UPS in blackouts

[westom1]

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

What Bud calls drivel is quoted directly from his own citations -
IEEE and NIST. Further facts from Electrical Engineering Times, Sun
Microsystems, US Air Force, the station engineer with generations of
experience, and a long list of others who have been doing this stuff
for generations.

How does Bud explain those sparks and smoke emitted by Norma's surge
protector? A sales promoter always must avoid such realities.
Discussion might hurt profits.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 protector parts. Sell it as a
power strip surge protector for $25 or $150. That is the profit
margin.

Bud pretends Norma's protectors did not spit sparks and smoke - a too
common problem with power strip protectors. So Bud ignores that the
US Air Force, every telco in the world, etc don't recommend his
protectors. So Bud pretends a power strip will stop what three miles
of sky could not. A protector without earthing must absorb that
energy. Absorbing energy that three miles of sky could not.

Where is that manufacturer numeric specification that claims surge
protection? Did Bud post it? Bud never provides that spec - it does
not exist. The protector manufacturer does not claim such
protection. So Bud posts half truths, lies, insults, and myths. A
three dollar power strip with some ten cent parts sell for $25 or
$150 ... Bud must protect that profit margin.

No earth ground means no effective protection. Earthing is why
every responsible facility uses a 'whole house' protector - that also
costs less money and do not have those obscene profit margins.

The effective surge protector means nobody even knew a surge
existed. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground.

 

[geoff]

You are going by your misreading of what UL writes on a site

Not on a site but UL's site and what they write is very clear for your surge
supressor. It was tested using UL 1449's testing procedures to see if it
matches what the manufacturer says.

Rather than rebutting that directly you keep posting comments:
'. . . misreading . . .'
'. . . I used to work for a UL panel shop . . .'
etc.

.. . . if you have specific information from the UL website that says
otherwise concerning your supressor then post it. Your general comments on
the subject and opining mean nothing. Don't quote C-H, they are not UL,
quote specifically from the UL website that they did more than test your
supressor, using UL 1449 testing procedures, to see if the svr matches what
the manufacturer says.

You keep saying it meets 'ALL' the UL 1449 specs, fine, show where it says
that from the UL website.

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).

You are right, when the two do not agree, so, I go by what UL writes.


--g

 

[westom1]

{cut and paste of the exact same lies, insults, and myths}

As predicted, Bud will post his insults incessantly to get the last
word. Bud promotes plug-in protectors. Getting the last word will
convince the naive to buy more ineffective protectors. Bud still
ignores Norma's protector that spit sparks and smoke. He still ignores
what his own citation showed - 8000 volts damaged TV because his
protector had no earthing. He must ignore what his other citation
says:

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

Bud provides not even one manufacturer specification that claims
protection. Bud cannot provide what does not exist. So Bud again
'cut and pastes' insults, lies, and myths to - as predicted - get the
last post.

A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. No earth
ground means no effective protection. Where is Bud's protection
spec? Never provided because no such protection exists. But it sure
can spit sparks and smoke; threaten human life just like in those
scary pictures.

 

[bud--]

Rather than post facts, a sales promoter replies with mockery and
insults.

Of course calling me a "sales promoter" isn't an insult.

Poor w has trouble recognizing facts.

Facts:
- The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-in
suppressors.
-The NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".
- The NIST guide says "One effective solution is to have the consumer
install" a multiport plug-in suppressor.
- A service panel suppressor provide no protection in the IEEE example,
pdf page 42.
- The IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only effective way
of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport [plug-in] protector".
- Martzloff said in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper,
is the insertion of a properly designed [multiport plug-in surge
suppressor]".
- The IEEE Emerald book includes plug-in suppressors as an effective
surge protection device.
- No source says UL listed plug-in suppressors made after 1998 are a
problem.
- None of w's sources says a damaged suppressor had a UL label.

Fact:
Poor w can't refute or explain any of the above.
w just ignores it, along with everything else that doesn't conform
with his religious belief in earthing.

Fact:
w can't find another lunatic that agrees with him that plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

Fact:
w just keeps repeating the same drivel - debunked often.

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

 

[bud--]

Not on a site but UL's site and what they write is very clear for your surge
supressor. It was tested using UL 1449's testing procedures to see if it
matches what the manufacturer says.

What are the "UL 1449 testing procedures" to determine the SVR. You have
no idea what they are. They are detailed in the CH technical note. It is
most of what the CH note is about (relative to 1449).

And the SVR voltage levels are determined by UL. As the CH note says
the "rating is rounded to the next highest standard SVR class set by UL.
For example, a 401 V rating is rounded up to 500 V. The standard SVR
classes are: 330, 400, 500, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1500 or 2000 Volts."
Belkin does not pick an arbitrary voltage level. Don't believe it? Find
a UL listed suppressor with another voltage rating.

What about a disconnect for overheating MOVs. Did you find that in your
search of the UL sites? w has a link to hanford.gov that makes clear
disconnects have been required since UL1449 2nd edition (1998). It is
also in another of w's links. It is well known [except by w]. (Hanford
is one of several national test labs for the US Department of Energy.)
Not being idiots, UL tests to make sure the thermal disconnects work.
But it isn't relevant for the summary information you looked at.

Your concept seems to be the same as your FDA example. You ignored the
extensive FDA examination of evidence for acetylsalicylic acid
effectiveness and safety. According to you the FDA only cares if aspirin
is in the bottle. It doesn’t care if the aspirin is safe or effective.

You are right, when the two do not agree, so, I go by what UL writes.

Of course they don't disagree. You are reading what you want into the UL
site. As I noted above, CH provides the detail for what "UL 1449 testing
procedures" are.

The UL sites you looked at have only brief summary information. There is
no reason to detail what is in the UL tests. Inspectors who read the
summary information only want the summary information. And the sites
assume some familiarity with the standard - for example your not knowing
what "Classified in Accordance with IEEE C62.41-1991, Recommended
Practice" is about.

And there is no reason for UL to tell you what is in the tests. (They
will sell you a copy of UL1449 - IIRC it is only about $1000.)


Take a different example - the switches used in permanent wiring to
control lights and other uses (your common wall switch).
I happen to have the UL standard for these devices.
For AC-only switches the tests include all the following - at rated voltage:
- 10,000 operations at rated current
- 10,000 operations at rated current and power factor around 0.8
- 10,000 operations at rated current controlling incandescent loads
(inrush is about 6x rated current)
- 100 operations at 4.8x rated current and power factor around 0.5

A switch must survive all of these tests to be UL listed.

If you look a switch up at the UL site does it tell you any of the above?
Why would it?
Does it tell you "switches are tested ... for motor loads up to 80% of
the amp rating of the switch, but not exceeding 2 hp"? (Taken from the
"UL White Book".)

 

[geoff]

I give up, the statement on th UL website, for your supressor says:

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

.. . . based on your comments, that statement should read:

'These products have been tested to verify that transient voltage surges are
limited to the maximum applitudes specified by UL 1449.'

.. . . but the website does not say that.

Have fun.

--g