 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / October 2007Linksys router + switch vs router/switch combo
For about the past two weeks, it's been like pulling teeth getting on line with my Linksys modem, router, and 8-port switch. For years, I could get online each morning with no problem at all. Now, I have to fiddle with everything to get there (reset the Linksys boxes, reboot, and renew the lease in the Network preferences (sometimes up to five times). I'm usually up and running in less than an hour, but this is getting old, considering I had no problems for years. I live in thunderstorm country, so I unplug the modem and electrical cords overnight. Doing so never caused a problem until recently. I'm thinking that maybe I need to get a router/switch combination. Are they more reliable than a separate router and switch)? It would certainly be one less device to reset. Any other insights would be appreciated. Also, Comcast is doing some major upgrades to their service lately. Could this have anything to do with this connection problem? > For about the past two weeks, it's been like pulling teeth getting on > line with my Linksys modem, router, and 8-port switch. For years, I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Comcast is doing some major upgrades to their service lately. Could > this have anything to do with this connection problem? I use a Linksys BEFSR81 (8 Port Etherfast Cable/DSL Router) and a Comcast supplied Cable modem. It is a 10/100 Ethernet switch and router. Every once in a while the cable modem goes south and I need to reset the Linksys but that's not more than two or three times a year. You know you can get a surge protector that will give some protection to the electrical cord and coax for the cable modem? This way you don't need to keep unplugging everything.  Signaturethepixelfreak > > For about the past two weeks, it's been like pulling teeth getting on > > line with my Linksys modem, router, and 8-port switch. For years, I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to the electrical cord and coax for the cable modem? This way you don't > need to keep unplugging everything. Do you mean one of those power strip surge protectors or a UPS or a whole house surge protector? If I install a whole house protector, will I never need to unplug when a storm hits? >>> For about the past two weeks, it's been like pulling teeth getting on >>> line with my Linksys modem, router, and 8-port switch. For years, I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > whole house surge protector? If I install a whole house protector, will > I never need to unplug when a storm hits? I'm talking about a power strip surge suppressor that has power outlets as well as a coax connector that goes between the wall coax and the cable modem. e.g. http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=300414 Signaturethepixelfreak > http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=300414 Thanks! I'll check it out! > I'm talking about a power strip surge suppressor that has power outlets > as well as a coax connector that goes between the wall coax and the > cable modem. e.g. > http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=300414 So where does that unit claim to provide any protection? I don't see any claim. Whereas an effective surge protector must have a short connection to earth, where is the earthing connection on that Belkin? What happens to protectors that really don't provide protection, are too close to computers, and also don't claim to provide protection? Sometimes these scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FI RES.doc magdalena asked about protection from lightning. An effective protector earths before lightning can enter the building. Energy from lightning must be absorbed somewhere. Is energy dissipated inside that silly little (and grossly overpriced) Belkin box? Of course not. Either the energy is dissipated safely in earth, or dissipates destructively through household electronics. That Belkin also provides lightning on one wire more wires to find earth, destructively, through electronics. Where does your recommendation even claim to provide protection? Nothing listed in that section called specs. It does not even claim to protect. So why does it cost so much? Effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. $45 for a protector that does not even claim to protect in specifications? >> I'm talking about a power strip surge suppressor that has power outlets >> as well as a coax connector that goes between the wall coax and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > connection to earth, where is the earthing connection on that Belkin? > <snip> You must be kidding. Most surge suppressors use the ground in the outlet to short to ground, as does this one. Further, I'm not recommending any particular brand. This is simply an example. > Effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. $45 for > a protector that does not even claim to protect in specifications? Clearly states it protects up to 3550 Joules. Plus a $200,000 Warranty on connected equipment. Signaturethepixelfreak > You must be kidding. Most surge suppressors use the ground in the > outlet to short to ground, as does this one. Further, I'm not > recommending any particular brand. This is simply an example. > ... > Clearly states it protects up to 3550 Joules. Plus a $200,000 Warranty > on connected equipment. So the entire energy of lightning is absorbed (stopped) by on inch parts - a paltry 3550 joules? Are you kidding? Did you notice how few of those joules are actually used during any one surge? Did you read the long list of exemptions so that its warranty is not honored? One warranty 'fine print' even said if a protector from any other manufacturer is being used, then their warranty if void. The warranties are heavily embedded with such exemptions. You actually believed they will pay up to $200,000? Why must a ground wire be short ('less than 10 feet'), no sharp bends, no splices, not bundled with other wires, not inside metallic conduit, etc. Why does you telephone company also want their protectors to be up to 50 meters separated from electronics. Phone company computer connected to overhead wires all over town may suffer 100 surges during every thunderstorm - and can never be damaged. Violating those installation requirements means surges will find (or create) other destructive paths to earth - such as through the adjacent TV. Look at page 42 figure 8 of the citation from a plug-in manufacturer promoter: http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf Notice the protector in Figure 8 adjacent to the TV simply earthed surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. Why? Too close to electronics and too far from earth ground. It was grounded by AC wall receptacle and therefore was not earth grounded. Excessive impedance - as demonstrated by the following voltage number. Let's say your plug-in protector will earth a tiny 100 amp surge via 50 feet of Romex - the AC electric wire. That is less than 0.2 ohms resistance AND maybe 130 ohms impedance. 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Is that protector really earthed as you have assumed. At 13,000 volts, that surge will find other and destructive paths to earth - such as through the adjacent TV on page 42 figure 8. Right there in the picture. 8000 volts because AC electric wiring is not earth ground - the wire is too long, too many sharp bends, etc. Defined is why the AC wall receptacle is a safety ground (or equipment ground) AND is not an earth ground. For surge protection, an earthing wire must be short. No wonder that plug-in protector does not even claim to provide protection. The informed don't look at color glossy numbers. The informed look at the only numbers that matter in court - numeric specifications. The plug-in protector does not list each type of surge and does not claim protection from any surges. Why do they not claim protection that you have assumed? Did you look at the protector installed on your phone line for free by the telco? If that protector if properly earthed (which is your responsibility), then no surges on your phone line. That telco protector is tens of times less money than what Bud promotes - and actually does provide protection. How do you know? Notice that 'less than 10 foot' earthing wire. No earth ground means a protector is not effective. So a $200,000 warranty will replace earth ground. Did you not learn from the so many who failed to have their warranty honored? Do you select a protector based on facts - or on a feeling created by a mythical warranty? Did you look at these scary pictures? What do you think happened to grossly undersized protector that do not disconnect from surges fast enough - leaving the appliance to fend for itself? http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol Effective and properly sized protector from responsible companies such as Square D, Leviton, Cutler Hammer, Intermatic, and GE do not hype mythical warranties. Instead the protector makes that short connection to earth ground. Where did a house fire get reimbursed by a $200,000 warranty? Good luck with that mythical warranty. The informed learn from numbers in manufacturer specifications. Your plug-in manufacturer does not claim to provide protection. Show me. Show me those spec numbers - not some color glossy half truth? Do you really believe a paltry 3550 joules will absorb and dissipate the energy of a lightning strike? Did you look at those scary pictures? Spend $25 or $150 per protected appliance for the mythical $200,000 warranty - or spend $1 per protected appliance to have what the US Air Force, cell phone towers, FCC communication facilities, 911 emergency response centers ... all require and install. An effective 'whole house' protector is earthed. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which plug-in protector will not even discuss for obvious reasons. A paltry 3550 joules will absorb what three miles of sky could not stop? Who are you trying to kid? Why did magdalena suffer damage? What wire was not properly earthed - instead would earth a surge destructively through his Linksys? A silly 3550 joules will dissipate a surge? Complete and utter nonsense used to promote ineffective and grossly overpriced protectors. > > You must be kidding. Most surge suppressors use the ground in the > > outlet to short to ground, as does this one. Further, I'm not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So the entire energy of lightning is absorbed (stopped) by on inch > parts - a paltry 3550 joules? Of course not. Surge suppressors, plug-in and service panel, do not protect by absorbing energy (but they absorb some energy in the process of protecting) And the impedance of the branch circuit wire greatly limits the current and thus energy that can reach a plug-in suppressor. > Violating those installation requirements means surges will find (or > create) other destructive paths to earth - such as through the > adjacent TV. Look at page 42 figure 8 of the citation from a plug-in > manufacturer 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. With no valid technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him. > http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf > > Notice the protector in Figure 8 adjacent to the TV simply earthed > surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable entry. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected to it. Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage at TV2. The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power service 'ground' is too long (not a "single point ground"). The IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them. > The plug-in protector does > not list each type of surge and does not claim protection from any > surges. Complete nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have MOVs (protection elements) from H-G, N-G, H-N. That is all possible combinations and all possible surge modes. > Did you look at the protector installed on your phone line for free > by the telco? If that protector if properly earthed (which is your > responsibility), then no surges on your phone line. To be effective the telco entry protector must connect with a *short* wire to the earthing wire at the power service. The illustration in the IEEE guide, above, shows what can happen if the connection is too long. The IEEE guide says a 10 foot wire is too long. In many houses the phone, cable, ... entry protectors are too far from the power service to allow a short wire. > Did you look at these scary pictures? What > do you think happened to grossly undersized protector that do not > disconnect from surges fast enough - leaving the appliance to fend for > itself? > http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 Repeating: w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. With no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics. > Do you > really believe a paltry 3550 joules will absorb and dissipate the > energy of a lightning strike? Repeating: The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). > A protector is only as effective as its > earth ground The required statement of religious belief in earthing. The question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics, and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. w_ has never answered: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? -- bud-- >> Notice the protector in Figure 8 adjacent to the TV simply earthed >> surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. > >The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable >entry. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in >suppressor protects TV1, connected to it. Why do people have surge protectors on their computes, but not on their audio-video center? > >> Notice the protector in Figure 8 adjacent to the TV simply earthed > >> surge 8000 volts destructively through an adjacent TV. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why do people have surge protectors on their computes, but not on > their audio-video center? I previously mentioned the NIST guide which used US insurance information that said equipment most frequently damaged by lightning was computers and TV/related that had power plus phone/cable connections. The NIST guide also includes: "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, 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." In my opinion equipment that has a high value is worth protecting with a plug-in suppressor, particularly if connected to both power and signal. Computers these days may not have high value but the data contents and hassle of setting up a new one have value. HDTVs are particularly expensive. I have a plug-in suppressor on my computer and one on my TV. The IEEE guide has 2 examples of surge suppression. One is for a computer, the other for TV/related. They may have picked these examples to illustrate complications of interconnected equipment on the same suppressor and external wiring going through the suppressor. --------------------- Power service suppressors are a good idea. If using just a service panel suppressor make sure the phone, cable, ... entry protectors connect with short wires to the earthing wire at the power service. -- bud-- > The NIST guide also includes: > "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but that does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service > entrance is useless." Then the rest of the answer. One 'whole house' protector will not do the job. A 'whole house' protector or earthing must be on 'all' incoming wires. If every wire is properly earthed, then the 'whole house' protector for single wire appliances is just as effective for multiple wire appliances. Cable TV (properly installed as new cable companies are doing it) is earthed - needs no protector. Cable companies are quick to recommend removing the plug-in protector (that Bud promotes) that can diminish TV signal and create other problems. Telephone wire already has a 'whole house' protector if properly earthed. As the NIST guide says, the building still has no protection. Most common source of surges is the AC electric. If each AC electric wire is not earthed, then none of those 'whole house' protectors will work. Why does the telco not install protectors that Bud promotes? Because every incoming wire in every cable is connected to earth either directly or via a 'whole house' type protector. Telco wants protection that works - which means protectors with short connection to the earthing system. Only then are 'whole house' protectors so effective that the telco installs no plug-in protectors. Does the telco have multiport appliances? Of course. Multiple ports on the order of hundreds of thousands to the same electronics. So the telco uses properly earthed 'whole house' protectors - and no protectors adjacent to electronics. The telco also knows what makes every protector effective. NIST document is also blunt about this. Bud intentionally ignores this just as Bud also cannot list any plug-in protectors that claims to provide such protection. Page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24): > You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor > "arrest" it. What these protective devices do is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > booklet, we will stick to the most popular "surge > protector". The effective protector has that short earthing connection. That *short* is essential so that it does not operate like a plug-in protector. One 'whole house' protector will not be sufficient because every incoming utility must be earthed either directly or via a 'whole house' protector. For most residences, that means no damage in the lifetime of the homeowner. If damage does occur, well what does the telco do? Telco analyzes and improves earthing. They don't waste big bucks on protectors that Bud promotes. They don't want 'miracle' solutions that don't even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. If every incoming wire is properly earthed via a 'whole house' protector or directly, then all appliances have effective protection. > > The NIST guide also includes: > > "Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > house' protector for single wire appliances is just as effective for > multiple wire appliances. w_ is disagrees with what the NIST guide says, quoted above. -------------------------- For the 'ground' wires from phone, cable, ... entry protectors, the important feature is not short path to earth but short connection to the earthing wire at the power service. The NIST guru on surges who wrote the NIST guide has written "the impedance of the grounding system to `true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system." And from the IEEE guide: "If the cable, satellite, or phone cables do not enter the building near the service entrance, the only effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector." It is common to have entry points for phone, cable or satellite to be distant from the power service. > Cable TV (properly installed as new cable companies are doing it) is > earthed - needs no protector. Needs no protector? The IEEE guide notes that the voltage between cable center conductor and sheath is limited by the breakdown of F- connectors which is typically 2-4,000V. The guide notes that connected equipment can be damaged at those voltages. Plug-in suppressors should clamp the voltage to a reasonable level. > NIST > document is also blunt about this. Bud intentionally ignores this > just as Bud also cannot list any plug-in protectors that claims to > provide such protection. Page 6 (Adobe page 8 of 24): What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors? They are "the easiest solution". and: "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, 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." Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what the NIST guide says about them. > The effective protector has that short earthing connection. The power service neutral is tied to 'ground' at US services. Effective signal protectors have a *short* connection to that neutral- ground bond point. That minimizes the voltage between signal and power wires. > They don't > waste big bucks on protectors that Bud promotes. I promote only accurate information. I have provided authoritative guides from the IEEE and NIST. Both say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. w_ has still not provided a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are not effective. w_ has never answered: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is a purveyor of junk science. -- bud-- > w_ is disagrees with what the NIST guide says, quoted above. Bud spins myths for plug-in protector manufacturers and must misrepresent what that NIST guide warns of. The guide shows what protectors may accomplish AND shows how plug-in protectors can even contribute to damage of adjacent appliances. Bud must lie to promote protectors that cost maybe 25 or 100 times more money per protected appliance. Why do telcos not use Bud's products? Why would telcos want to be scammed? Telcos don't like wasting money on ineffective devices that also cost many times more money. Why would they buy a product that does not even claim to protect from typically destructive surges? Telcos long ago learned how to operate without damage to electronics connected to overhead wires all over town. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector or a direct connection to earth ground. Either way, protection exists because of earthing - no 'magic box' solutions. Bud claims protection can be obtained by clamping to nothing. The 'magic box' solution. What then happens? Page 42 Figure 8. The plug- in protector without a short connection to ground then earths an 8000 volt surge destructively through an adjacent TV. Bud calls that effective protection. Bud avoids discussing surge energy. Where is that energy dissipated? Bud implies that energy magically disappears. But the NIST, IEEE and everyone responsible says that energy must be dissipated in earth. Page 42 Figure 8 shows where energy dissipates if the protector is not earthed: 8000 volts destructively through the TV. Rather than admit that, Bud avoids discussing where energy gets dissipated. For about the 400th time, Bud again avoids another glaring fact: his protector does not even claim protection from the destructive surge. Where does its numerical specification claim that protection? It does not. It does not, so Bud will not even acknowledge the question. Where are those numbers? Bud fears such questions. The numbers do not exist. Bud is a promoter. Bud's protector does not even claim to protect from the typically destructive surge. No wonder Bud also avoids Page 42 Figure 8. No wonder Bud will not discuss where surge energy must be dissipated. No wonder Bud fears scary pictures of plug- in protectors: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol A recent fire (28 September 2007) on Louis Prang Street in Boston was created by what? Plug-in protector. Bud says I disagree with the NIST citation. Obviously a lie. Bud spins again. This poster was even building protectors and successfully earthing direct lightning strikes decades ago. This poster even traced computer and network damage because powered off computers were connected to plug-in protectors. Which one learned by doing the work and reading the research papers? NIST says a protector works by diverting surges to earth ground. IEEE says the only thing always required for surge protection is earthing. Bud denies all that. Instead Bud claims a 'magic box' protector will clamp to nothing. Even the NIST denies that. Bud lies again: > w_ is disagrees with what the NIST guide says, quoted above. Instead w_tom repeatedly challenges Bud's lies. NIST says a protector works by diverting surges to earth ground. Bud will not even admit that. NIST says all incoming wires must be earthed - either via a 'whole house' protector or directly to earth ground. Properly earthed 'whole house' protectors are why the telco suffers maybe 100 surges in every thunderstorm - and no damage. Did Bud also forget that reality? Bud even forgets where surge energy must be dissipated - earth ground. Instead, Bud says a magic box without earthing will do everything. And Captain Jack will save the world. > > w_ is disagrees with what the NIST guide says, quoted above. > > Bud spins myths A repeat of the same drivel in w_'s other posts - already rebutted. w_ lies about what the IEEE and NIST guides say because they challenge his religious belief in earthing. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. *Read the sources.* w_ still can not find a link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are not effective. All you get are w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. w_ has still never answered: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Still attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science. -- bud-- > w_ lies about what the IEEE and NIST guides say because they > challenge his religious belief in earthing. Both the IEEE and NIST > guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. *Read the sources.* Bud is a sales promoter. So instead we quote from the IEEE where the IEEE makes recommendations - the standards. Numerous IEEE Standards all demand earthing for surge protection. For example, IEEE Red Book (IEEE Standard 141): > In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the > process of interception of lightning produced surges, > diverting them to ground, and by altering their > associated wave shapes. IEEE Emerald Book (IEEE Std 1100): IEEE Emerald Book, Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment, IEEE Std 1100-1992, IEEE, NY, 1995, p. 216: > It is important to ensure that low-impedance grounding and > bonding connections exist among the telephone and data > equipment, the ac power system's electrical safety-grounding > system, and the building grounding electrode system. ... Notice the phrase 'low impedance'. Increased wire length means significant impedance increases which is why the connetion to earth must be so short ('less than 10 feet'). IEEE Green Book (IEEE Std 142): > Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or > diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > strokes from one stroke per 30 years ... to one stroke per > 6000 years ... Bud claims his plug-in protectors will intercept, block, and absorb surges. Bud avoids all discussion of what the IEEE says is THE most critical component in surge protection: earth ground. Where is surge energy dissipated? In the protector? Not possible. Effective protection systems connect to earth so that surge energy is dissipated in earth. Bud msut avoid discussion about surge energy. Otherwise he might have to explain problems in those scary pictures. Where is that surge energy dissipated? Bud often quotes Martzloff but forgets to mention what Martzloff says about plug-in (point of use) protectors. A point so critical that Martzloff makes this number one conclusion: > Conclusion: > 1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly > show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur > even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are > present at the point of connection of appliances. Protector next to an appliance can create appliance damage. Too close to transistors and too far from earth ground. Plug-in protector even earthed a surge, destructively, through a network of powered off computers. Bud is promoting sales. This author comes from building protector AND tracing the damage due to unearthed (plug-in) protectors. We even traced damage to those power off computers to plug-in protectors. Where did they earth the surge? Destructively through adjacent electronics. Bud cannot dispute another problem with plug-in protectors when undersized to maximize profits - these scary pictures: http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol No mystery here. Which one is citing technical specs and sources. Which other one is using words like 'bizzare' as science fact. One is an engineer with hands on experience decades ago. The other is a promoter. No earth ground means no effective protection. Plug-in protectors have no earth ground. Plug-in protectors will not even discuss the most critical part of a protection system - earth ground. Plug-in protectors don't even claim to provide protection in its numeric specs. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective. See those scary pictures. Appreciate why a protector caused a fire the last week of September on Louis Prang Street in Boston: http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/ Fire rips through apartment home to college students > The two alarm fire engulfed an apartment building on Louis Prang Street. >The fire was sparked by a surge protector on the second floor. The > device is supposed to protect from fires. Bud and honesty are two different concepts. Effective solution is one properly earthed 'whole house' protector with a dedicated earthing connection and responsible names such as Square D, GE, Siemens, Intermatic, Leviton, or Cutler-Hammer. These companies don't use lies to promote products. No wonder telcos, US Air Force, 911 emergency response centers, the electic company, and commerical broadcasters don't use products promoted by Bud. Instead they demand protection that is effective - and costs tens of times less money. A properly earthed 'whole house' protector. > > w_ lies about what the IEEE and NIST guides say because they > > challenge his religious belief in earthing. Both the IEEE and NIST > > guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. *Read the sources.* > > Bud is a 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. With no valid technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him. > So instead we quote from the IEEE where the > IEEE makes recommendations - the standards. > > IEEE Emerald Book (IEEE Std 1100): > IEEE Emerald Book, Powering and Grounding Sensitive Electronic > Equipment What do IEEE standards actually say about plug-in suppressors? The IEEE Emerald book recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics. And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in suppressors are effective. > Bud claims his plug-in protectors will intercept, block, and absorb > surges. I repeat what the IEEE guide says: The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or blocking or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). > Bud often quotes Martzloff but forgets to mention what Martzloff > says about plug-in (point of use) protectors. A point so critical > that Martzloff makes this number one conclusion: w_ forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994 document: "Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work. Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing he has to twist what Martzloff says about them. > Bud is promoting sales. The "old political trick" again. > Bud cannot dispute another problem with plug-in protectors when > undersized to maximize profits - these scary pictures: > http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 The lie repeated. The hanford link says overheating was fixed with a UL 1449 revision. That was in 1998. With no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare tactics. > No earth ground means no effective protection. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. > Appreciate why a protector caused a fire the last > week of September on Louis Prang Street in Boston: What is the source of the article? Who said the surge suppressor was the cause? Why? Was it UL listed or cheap unlisted crap? Was it made before 1998? . > Bud and honesty are two different concepts. w_ and technical competence are 2 different concepts. Because of his religious belief in earthing he can't read and understand anything about plug-in suppressors. The question isn't earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides (plus Martzloff and the IEEE Emerald book) say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. And still no link to a lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are not effective. Only w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in earthing. And still no answers: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." - Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device. Why can't you answer simple questions w_?? Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work Still no sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Still twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Still attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science. -- bud-- Bud is a promoter. He will spin anything to promote protectors without earth ground. Meanwhile, Electrical Engineering Times article entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients" in the 1 Oct and 8 Oct issues defines protection at: http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201807830 Where are protectors discussed? The article is about surge protection. So the article discusses what provides surge protection - earthing. A direct quote: > Providing a flow path for the lightning current is central to effective > lightning protection. Exactly. A magic boxes to somehow block or absorb surge energy is not protection - even though Bud makes that claim. Protection is about shunting (diverting, clamping, connecting) a surge to earth. Where does surge energy get dissipated? Inside a grossly overpriced 'magic box' as Bud claims? Of course not. Energy must be shunted (diverted, connected, bonded) to earth. Reasons for making that connecting wire short is explained. > Another aspect of impedance ... of a wire is predominately related to > its length and weakly related to its diameter. ... The length of the > cable increases the impedance dramatically. If a plug-in protector attempted to earth 50 feet via wall receptacle safety ground, then that wire impedance would put the protector at something below 13,000 volts. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective protection promoted by Bud. That 13,000 volts must find other paths to earth such as destructively through a nearby TV (Page 42 Figure 8). EE Times defines why that earthing must be so short - and another requirement that Bud avoids discussing. Even sharp wire bends create surge 'diversion' problems. > ... wire should have at least a 10 inch or 30 cm radius. Why do plug-in protectors not have effective earthing? That AC electric wire has so many extremely sharp bends ... and is too long. Many times longer than the desired 'less than 10 feet' typically found in when using a 'whole house' protector. So Bud avoids discussing such numbers. No earth ground means no effective protection. When engineers discuss protection, that protection is defined by the quality of and connection to earth ground. See the EE Times article. They don't discuss protectors. They discuss protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Bud - for the 400th time - where are your spec numbers that claim protection? Why do no such numbers exist? Maybe because your protectors have no earthing - violate principles in that Electrical Engineering Times discussions? Plug-in protectors are effective - at enriching the manufacturer. No wonder Bud will deny Martzloff's most important point - a point of use protector may even contribute to damage of the adjacent appliance as also demonstrated on Page 42 Figure 8. We have even traced plug-in protectors created damage through a network of powered off computers. So Bud posts spin to avoid Martzloff's bottom line. No earth ground means no effective protection. That was Martzloff's point. EE Times also defines protection - earth ground. Bud lies again. UL1449 was created in the late 1980 (1986?) - not in 1998 as Bud claims. The standard's second edition was 1998. And still plug-in protectors - grossly undersized - may create fire. Bud claims those burning protectors are from almost 30 years ago. But then lying (spin) is acceptable for sales promoters. A latest fire created by a plug-in protector was 28 Sept in Boston. Even the Gaston County NC Fire Marshall defines the problem. Bud hopes you will be confused. Bud and honesty are two different concepts. No wonder he cannot provide numeric specs that claim protection. Those numbers do not exist. But they have Bud. 'Bizarre' is Bud's word to replace technical fact. EE Times defines surge protection in "Protecting Electrical Devices from Lightning Transients". Earth ground provides the protection - not Bud's grossly overpriced 'magic box'. Bud would even lie about the date of UL1449. UL1449 2nd Edition was released in 1998. Those scary pictures are protectors that meet UL1449 - and are still so grossly undersized as to do what? Even the EE Times defined protection not in a protector. It defined protectioni completely as earthing. Who do we believe? Electrical Engineers or a sales promoter Bud? > To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be > challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > -- > bud-- > Bud is a promoter. Repeating: 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. With no valid technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose him. > If a plug-in protector attempted to earth 50 feet ... Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. Repeating: The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). > No earth ground means no effective protection. The required statement of religious belief in earthing. > Bud lies again. UL1449 was created in the late 1980 (1986?) - not > in 1998 as Bud claims. The standard's second edition was 1998. Repeating: w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. If w_ could only read and think he would see I only talk about the *revision* to UL1449, which w_ agrees was in 1998. ------------------------ w_ can't figure out the question is not earthing - everyone is for it. The only question is whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides (plus Martzloff and the IEEE Emerald book) say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources. And still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Why no links w_??? And still no answers: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." - Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device. Why can't you answer simple questions w_?? Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work No sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say. Attempts to discredit opponents. w_ is still a purveyor of junk science. -- bud-- >> Why do people have surge protectors on their computes, but not on >> their audio-video center? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >was computers and TV/related that had power plus phone/cable >connections. Yep. But why do people have surge protectors on their computers, but not on their audio-video center? >>> Why do people have surge protectors on their computes, but not on >>> their audio-video center? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yep. But why do people have surge protectors on their computers, but > not on their audio-video center? Isn't the answer kind of obvious? Personally, I consider my computer equipment to be not only more important, but also more fragile. It's only natural that I protect that equipment with greater priority. SignatureNote: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you absolutely must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to this address so that I can be sure your email doesn't get eaten by pobox.com's ultra-aggressive SPAM filter. Help improve Usenet: * Learn proper Usenet etiquette: http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html * Kill-file Google Groups: http://improve-usenet.org/ JR >> Yep. But why do people have surge protectors on their computers, but >> not on their audio-video center? > >Isn't the answer kind of obvious? Personally, I consider my computer >equipment to be not only more important, but also more fragile. It's >only natural that I protect that equipment with greater priority. That works - if you audio-video system is cheap. If you feel a need to replace it after you lose it, that is money you could be spending on your computer system! I remember Jerry Pournelle writing in Byte after a car crashed into a local power pole giving his house a surge. He lost his expensive TV system, and had various results from the various surge protectors he got free for being a Byte columnists. Some of the surge protectors were destroyed - while doing their jobs. But anything worth more than a few hundred dollars is worth this insurance. Just a note: How many people unplug their USB disks between backups? You'd hate to fry your backup at the same time as your main computer. > >> Yep. But why do people have surge protectors on their computers, but > >> not on their audio-video center? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But anything worth more than a few hundred dollars is worth this > insurance. I agree. With HDTV, the value of the equipment has skyrocketed. I have my TV/equipment connected to a suppressor. Belkin, IIRC, has a line of plug-in suppressors aimed at home entertainment centers (with some excessive hype IMHO). Best Buy tried to sell me a plug-in suppressor when I bought my HDTV. I suppose audio systems have had high value for quite a while - though they don't have phone or cable connections and are probably not as susceptible. Pournelle's event wasn't a surge, which is milliseconds max. A primary wire was knocked down and hit a 120V wire. Contact would be much longer than a surge. Surge suppressors - both service panel and plug- in - will be rapidly destroyed by such an event. The author of the NIST guide has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." When MOVs fail and are disconnected in a plug- in suppressor, if the protected load is connected across the MOVs it will be disconnected when the MOVs are. (As the IEEE guide explains at length, the protected load can also be connected directly to the incoming line and not be disconnected.) -- bud-- > I remember Jerry Pournelle writing in Byte after a car crashed into a > local power pole giving his house a surge. He lost his expensive TV > system, and had various results from the various surge protectors he > got free for being a Byte columnists. Some of the surge protectors > were destroyed - while doing their jobs. The protector that is destroyed did not do its job. MOV manufacturers are quite blunt about this in data sheets. Effective protectors only degrade and remain functional. MOV manufacturers even provide charts for size of a surge, number of those surges, and protector size. When degraded, the protector voltage changes only by 10%. But many protectors are sold only for profits. Therefore they are undersized. So undersized that a fuse must disconnect protector even faster. If the protector component (an MOV) vaporizes, then it operates where its own manufacturer says it must not operate. But when such grossly undersized protectors fail, then the naive will say, "A protector sacrificed itself to save my computer". In reality, protection inside electronics protected electronics. All electronics contains internal protection. A surge too small to harm adjacent electronics easily destroyed a grossly undersized protector. Again, the effective protector earths a surge and remains operational. When using a properly sized protector, then the human will never even know a surge existed. But that would not promote more protectors sales. So many plug-in protectors are grossly undersized - to promote more sales and to maximize profits. Effective 'whole house' protectors means even that stereo is fully protected for about $1 per protected appliance. A protector so effective that the homeowner would not even know a surge existed. This summer, a friend had a massive 'tens of thousands volt' surge that literally exploded electric meters right off buildings. Many meter pans were so damaged at to require complete replacement. Unlike many neighbors, my friend had no damage even to a 'whole house' protector. It did what a protector is supposed to do - earth a surge and remain effective. We want protection that is effective - and costs tens of times less money. Grossly undersized protectors will often fail so catastrophically as to even report the failure on a indicator light. The light is reporting the protector was too small - catastrophic damage - unacceptable failure. > > I remember Jerry Pournelle writing in Byte after a car crashed into a > > local power pole giving his house a surge. He lost his expensive TV [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > protector size. When degraded, the protector voltage changes only by > 10%. Only by 10%? That is the definition of end of 'useful' life. But MOVs in both service panel and plug-in suppressors will stay connected. Further energy absorption will cause the voltage at which conduction starts to continue to lower until there is conduction at 'normal' voltages and thermal runaway. That is why UL has required thermal disconnects since 1998. With high Joule (energy) ratings a plug-in suppressor will likely never fail because the impedance of a branch circuit greatly limits the current and energy reaching the suppressor. That is one reason some plug-in suppressors have connected equipment warrantees. A suppressor that failed but protected the connected equipment did do its job. Degrade and remain functional???? The source of the problem, described by Pournelle, was a 16,000V power line connecting to the 120V line to his house. That will rapidly destroy MOVs in service panel or plug-in suppressors. Some plug-in suppressors will disconnect on overvoltage and UPSs may switch to battery backup. > But many protectors are sold only for profits. Therefore they are > undersized. Plug-in suppressors with high ratings are readily available for relatively low cost. Don't buy junk. > Effective 'whole house' protectors means even that stereo is fully > protected for about $1 per protected appliance. If you count light bulbs and receptacles as appliances. > This summer, a friend had a massive 'tens of thousands volt' surge > that literally exploded electric meters right off buildings. Many > meter pans were so damaged at to require complete replacement. Unlike > many neighbors, my friend had no damage even to a 'whole house' > protector. Where is the link to a news article? An event like that would be in the news (except where wiring is done by w_ and such events are common). The Pournelle event referred to by Howard is at: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/computing/august89.html Most of the equipment connected to plug-in surge suppressors survived. A UPS not only protected the connected equipment, the equipment continued to function through the 'event'. -- bud-- Protectors that fail do not provide effective protection. Being grossly undersized is why so many protectors in the 1980s were operating outside MOV manufacturer specs. MOVs were vaporizing - sometimes spitting flames - because protectors were grossly undersized. Those 'scary pictures' were too common. UL1449 was created in the late 1980s (not 1990s) to reduce frequency and danger of exploding MOVs. The most common (cheapest) solution implemented only a thermal fuse. Disconnect protector as fast as possible - or faster. Leave appliance to fend for itself. All appliances already contain internal protection. Therefore a surge too small to harm an appliance will destroy an undersized protector - and promote more sales. The protector can completely fail - provide no protection - and still obtain UL1449 approval. UL does not care if a protector does anything useful. UL only cares that even a grossly undersized, completely ineffective, and failing protector does not spit flames. A protector can completely fail during UL tests and still obtain UL1449 approval. Still plug-in protectors with that UL mandated protection can create 'scary pictures'. What kind of protection is this? http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge%20Protectors.pdf http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/Pharr/INVESTIGATING%20SURGE%20SUPPRESSOR%20FI RES.doc Jerry Pournelle article says every electronic device not connected to a protector was damaged. So what happened to kitchen appliances such as dishwasher? Was that electronics damaged? Where was its protector? Did not exist. What protected GFCIs in kitchen and bathrooms? Also damaged? No. Clock radios? Dimmer switches? Why did he forget to list those as damaged? Where was the protector for damaged fluorescent lamps? Not possible. Smoke detectors - far more important after a surge. What protected them? Nothing because Pournelle was not using one 'whole house' protector. Once a 'whole house' protector is installed (for about $1 per protected appliance) then grossly overpriced and undersized plug-in protectors do nothing useful to justify their high costs - at $20 or $150 per appliance. One 'whole house' protector means even the dishwasher has protection. Expensive protectors were so grossly undersized as to require replacement. What kind of protection is that? Ineffective and excessively profitable. Bud always forgets Page 42 Figure 8 in his citation. A protector was adjacent to TV1. Therefore that protector earthed a surge 8000 volts destructively through nearby TV2. What happened in Pournelle's case? How many appliances were damaged because his Isobar, instead, earthed a surge through other appliances? He does not say because Pournelle did not learn *why* damage occurred. Pournelle assumed a protector stops and absorbs surges. Even the NIST citation says it does not. What was damaged? How many appliances were damaged because the Isobar earthed the surge through them? Pournelle cannot say because he made assumptions rather than learn how damage occurs. Demonstrated is why surges must be earthed before entering a building. Once inside the building, protectors may even earth surges, destructively, through other appliances. Pournelle demonstrated that even expensive plug-in protectors were so grossly undersized as to be damaged. But ineffective protectors are so profitable. And profitable a second time when they must be replaced. Just ask Bud. How profitable? Jerry said he could have replaced MOVs for a few bucks from Radio Shack. Those same parts cost the manufacturer less than $0.10. Let's see. Take a $3 power strip. Added some $0.10 parts. Sell that protector for $25 or $150? Why does Bud so voraciously advocates plug-in protectors and avoid all discussion about earthing? Notice its profit margin. No wonder a protector with too few MOVs was damaged. Profits - not protection - are its objective. Jerry even demonstrated how to create a $150 protector from a $3 power strip. Add some MOVs from Radio Shack. Meanwhile, a properly sized and earthed protector means a homeowner need not even know the surge existed. One 'whole house' protector means Jerry would have no damage to discuss. How many appliances were damaged because of plug-in protectors? We don't know because Pournelle assumed a protector is a 'magic' blocking device to absorb surges. Effective protectors don't do as Pournelle assumed. Protectors do as Bud's NIST citation says: divert a surge to earth ground where it creates no damage. Only the 'whole house' protector does that. How many of Pournelle's appliances would be undamaged IF he did not use plug-in protectors? We know that with one 'whole house' protector (properly sized and properly earthed), Pournelle would have suffered no damage. Pournelle also says "Not just any old UPS, ... Be sure to look into the power surge protection capabilities." Well where does any plug- in UPS claim such protection? None make that claim. Look at spec numbers. Where does it list protection for each type of surge? Its protection abilities are near zero. Pournelle had so much damage AND also lost $300 of protectors. He spent so much more money and still had damage? Why? Pournelle did not spend less money to protect everything with one properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Bud approves. A friend suffered the same surge (with higher voltage). Something like 100 electric meters literally exploded out of meter pans. He suffered no appliance damage with a properly earthed 'whole house' protector that also remained functional. No burned parts inside an expensive Isobar. Even his circuit breakers were protected - unlike in Pournelle's speculation. Price circuit breakers. What plug-in protector protects them? Others with and without plug-in protectors suffered damage. Why? Bud claims plug-in protectors are effective? So why did other neighbors without a 'whole house' protector suffer damage - even to protectors? Properly sized protectors remain functional. Plug-in protectors are often so grossly undersized as to even create those 'scary pictures'. So grossly undersized in Pournelle's example as to fail. As Bud's own citation demonstrates on Page 42 Figure 8 (because protector was not earthed), it may even earth surges (8000 volts destructively) through other adjacent appliances. Then the naive would assume the protector protected TV1 (when it actually damaged TV2). What does Bud recommend? Don't buy cheap plug-in protectors. Spend $25 or $150 for every appliance including the electronics most critical to human safety - smoke detectors, furnace controls, and GFCIs. Oh. There is no plug-in solution? Bud recommends spending many $thousands for protectors that must be frequently replaced (undersized). Or we can spend about $1 per appliance for one properly earthed 'whole house' protector - that is properly sized, actually has an earthing connection, and is therefore effective. The latter solution also means a protector stays functional so that surges unknown to a human. Notice the many more articles about effective protectors that never permitted surge damage and never needed replacement. Effective protector means surges are irrelevant. Bud recommends plug-in protectors that announce surges by failing - sometimes creating those 'scary pictures'. Those failures are necessary to promote more sales. The effective protector is obvious - it has a dedicated connection to earth ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. > Only by 10%? That is the definition of end of 'useful' life. But MOVs > in both service panel and plug-in suppressors will stay connected. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > A UPS not only protected the connected equipment, the equipment > continued to function through the 'event'. > Still plug-in protectors with that UL mandated protection can create > 'scary pictures'. What kind of protection is this? > http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 The lie repeated. According to w_'s own hanford link overheating was fixed in 1998. > Jerry Pournelle article says every electronic device not connected > to a protector was damaged. So what happened to kitchen appliances > such as dishwasher? The event was not a surge. It was a 16,000V wire crossed with a 120V wire. The NIST surge guru (and author of the NIST guide) has written "In fact, the major cause of TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an unusually large surge." If a service panel suppressor had been installed it would have rapidly been destroyed by 16,000V. It would have then not provided any protection. Plug-in suppressors are not intended to protect from crossed power lines either. But if the protected load is connected across the MOVs the protected load will be disconnected when the MOVs fail. And some plug-in suppressors disconnect on overvoltage. And UPSs may go to battery backup and protect connected equipment (as Pournelle's did). > Once a 'whole house' protector is installed (for about $1 per > protected appliance) If you count light bulbs and receptacles as appliances. > then grossly overpriced and undersized plug-in > protectors do nothing useful to justify their high costs >From 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, 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." > Bud always forgets Page 42 Figure 8 in his citation. A protector > was adjacent to TV1. Therefore that protector earthed a surge 8000 > volts destructively through nearby TV2. The lie repeated. The plug-in suppressor at TV1 lowered the surge voltage at TV2. The point of the illustration for anyone who can think is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required." A service panel suppressor would have provided NO protection. > Added some $0.10 > parts. One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10. > A friend suffered the same surge (with higher voltage). Something > like 100 electric meters literally exploded out of meter pans. You forgot the link to the news article. > No earth ground means > no effective protection. The ravings of a religious fanatic. The only question is whether plug- in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Still no link to another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. w_ has no idea of the difference between a surge and crossed power lines. And no answers for the great question in life: - 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"? - How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42? - Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]." - Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an effective surge protection device. - bud-- > > I'm talking about a power strip surge suppressor that has power outlets > > as well as a coax connector that goes between the wall coax and the > > cable modem. e.g. > >http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProductPage.process?Product_Id=300414 Excellent information on surges and surge protection is in an IEEE guide at: http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf And one from the NIST at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses. > So where does that unit claim to provide any protection? I don't > see any claim. Whereas an effective surge protector must have a short > connection to earth, where is the earthing connection on that Belkin? w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or stopping or absorbing). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40). > What happens to protectors that really don't provide protection, are > too close to computers, and also don't claim to provide protection? > Sometimes these scary pictures: > http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554 w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998. > Energy from > lightning must be absorbed somewhere. Is energy dissipated inside > that silly little (and grossly overpriced) Belkin box? Of course > not. Of course not. Plug-in suppressors work by clamping, not earthing. Read the IEEE guide. Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the suppressor. As pixel said, external connections, like cable, also need to go through the suppressor. Connecting all wiring through the suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires. These multiport suppressors are described in both guides. According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment most frequently damaged by lightning is computers with a modem connection TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV connections). All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. -- bud-- > > I'm talking about a power strip surge suppressor that has power outlets > > as well as a coax connector that goes between the wall coax and the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Effective protector costs about $1 per protected appliance. $45 for > a protector that does not even claim to protect in specifications? (magdalena here) The lightning issue was secondary to the problem I posted, which is: after years of turning my Mac on in the morning and being on line instantly, now every morning I have to play with everything (restart, reset modem, router, switch, refresh DHCP, etc.) to get on line. (Once on line, the service is smooth all day.) I wondered whether (1) a router/switch combo vs router + switch (two boxes--which is what I have), would be more reliable (less hardware), and (2) whether a recent Comcast service upgrade (them tinkering with the server, etc.) could be causing connection trouble--since the trouble started right around the time Comcast started sending emails about their "new, improved, service." The surge suppressor discussion is valuable to me, but I still wonder if anyone knows anything about my original two concerns above. Also, if I get whole-house protection (installed at the service panel), will I not have to unplug my computer, etc. at the first crack of lightning? Should I also have a UPS plugged into my Mac? > (magdalena here) The lightning issue was secondary to the problem I > posted, which is: after years of turning my Mac on in the morning and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have to unplug my computer, etc. at the first crack of lightning? Should > I also have a UPS plugged into my Mac? A solution to your current problem means accessing various parts of the system to learn what is and is not connected immediately. For example, if connected to the router via ethernet, then the router may contain a server accessed maybe at address 192.168.1.1; or the ping program will receive a reply from that addresses. Another diagnostic tool is a traceroute program. For example a traceroute to Apple.com will show each node in that Apple connection. Obviously, these diagnostic tests should work once online. Then learn what these procedures report when starting - during failure. For example, how far does traceroute get to Apple when system is not working. Traceroute will show the IP address of each node in a connection. Use those IP addresses with Ping to discover what the computer does and does not connect to when first powered. This to discover and solve what currently exists. Disconnecting is unreliable protection. Disconnecting is dependent on something that is not reliable - the human. What provides protection when using the equipment? We need protection at all times on every incoming wire of every incoming cable. Install (earth) an effective protector so that disconnecting is not required; so that protection is always available; is reliable. That is even how your telco does it. To make their protectors even better, a telco enhances earthing. You do same. Surges properly earthed before entering a building will not find earth ground destructively via router, computer, dishwasher, furnace controls, smoke detectors, etc. I never disconnect; always use all equipment during thunderstorms sometimes to even monitor that storm. We earth a 'whole house' protector so that effective protection always exists for everything - not just a computer. This to avoid future failures and to do what neither disconnecting nor adjacent protector can accomplish. > You know you can get a surge protector that will give some protection > to the electrical cord and coax for the cable modem? This way you don't > need to keep unplugging everything. Careful with those. More often than not, such a coaxial surge protector will introduce noise on the coaxial line, and you will lose signal strength as well, which can result in intermittent connectivity problems for cable modems. I am sure the same goes for DSL lines. SignaturePlease let me know if you send email to this address so that I can be sure your email doesn't get eaten by pobox.com's ultra-aggressive SPAM filter. Help improve Usenet: * Learn proper Usenet etiquette: http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html * Kill-file Google Groups: http://improve-usenet.org/ JR >> You know you can get a surge protector that will give some protection >> to the electrical cord and coax for the cable modem? This way you don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > signal strength as well, which can result in intermittent connectivity > problems for cable modems. I am sure the same goes for DSL lines. Meanwhile cable companies not install effective protection on that cable that does not diminish the signal. That cable is earthed using a ground block before it enters the building. Same with the DSL. Telcos install a 'whole house' protector on the phone line before it enters the building. That protector is even required by code. And that protector installed long before DSL existed was to good as to not degrade DSL. How effective is that telco 'installed for free' protector? Like cable protection, that protector is only as effective as the earthing. So which wire typically carried surges to earth ground, destructively, via appliances? AC electric - the utility not properly protected if a homeowner does not install one. Appreciate why modems and cable boxes are damaged. Incoming on AC electric. Because both cable and phone wire are properly earthed (directly or via a protector), then that may only be the outgoing (destructive) path to earth. Why do cable companies routinely recommend removing cable wire protectors? Their cable already has effective protection AND plug-in protectors may degrade cable signals. Of course proection - installed free on every phone and cable TV wire - will only be as effective as earthing provided by the homeowner. > Meanwhile cable companies not install effective protection on that > cable that does not diminish the signal. That cable is earthed using [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > protector? Like cable protection, that protector is only as effective > as the earthing. The important feature for cable, phone, ... entry protectors is a *short* connection to the earthing wire at the power service. With a strong surge the 'ground' at the building will lift above 'absolute' ground by thousands of volts. You want the 'ground' for power and phone and cable to lift together. The author of the NIST guide, has written "the impedance of the grounding system to 'true earth' is far less important than the integrity of the bonding of the various parts of the grounding system." -- bud- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.