protectors:

... objectionable difference in reference voltages ... occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices
are present at the point of connection of appliances.

Bud denies many scary pictures from fire departments, fire marshals,
and even a Boston apartment fire. Bud even implied that UL1449 rates
surge protection when the UL is only about human safety and fire
protection. Bud even denies a fire threat that Norma described on 27
Dec 2008 in the alt.fiftyplus newsgroup:

The granddaughter on the computer yelled and ran because
sparks and smoke were coming from the power surge strip.

IEEE makes recommendations in Standards. Every IEEE standard that
discusses surge protection also states what provides that protection -
earthing. Bud must deny this. Bud is promoting protectors that have
no earthing. Profits are at risk. Bud is challenged to provide that
manufacturer spec for protection. Bud refuses. A protector without
earthing does not even claim to protect from typically destructive
surges. Bud cannot provide a specification for protection that does
not exist.

Seven paragraphs summarizing hundreds of responsible sources that
state what effective protectors connect to for protection - earthing.
Responsible sources all state where surge energy must be harmlessly
dissipated - in earth.

Another responsible source defines how less expensive and effective
surge protection is installed. US Air Force says:

15. Surge Protection.
Entering or exiting metallic power, intrusion detection,
communication antenna, and instrumentation lines must have
surge protection sized for lightning surges to reduce transient
voltages to a harmless level. Install the surge protection as
soon as practical where the conductor enters the interior of
the facility.

No plug-in protector permitted. Only recommended protector is the
'whole house' protector "where the conductor enters ... the
facility".

Why reduce "transient voltages to a harmless level"? Then
protection inside every appliance is not overwhelmed. All appliances
contain surge protection. A destructive surge that might overwhelm
that protection is earthed before entering the facility. Then
protection inside every appliance is not overwhelmed - no appliance
damage. A solution that typically costs about $1 per protected
appliance.

Add the US Air Force to a long list who don't waste money on Bud's
plug-in protectors. Which protectors? Obscenely overpriced ones that
don't even claim to protect from destructive surges. Bud still
refused to provide tech specs for his plug-in protectors. Bud is a
promoter; not an engineer. Bud knows profit margins; not protection.

Add the US Air Force to the so many who recommend a 'whole house'
protector - not plug-in protectors.