UPS unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe

M

Mercury

Nuh, live in a farady cage. No more problems then. They work so well that
linesmen here routinely service a local 650kv DC line in faraday suits will
hanging off a helicopter.
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

Jay - who claims transformers provide no galvanic isolation
- also denies the longitudinal mode transient. He must avoid
discussing the various types of transients to promote myths.
Longitudinal mode transients damage hardware. A most famous
longitudinal mode transient is lightning.
[snip]

You think so, eh?

Then please explain why:

<http://search.yahoo.com/search?p="longitudinal+mode+transient"+lightning>

Produces ZERO hits, and why the ONLY hit produced by:

<http://www.google.com/search?q="longitudinal+mode+transient"+lightning&btnG=Google+Search>

is <http://www.talkaboutvideo.com/group/alt.tv.tech.hdtv/messages/99839.html>

which is a WWW-based Usenet mirror/archive of your own post to
<alt.tv.tech.hdtv> on [Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:56:14 -0400] (Message-ID:
<[email protected]>]

Ditto for:

<http://web.ask.com/web?q="longitudinal+mode+transient"+lightning>

which produces ONLY <http://www2.usenetarchive.org/Dir88/File532.html>, which
is yet another Usenet mirror/archive, this time of someone else quoting your
earlier rant on <alt.tv.tech.hdtv>.

So... If this term is so accepted and so "famous", then why is it not
documented ANYWHERE, except in your own fertile imagination? Hmmm?

I repeat: Get back under your bridge and resume your meds.


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

Nuh, live in a farady cage. No more problems then.
[snip]

Heh... Good one.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 
W

w_tom

Jay - who claims that transformers don't provide galvanic
isolation - now has a problem. He has been caught and exposed
as a 'salesman scientist'. He cannot support, with basic
electrical principles or simple science, the premise that a
UPS provides protection from the destructive type of
transient. He does not even understand the various types of
transients - first year EE stuff. So he goes looking in web
sites searching for a definition of longitudinal transients.
Its not difficult, Jay. Its a transient that seeks ground on
any or all wires.

Basic electrical concepts about how a UPS works; he does not
know. So he seeks others who also believe his 'UPS
protection' myths in a hope that will vindicate him. Jay, if
your UPS provides protection, then you can cite the
manufacturers specs - the numbers - that make that claim?
Apparently not. You could explain how a destructive transient
does not take the bypass wire around UPS directly into
motherboard? Obviously not. You could provide the number of
joules for that protector circuit and demonstrate why it is
not undersized? Those are numbers. Jay, as a junk scientist,
doesn't do numbers and does not grasp basic electrical
principles.

Instead, Jay goes looking for others who also hope that a
UPS could be effective surge protector. Clearly another
misguided soul would prove him correct. And then again, he
need not provide numbers, manufacturer specs, nor understand
basic EE concepts (such as protection inside a power supply as
required by industry specs). Maybe then we will forget that
Jay used his "PowerPoint" education to post this whopper:
A transformer has *nothing* to do with "galvanic isolation", ...

In the meantime, posted from reliable and responsible
sources that include basic engineering concepts, application
notes from industry sources, Sun Microsystems own installation
guidelines, other industry professional testimony, and even
what Ben Franklin demonstrated in 1752 - most posted with
numbers - is a bottom line fact. A protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. No earth ground, such as in
Jay's UPS, means no effective protection. So Jay avoids even
touching the word 'earth'.

This, of course, assumes basic knowledge of things as simple
as longitudinal transients. We will not find that knowledge
from Jay who does not even cite manufacturer specifications to
support his premise. Jay even reports that UPS will stop,
block, or absorb what three miles of sky could not. Three
miles of sky? Too many numbers. Instead he attacks this
messenger rather than address his technical bewilderment.

Jay - what UPS manufacturer did you say you were a salesman
for? Again Jay posts no numbers just like a good salesman
does when promoting mythical functions that manufacturer's
specifications do not even claim. Instead he must post
insults - without numbers - as proof of his credibility.

A surge protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
As with his plug-in UPS recommendations, no earth ground means
no effective protection. Concepts such as earthing,
longitudinal transients, galvanic isolation, and the numbers -
Jay does not need any of that. Posting insults is proof
sufficient.

Jay T. Blocksom said:
Jay - who claims transformers provide no galvanic isolation
- also denies the longitudinal mode transient. He must avoid
discussing the various types of transients to promote myths.
Longitudinal mode transients damage hardware. A most famous
longitudinal mode transient is lightning.
[snip]

You think so, eh?

Then please explain why:

<http://search.yahoo.com/search?p="longitudinal+mode+transient"+lightning>

Produces ZERO hits, and why the ONLY hit produced by:

<http://www.google.com/search?q="longitudinal+mode+transient"+lightning&btnG=Google+Search>

is <http://www.talkaboutvideo.com/group/alt.tv.tech.hdtv/messages/99839.html>

which is a WWW-based Usenet mirror/archive of your own post to
<alt.tv.tech.hdtv> on [Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:56:14 -0400] (Message-ID:
<[email protected]>]

Ditto for:

<http://web.ask.com/web?q="longitudinal+mode+transient"+lightning>

which produces ONLY <http://www2.usenetarchive.org/Dir88/File532.html>, which
is yet another Usenet mirror/archive, this time of someone else quoting your
earlier rant on <alt.tv.tech.hdtv>.

So... If this term is so accepted and so "famous", then why is it not
documented ANYWHERE, except in your own fertile imagination? Hmmm?

I repeat: Get back under your bridge and resume your meds.
 
R

Rob Stow

Going off topic ...

Has anyone ever seen a UPS that *replaces* a computer's PSU
instead of merely sitting between the PSU and the wall outlet ?

I've often wondered if a PSU could be more efficient if it took
the AC input from the wall inlet, converted it to DC, and then
never had to deal with AC again. In other words, if the UPS took
the AC power from the wall outlet, converted it to DC, and then
used the DC to do two things: maintain the charge on the battery
and provide the 12V, 5V and 3.3V for the computer.

As things currently stand, every UPS I've seen takes in AC power
and outputs only AC power. When the battery is not needed, this
is not a big deal. However, when the battery *is* needed it seems
silly to take DC from the battery and convert it to AC - only to
send that AC to a PSU which has to convert it back to DC again.


Alternatively, how about a new kind of PSU designed to work in
conjunction with a new kind of UPS: the UPS outputs DC at
voltage "X" instead of AC and the PSU is designed to take only DC
at "X" volts ?
 
P

Paul

Going off topic ...

Has anyone ever seen a UPS that *replaces* a computer's PSU
instead of merely sitting between the PSU and the wall outlet ?

I've often wondered if a PSU could be more efficient if it took
the AC input from the wall inlet, converted it to DC, and then
never had to deal with AC again. In other words, if the UPS took
the AC power from the wall outlet, converted it to DC, and then
used the DC to do two things: maintain the charge on the battery
and provide the 12V, 5V and 3.3V for the computer.

As things currently stand, every UPS I've seen takes in AC power
and outputs only AC power. When the battery is not needed, this
is not a big deal. However, when the battery *is* needed it seems
silly to take DC from the battery and convert it to AC - only to
send that AC to a PSU which has to convert it back to DC again.


Alternatively, how about a new kind of PSU designed to work in
conjunction with a new kind of UPS: the UPS outputs DC at
voltage "X" instead of AC and the PSU is designed to take only DC
at "X" volts ?

If you use your favorite search engine, and look for "atx dc-dc",
including the double quotes, you'll find companies making adapters
for cars. They even include a connection to the ignition switch,
so when you leave the car, the computer is switched off.

The problem with these, is they are not high power supplies, and
could not run a gamer computer. Perhaps a Pentium-M plus Asus adapter
and motherboard, would be a good candidate.

So, that gives you the "DC to ATX" end of the solution.

But, the thing is, if you have two separate gadgets, a UPS that
just charges a battery, and a car adapter, there are still two
conversions happening.

To eliminate the second conversion, you would need, say, a battery
per output rail. A battery for 3.3V, a battery for 5V, a battery
for 12V and so on. There would only be one power conversion there.
And a mess of batteries. You would need battery management logic,
to control charging and the like. So, that solution would consist
of a more or less standard ATX supply, followed by battery
charger logic, raft of batteries, with final output to a 20 pin
ATX power cable.

Most other schemes you could think up, would still involve two
conversion steps.

If the question is, can an ATX supply be made more efficient, the
answer is yes. And I sometimes wonder why someone isn't producing
such products. I guess the rock bottom prices of ATX supplies,
prevents entry into the market of more efficient designs. I
consider the 68% efficiency of the average supply to be criminal,
especially in an office complex with thousands of computers. The
air conditioning bill is staggering.

Paul
 
M

Mercury

How about starting an Open Source project for a new "PSU" design?

Remove current PSU, replace with 12v battery of choice with step down
adapters for 5v and 3.3v.

Add a high current charger, gang the batteries & voila instant UPS. I get
stuck at the current requiremets for 5v & 3.3v... not quite my design
league.

In volume production, these units could be cheaper than current PSU's
(ignoring charger) since the 12v line 'becomes simpler'..............
 
W

w_tom

I even built a PC (for a specific factory machine) that did
just that - power the system from a battery inside the power
supply. Such power supplies were numerous when
microprocessors were running in the 200 Mhz range. PC Power
and Cooling even made one. But the market for them was all
but nonexistent.

I used a supply that converted AC to 12 volts which powered
both computer and recharged a 12 volt battery. The battery,
in turn maintained power uninterrupted if AC failed. It may
sound much like those line interactive UPSes described
earlier, but it had some technical differences.

Of course, what you are asking for already exists
elsewhere. It is called a laptop computer.

Efficiency by not doing a DC to AC conversion is not as
great as you might assume. To power DC voltages in a computer
for the 12 volt battery, the power supply still must convert
that DC battery back to AC in order to create and to regulate
those many voltages required by a motherboard.

How does the CPU get those sub 3 volts from the 12 volt
supply? Again, 12 volts is converted to AC which in turn is
converted by to sub 3 volt DC. Done this way because that is
most efficient.
 
W

w_tom

When running a computer from automotive power, one is
cautioned about another transient: load dump. Load dump is
defined in specs such as SAE J1455 and ISO 7637-1. Defined
are automotive transients up to 270 volts and energy up to 50
joules. These are worst case numbers. But a power supply for
computers (in automotive and marine environments) should
withstand load dump spikes of 100+ volts on 12 volt power.

Those whose only number is price will buy a $25 power
supply. This is the classic bean counter decision. Those who
make decisions using numbers may spend $50 for the same supply
that includes other computer safety features such as load dump
protection.

68% power efficiencies is on the low side. Intel requires
68% as the absolute minimum when a power supply is 100%
loaded. Most power supplies are more like 75% efficient.
This number may also be impacted by line harmonics. European
industry standards require power factor correction which means
AC line power is used more efficiently.

Yes these are off topic subjects because they don't do
anything for the OP's question. These alternative supplies
neither add nor impact motherboard hardware protection.

Using dedicated batteries for 3.3, 5, and 12 volts is not a
valid solution. Battery voltages vary too much. Computers
require much better voltage regulation. Not as critical as
required by 8080s back when I was soldering together computers
(Jay is reminded who here has dirt under the fingernails).
But still battery voltages vary so much as to require voltage
regulators - which then creates efficiencies found in current
supplies. Dedicated batteries provide nothing useful and can
even create other destructive problems not relevant to the OPs
question.
 
P

Paul

When running a computer from automotive power, one is
cautioned about another transient: load dump. Load dump is
defined in specs such as SAE J1455 and ISO 7637-1. Defined
are automotive transients up to 270 volts and energy up to 50
joules. These are worst case numbers. But a power supply for
computers (in automotive and marine environments) should
withstand load dump spikes of 100+ volts on 12 volt power.

Those whose only number is price will buy a $25 power
supply. This is the classic bean counter decision. Those who
make decisions using numbers may spend $50 for the same supply
that includes other computer safety features such as load dump
protection.

68% power efficiencies is on the low side. Intel requires
68% as the absolute minimum when a power supply is 100%
loaded. Most power supplies are more like 75% efficient.
This number may also be impacted by line harmonics. European
industry standards require power factor correction which means
AC line power is used more efficiently.

Yes these are off topic subjects because they don't do
anything for the OP's question. These alternative supplies
neither add nor impact motherboard hardware protection.

Using dedicated batteries for 3.3, 5, and 12 volts is not a
valid solution. Battery voltages vary too much. Computers
require much better voltage regulation. Not as critical as
required by 8080s back when I was soldering together computers
(Jay is reminded who here has dirt under the fingernails).
But still battery voltages vary so much as to require voltage
regulators - which then creates efficiencies found in current
supplies. Dedicated batteries provide nothing useful and can
even create other destructive problems not relevant to the OPs
question.

The battery idea was purely rhetorical and not a practical one.
The best solutions will still involve two conversion steps.

paul
 
K

Ken

I've often wondered if a PSU could be more efficient if it
took the AC input from the wall inlet, converted it to DC,
and then never had to deal with AC again.

Then it will be very, very inefficient!
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

[snip 100+ lines of top-posted incoherent ad hominem ranting and
gratuitous full-quoting]

Ooops... Nothing left.

(And you never answered my questions.)

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

Going off topic ...

Has anyone ever seen a UPS that *replaces* a computer's PSU
instead of merely sitting between the PSU and the wall outlet ?
[snip]

It's been done; but it never caught on commercially.

There are several problems inherent in such an approach, not he least of which
is the difficulty -- near-impossibility, really -- of stuffing all the
necessary components (possibly including several batteries) into the confines
of a "standard" PC PSU form-factor.

Then there's the fact that, at least in most applications, keeping the PC
"alive" during an outage doesn't do you all that much good, if you cannot also
keep at least some of the peripherals (monitor, network hub/switch, etc.)
alive. So you'd still need a "general purpose" UPS for these devices, which
sort'a defeats the point.

All in all, it's just not a cost-effective or practical approach, unless
you've got a *really* weird set of "special needs".
I've often wondered if a PSU could be more efficient if it took
the AC input from the wall inlet, converted it to DC, and then
never had to deal with AC again.
[snip]

In theory, yes. But in "real life", the first major problem is you'd need to
either dedicate a battery (or bank of batteries) and the attendant
charging/monitoring circuits to *each* different voltage rail in the system
(for a standard desktop PC, that's currently: +3.3V, +5.0V, +12V, -12V, and
-5.0V -- for a total of five batteries, minimum), which gets both expensive
and bulky in a large hurry (not to mention a maintenance headache), or suffer
a major efficiency "hit" via one or more voltage-divider circuits. Then
there's the fact that standard batteries do not offer the "correct" voltages
needed by current PC designs (no, the output of a "12V" battery is *not*
really 12 volts); so we still need to throw away (primarily in the form of
heat, BTW) some more voltage, even if we do go the mutiple-battery route.

In addition to these problems, there are (as touched on above) packaging
issues: One battery or several, the overall system inevitably becomes
significantly larger and heavier -- precisely the opposite of what "The
Market" generally wants. And even if we manage to cram all the necessary
"stuff" into a sufficiently small package, who wants a potentially leaky
lead-acid battery inside their PC case? And if we go with more exotic battery
types (such as Lithium-Ion, which would be the best choice among currently
viable technologies) to bypass that issue, we both complicate the required
circuitry still further *and* blow the budget sky high. (Have you priced
high-capacity Li-Ion batteries? Sit down before you do. <~>)

This is one of the big reasons (tho' of course, not the only one) why laptop
PCs use fundamentally different processors, chipsets, etc., than their desktop
counterparts do. By making the various system components all run at
approximately the same voltages (and reducing the total power demand as much
as possible), the overall system design is greatly simplified.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 
W

w_tom

We built a PC containing even screen and keyboard inside a
12 inch by 12 inch by 4 inch box. The battery (lead acid) and
power supply were also inside (late 1990s design). It
executed
Windows and was networked. But then Jay somehow knows:
... near-impossibility, really -- of stuffing all the necessary
components (possibly including several batteries) into the
confines of a "standard" PC PSU form-factor.

Package was much smaller than a standard PC form-factor.
The battery does not go inside a power supply for other and
obvious human safety reasons. Leave Jay to also 'invent' what
those reasons are.

Somehow Jay would have one believe another mythical
requirement; a:
... need to either dedicate a battery (or bank of batteries)
and the attendant charging/monitoring circuits to *each*
different voltage rail in the system ...

One output regulator provided all voltages from only one
battery - even though Jay says this working design is not
possible. He also knows a transformer has nothing to do with
galvanic isolation. Be wary of these salesman scientists.
They just know - reality be damned.

The lurker is cautioned about these salesman who sound
believable but never did the work. Same person who would
claim a $500 UPS is necessary to protect a motherboard. He
cannot even cite the manufacturer specification that claims
such protection. Be wary of these electronic store salesmen
who are trained to 'sound' knowledgeable. One even claims
that $500 UPS protects from destructive transients without
effective earthing.

Jay T. Blocksom said:
It's been done; but it never caught on commercially.

There are several problems inherent in such an approach, not he least of which
is the difficulty -- near-impossibility, really -- of stuffing all the
necessary components (possibly including several batteries) into the confines
of a "standard" PC PSU form-factor.

Then there's the fact that, at least in most applications, keeping the PC
"alive" during an outage doesn't do you all that much good, if you cannot also
keep at least some of the peripherals (monitor, network hub/switch, etc.)
alive. So you'd still need a "general purpose" UPS for these devices, which
sort'a defeats the point.

All in all, it's just not a cost-effective or practical approach, unless
you've got a *really* weird set of "special needs".
I've often wondered if a PSU could be more efficient if it took
the AC input from the wall inlet, converted it to DC, and then
never had to deal with AC again.
[snip]

In theory, yes. But in "real life", the first major problem is you'd need to
either dedicate a battery (or bank of batteries) and the attendant
charging/monitoring circuits to *each* different voltage rail in the system
(for a standard desktop PC, that's currently: +3.3V, +5.0V, +12V, -12V, and
-5.0V -- for a total of five batteries, minimum), which gets both expensive
and bulky in a large hurry (not to mention a maintenance headache), or suffer
a major efficiency "hit" via one or more voltage-divider circuits. Then
there's the fact that standard batteries do not offer the "correct" voltages
needed by current PC designs (no, the output of a "12V" battery is *not*
really 12 volts); so we still need to throw away (primarily in the form of
heat, BTW) some more voltage, even if we do go the mutiple-battery route.

In addition to these problems, there are (as touched on above) packaging
issues: One battery or several, the overall system inevitably becomes
significantly larger and heavier -- precisely the opposite of what "The
Market" generally wants. And even if we manage to cram all the necessary
"stuff" into a sufficiently small package, who wants a potentially leaky
lead-acid battery inside their PC case? And if we go with more exotic battery
types (such as Lithium-Ion, which would be the best choice among currently
viable technologies) to bypass that issue, we both complicate the required
circuitry still further *and* blow the budget sky high. (Have you priced
high-capacity Li-Ion batteries? Sit down before you do. <~>)

This is one of the big reasons (tho' of course, not the only one) why laptop
PCs use fundamentally different processors, chipsets, etc., than their desktop
counterparts do. By making the various system components all run at
approximately the same voltages (and reducing the total power demand as much
as possible), the overall system design is greatly simplified.
 
R

Rob Stow

Jay said:
Going off topic ...

Has anyone ever seen a UPS that *replaces* a computer's PSU
instead of merely sitting between the PSU and the wall outlet ?
[snip]

It's been done; but it never caught on commercially.

There are several problems inherent in such an approach, not he least of which
is the difficulty -- near-impossibility, really -- of stuffing all the
necessary components (possibly including several batteries) into the confines
of a "standard" PC PSU form-factor.

I never assumed that it would go inside the computer in place of
the current types of PSUs - simply because of battery sizes and
the unpleasant prospect of having leaking batteries inside a
computer.

I envisioned something the size of current UPSes sitting outside
the case, with the current PSU being replaced with something much
smaller that doesn't do much more than take a large cord from the
UPS+PSU and then on the inside split it into leads for the
motherboard, hard drives, etc.

The additional room inside the case could either be eliminated
(SFF fans would like that) or used for something else.

In other words, instead of having an external UPS and an internal
PSU, people would have an external (UPS + PSU).
Then there's the fact that, at least in most applications, keeping the PC
"alive" during an outage doesn't do you all that much good, if you cannot also
keep at least some of the peripherals (monitor, network hub/switch, etc.)
alive. So you'd still need a "general purpose" UPS for these devices, which
sort'a defeats the point.

All in all, it's just not a cost-effective or practical approach, unless
you've got a *really* weird set of "special needs".
I've often wondered if a PSU could be more efficient if it took
the AC input from the wall inlet, converted it to DC, and then
never had to deal with AC again.
[snip]

In theory, yes. But in "real life", the first major problem is you'd need to
either dedicate a battery (or bank of batteries) and the attendant
charging/monitoring circuits to *each* different voltage rail in the system
(for a standard desktop PC, that's currently: +3.3V, +5.0V, +12V, -12V, and
-5.0V -- for a total of five batteries, minimum), which gets both expensive
and bulky in a large hurry (not to mention a maintenance headache), or suffer
a major efficiency "hit" via one or more voltage-divider circuits. Then
there's the fact that standard batteries do not offer the "correct" voltages
needed by current PC designs (no, the output of a "12V" battery is *not*
really 12 volts); so we still need to throw away (primarily in the form of
heat, BTW) some more voltage, even if we do go the mutiple-battery route.

In addition to these problems, there are (as touched on above) packaging
issues: One battery or several, the overall system inevitably becomes
significantly larger and heavier -- precisely the opposite of what "The
Market" generally wants.

I wasn't thinking of something that targets "The Market" - just
something for people who use UPSes anyway.

I also didn't expect that the total weight of the
computer+UPS+PSU system would change much.
And even if we manage to cram all the necessary
"stuff" into a sufficiently small package, who wants a potentially leaky
lead-acid battery inside their PC case? And if we go with more exotic battery
types (such as Lithium-Ion, which would be the best choice among currently
viable technologies) to bypass that issue, we both complicate the required
circuitry still further *and* blow the budget sky high. (Have you priced
high-capacity Li-Ion batteries? Sit down before you do. <~>)

Most people I know - including myself - don't need a UPS with a
lot of run time for a home PC, so a small Li-Ion battery could be
financially feasible.

I need a UPS to get me through the momentary power dropouts that
happen once in a while - particularly during thunderstorm season.
Around here, blackouts lasting more than a few seconds happen
only once or twice a year and I can live without a computer
during those - so long as I have a minute or two to save and shut
down nicely.

Heck, even the people I know who have big UPSes to get them
through a 20 minute blackout have without exception wasted their
money. Instead of continuing to use their computers during the
blackouts, they still do what everyone else does: look for
candles/flashlights and phone people in other parts of town to
ask if they are blacked out too. ;-) Long run-times are great
for a server UPS, but human nature being what it is makes it a
waste for desktops.


This reminds me of something ...

After a blackout last year, I set a local business up with 1000VA
UPSes at every computer to see them through the next blackout -
they wanted something that would let people keep working for up
to 30 minutes. Two days later I was there as an ordinary
customer when, lo and behold, the next blackout happened. Turns
out they had a policy of shutting everything down, kicking the
customers out, and locking the doors. Much cheaper and smaller
UPSes with a two minute run-time would have done the job.
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

Going off topic ...

Has anyone ever seen a UPS that *replaces* a computer's PSU
instead of merely sitting between the PSU and the wall outlet ?
[snip]

It's been done; but it never caught on commercially.

There are several problems inherent in such an approach, not he least of
which is the difficulty -- near-impossibility, really -- of stuffing all
the necessary components (possibly including several batteries) into the
confines of a "standard" PC PSU form-factor.

I never assumed that it would go inside the computer in place of
the current types of PSUs - simply because of battery sizes and
the unpleasant prospect of having leaking batteries inside a
computer.
[snip]

OK, but such packaging was rather strongly implied by the "*replaces* a
computer's PSU" phrase. And FWIW, the early incarnations of this idea that I
am aware of did indeed do just that. As you might imagine, the run-times on
battery power were abysmal (a minute or two, as I now rather vaguely recall).
In other words, instead of having an external UPS and an internal
PSU, people would have an external (UPS + PSU).
[snip]

Effectively, what you're talking about is a two-piece PC. While, in theory,
the so-called UPS/PSU unit could be used with any similar "PSU-less" PC, it is
easily foreseeable that in practice it would not work out that way at least
the vast majority of time, in part because the PSU-less PC portion would be
useless without its "other half". Hence, at least the vast majority of PCs
designed for such as system would need to be sold with an effectively
dedicated UPS/PSU unit; so we're back to the size/weight issues mentioned
earlier (and the fact that, since this arrangement is obviously more
complicated than "plug it into a standard wall jack and go", it's not likely
to have much appeal to John Q. Average).
I wasn't thinking of something that targets "The Market" - just
something for people who use UPSes anyway.
[snip]

But that *is* the market -- at least, the market for the product you're
envisioning.

Let me ask you this... Just what significant benefit to the consumer would
such an approach yield, which cannot or is not already provided by "standard"
PCs and "standard" plug-in UPS systems? Before you answer, consider that
whatever that benefit is, it would have to out-weigh the several advantages
the current approach provides that your pseudo-dedicated approach can't,
particularly in terms of flexibility (i.e., a single UPS can "protect" several
pieces of equipment simultaneously; the particular assortment of equipment
chosen at any given moment is completely up to the user; no need to replace
the UPS when replacing the PC; the UPS is not actually *needed* to operate the
PC; etc.).
Most people I know - including myself - don't need a UPS with a
lot of run time for a home PC, so a small Li-Ion battery could be
financially feasible.
[snip]

Maybe. But *five* of them? I don't think so.
I need a UPS to get me through the momentary power dropouts that
happen once in a while - particularly during thunderstorm season.
Around here, blackouts lasting more than a few seconds happen
only once or twice a year and I can live without a computer
during those - so long as I have a minute or two to save and shut
down nicely.
[snip]

I don't debate that. However...

A "standard" AC-powered PC in combination with a "standard" plug-in UPS can
already do everything you want, and is *cheaper* than your hypothetical
pseudo-dedicated PSU/UPS system likely could ever be. So those other "side
benefits" (such as the longer run time) that you feel you don't need can
simply be ignored -- you're *still* better off (in the cost/benefit sense)
with the conventional approach.

And besides, what if you're not sitting right at the computer to immediately
initiate that shut-down, when the power failure happens to come along?
Heck, even the people I know who have big UPSes to get them
through a 20 minute blackout have without exception wasted their
money. Instead of continuing to use their computers during the
blackouts, they still do what everyone else does: look for
candles/flashlights and phone people in other parts of town to
ask if they are blacked out too. ;-) Long run-times are great
for a server UPS, but human nature being what it is makes it a
waste for desktops.
[snip]

Much depends on how you look at it, of course. But from where I sit, it's not
a waste; it's cheap insurance.

The cost difference between two otherwise identical UPSs, one with a 5-minute
run-time under a given load, the other with, say, a 20-minute run-time with
that same load, is usually relatively minimal, perhaps even negligible.
There's no point in being "penny-wise and pound-foolish".
This reminds me of something ...

After a blackout last year, I set a local business up with 1000VA
UPSes at every computer to see them through the next blackout -
they wanted something that would let people keep working for up
to 30 minutes.
[snip]

Did the systems in question actually *require* a UPS with that much load
capacity, or was this simply your expedient approach to providing extended
run-rimes? If the latter, it would very likely have been cheaper to use
smaller UPS systems with extra battery packs.

(And I presume you did not neglect such things as the servers, routers,
switches, printers, etc., right?)
Two days later I was there as an ordinary
customer when, lo and behold, the next blackout happened. Turns
out they had a policy of shutting everything down, kicking the
customers out, and locking the doors. Much cheaper and smaller
UPSes with a two minute run-time would have done the job.
[snip]

I think you're exaggerating a bit, but I get your point. In any event, this
is not an indictment of using conservatively-sized UPS systems. They may well
have had *other* reasons for that policy -- like liability concerns, for
example.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

We built a PC containing even screen and keyboard inside a
12 inch by 12 inch by 4 inch box. The battery (lead acid) and
power supply were also inside (late 1990s design). It
executed
Windows and was networked. But then Jay somehow knows:

Package was much smaller than a standard PC form-factor.
[snip]

Go get a refund on your tuition for that Remedial Reading 101 course. It
obviously didn;t do you any good.

A "PC PSU form-factor" and a "PC form-factor" are two *very* different things.
The battery does not go inside a power supply for other and
obvious human safety reasons.
[snip]

Enclosing a battery in a steel or aluminum box poses "obvious human safety"
issues? Quick! Call NEMA! I'm sure they'll want to rescind and revise their
codes and standards immediately, just because you say so.
Somehow Jay would have one believe another mythical
requirement; a:

One output regulator provided all voltages from only one
battery - even though Jay says this working design is not
possible.
[snip]

Apparently, in addition to having severe reading-comprehension problems, you
are a liar as well. I never said that such a design was not possible. I said
it would be (electrically) inefficient, which was the context under discussion
at that point. (Of course, it comes as no surprise that the concept of
context is lost on you. Have you found your Lithium yet? Or is it Prozac?)

GoAT.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 
R

Rob Stow

Jay said:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 19:27:18 GMT, in <alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus>,

Going off topic ...

Has anyone ever seen a UPS that *replaces* a computer's PSU
instead of merely sitting between the PSU and the wall outlet ?

[snip]

It's been done; but it never caught on commercially.

There are several problems inherent in such an approach, not he least of
which is the difficulty -- near-impossibility, really -- of stuffing all
the necessary components (possibly including several batteries) into the
confines of a "standard" PC PSU form-factor.

I never assumed that it would go inside the computer in place of
the current types of PSUs - simply because of battery sizes and
the unpleasant prospect of having leaking batteries inside a
computer.
[snip]

OK, but such packaging was rather strongly implied by the "*replaces* a
computer's PSU" phrase. And FWIW, the early incarnations of this idea that I
am aware of did indeed do just that. As you might imagine, the run-times on
battery power were abysmal (a minute or two, as I now rather vaguely recall).
In other words, instead of having an external UPS and an internal
PSU, people would have an external (UPS + PSU).
[snip]

Effectively, what you're talking about is a two-piece PC. While, in theory,
the so-called UPS/PSU unit could be used with any similar "PSU-less" PC, it is
easily foreseeable that in practice it would not work out that way at least
the vast majority of time, in part because the PSU-less PC portion would be
useless without its "other half". Hence, at least the vast majority of PCs
designed for such as system would need to be sold with an effectively
dedicated UPS/PSU unit; so we're back to the size/weight issues mentioned
earlier (and the fact that, since this arrangement is obviously more
complicated than "plug it into a standard wall jack and go", it's not likely
to have much appeal to John Q. Average).
I wasn't thinking of something that targets "The Market" - just
something for people who use UPSes anyway.
[snip]

But that *is* the market -- at least, the market for the product you're
envisioning.

Let me ask you this... Just what significant benefit to the consumer would
such an approach yield, which cannot or is not already provided by "standard"
PCs and "standard" plug-in UPS systems? Before you answer, consider that
whatever that benefit is, it would have to out-weigh the several advantages
the current approach provides that your pseudo-dedicated approach can't,
particularly in terms of flexibility (i.e., a single UPS can "protect" several
pieces of equipment simultaneously; the particular assortment of equipment
chosen at any given moment is completely up to the user; no need to replace
the UPS when replacing the PC; the UPS is not actually *needed* to operate the
PC; etc.).

I had hoped that there would be significant energy efficiency
gains by combining the UPS and the PSU into a single unit.
Apparently that is not the case.
Most people I know - including myself - don't need a UPS with a
lot of run time for a home PC, so a small Li-Ion battery could be
financially feasible.
[snip]

Maybe. But *five* of them? I don't think so.
I need a UPS to get me through the momentary power dropouts that
happen once in a while - particularly during thunderstorm season.
Around here, blackouts lasting more than a few seconds happen
only once or twice a year and I can live without a computer
during those - so long as I have a minute or two to save and shut
down nicely.
[snip]

I don't debate that. However...

A "standard" AC-powered PC in combination with a "standard" plug-in UPS can
already do everything you want, and is *cheaper* than your hypothetical
pseudo-dedicated PSU/UPS system likely could ever be. So those other "side
benefits" (such as the longer run time) that you feel you don't need can
simply be ignored -- you're *still* better off (in the cost/benefit sense)
with the conventional approach.

And besides, what if you're not sitting right at the computer to immediately
initiate that shut-down, when the power failure happens to come along?

That is what software is for. It wouldn't be any different than
the software used in conjunction with current UPSes.
Heck, even the people I know who have big UPSes to get them
through a 20 minute blackout have without exception wasted their
money. Instead of continuing to use their computers during the
blackouts, they still do what everyone else does: look for
candles/flashlights and phone people in other parts of town to
ask if they are blacked out too. ;-) Long run-times are great
for a server UPS, but human nature being what it is makes it a
waste for desktops.
[snip]

Much depends on how you look at it, of course. But from where I sit, it's not
a waste; it's cheap insurance.

The cost difference between two otherwise identical UPSs, one with a 5-minute
run-time under a given load, the other with, say, a 20-minute run-time with
that same load, is usually relatively minimal, perhaps even negligible.
There's no point in being "penny-wise and pound-foolish".
This reminds me of something ...

After a blackout last year, I set a local business up with 1000VA
UPSes at every computer to see them through the next blackout -
they wanted something that would let people keep working for up
to 30 minutes.
[snip]

Did the systems in question actually *require* a UPS with that much load
capacity, or was this simply your expedient approach to providing extended
run-rimes?

This business was just one franchise in a chain. The UPSes to be
used were spec'd out by the chain.
If the latter, it would very likely have been cheaper to use
smaller UPS systems with extra battery packs.

(And I presume you did not neglect such things as the servers, routers,
switches, printers, etc., right?)

They had originally had a server+terminals setup, with UPSes for
everything but the terminals. When they switched to a
server+windows clients setup they protected everything but the
clients. They operated that way for three years before their HQ
found out and told them to add the UPSes for the clients. I also
visited a different franchise in a nearby city to see if they had
those big UPSes at each client - and they did.
Two days later I was there as an ordinary
customer when, lo and behold, the next blackout happened. Turns
out they had a policy of shutting everything down, kicking the
customers out, and locking the doors. Much cheaper and smaller
UPSes with a two minute run-time would have done the job.
[snip]

I think you're exaggerating a bit, but I get your point.

Not exaggerating at all. This particular franchise was in a
shopping mall. I wondered if the chain has other stores that are
not in malls, and if so what is their policy about expelling
customers in the middle of a thunderstorm ? Would they just
send everyone into the little waiting/reception area ?
In any event, this
is not an indictment of using conservatively-sized UPS systems.

I didn't intend it to be. I intended it just as an example of
bad UPS usage.

They may well
have had *other* reasons for that policy -- like liability concerns, for
example.

This business had agents sitting at a desk and customers sitting
across the desk from the agents. I would have thought the safe
thing to do would be for everyone to just stay where they were
when the power went out.
 
D

DeocratsAreCrybabies

I'm running a 2+ year old APC BP-1400. I just put a new set of battery's in
it and in my area (SW USA) due to storms it's saved me 10-12 times in the
past year+ on my old P-III and on this system. Basic same power supply.
I have:
Intel 3.2
X-120 Cooling
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
ATI 9600 Pro 128MB (about to change to a Nvidia)
1024 MB Kingston
Audigy 2 ZS
4 HD (80,160,160,120)
3 DVD-RW/CD-RW/CD-RW
ED 3d glasses,
HP photoprinter,
KDS 19
webcam
T7700 7.1 speakers
 
J

Jay T. Blocksom

Jay T. Blocksom wrote: [snip]
Let me ask you this... Just what significant benefit to the consumer
would such an approach yield, which cannot or is not already provided by
"standard" PCs and "standard" plug-in UPS systems?
[snip]

I had hoped that there would be significant energy efficiency
gains by combining the UPS and the PSU into a single unit.
Apparently that is not the case.
[snip]

Right.

To even hope for a noticeable efficiency gain, you'd *have* to at least do the
dedicated-battery-per-rail thing, which would surely drive up the "cost of
admission" to the point that you could never sell more than a relative handful
of them.

And besides, even if "efficiency", per se, was significantly improved, that
still wouldn't translate into all that much energy savings, in the absolute
sense. Remember, notwithstanding the hobbyist aftermarket's obsession with
grossly excessive PSU output capacities, *most* PCs don't really use all that
much power (perhaps 50W or so; certainly under 100W), except very briefly at
start-up.
This business was just one franchise in a chain. The UPSes to be
used were spec'd out by the chain.
[snip]

Ahhh. OK, that explains a lot.
They had originally had a server+terminals setup, with UPSes for
everything but the terminals. When they switched to a
server+windows clients setup they protected everything but the
clients. They operated that way for three years before their HQ
found out and told them to add the UPSes for the clients. I also
visited a different franchise in a nearby city to see if they had
those big UPSes at each client - and they did.
[snip]

It's probably a case of the central IT department wanting *one* make/model of
UPS to deal with, which would greatly simplify their support/maintenance
headaches. Yeah, I know... in theory anyway, a UPS shouldn't require much (if
any) "support". But in a real-life corporate environment, you might be
surprised -- remember, at least most of the people in each of those branch
locations would probably start looking for a big brown truck as soon as you
even mention a "UPS".

I'd wager that all those workstations -- in both locations -- were precisely
the same make/model too, right? And for the same reason.
Two days later I was there as an ordinary
customer when, lo and behold, the next blackout happened. Turns
out they had a policy of shutting everything down, kicking the
customers out, and locking the doors. Much cheaper and smaller
UPSes with a two minute run-time would have done the job.
[snip]

I think you're exaggerating a bit, but I get your point.

Not exaggerating at all. This particular franchise was in a
shopping mall. I wondered if the chain has other stores that are
not in malls, and if so what is their policy about expelling
customers in the middle of a thunderstorm ? Would they just
send everyone into the little waiting/reception area ?
[snip]

You misunderstand. By "exaggerating", I was referring specifically to your
"two minute run-time" comment. Sorry if I was unclear.

My earlier point being, even if you were to "downsize" the UPS so that it
would not be "wastefully" oversized, you'd still need to target at least a
10-15 minute runtime, just to maintain adequate margins of safety.

Also... The fact that this store/office was in a mall could *very* easily
have impacted (or even dictated) that "policy". Commercial leases for retail
space in malls tend to have all sorts of seemingly arbitrary clauses and
restrictions in them that would surprise anyone who hasn't dealt with them (I
have, tho' it was many years ago).
I didn't intend it to be. I intended it just as an example of
bad UPS usage.
[snip]

It's really not so bad, in the grander scheme of things. The central IT
department's desire for uniformity and simplicity is well-founded, even if it
sometimes engenders what seems to be "wasteful" spending in the micro-view.
And besides, an over-capacity UPS is still relatively cheap, as compared to a
"properly" sized one, as long as you're not getting completely carried away
(like, say, using a 10KVA UPS to power a single MicroATX PC with an LCD
display).
They may well

This business had agents sitting at a desk and customers sitting
across the desk from the agents. I would have thought the safe
thing to do would be for everyone to just stay where they were
when the power went out.

It's near-certainly a liability/security thing, even if only by the perception
of whomever instituted the "policy" -- which very well may have been at least
instigated by the mall management. Remember, in that scenario, you are by
definition dealing with *several* layers of competing and overlapping (and
occasionally conflicting) bureaucracies. There's basically no limit to what
oddnesses *that* combination can produce. <~>

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top