Life expectancy

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

What's probably the life expectancy of my A7V333 motherboard if I take good
care of it? It has 2 years on it right now. I run the computer for the
most part constantly except when I leave town or do something with the
inside of the computer. Current MB temperature is at 30 C.
73 answers Last reply
More about life expectancy
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <URjEd.32449$3m6.5163@attbi_s51>, "Travis King"
    <Anonymous@none.com> wrote:

    > What's probably the life expectancy of my A7V333 motherboard if I take good
    > care of it? It has 2 years on it right now. I run the computer for the
    > most part constantly except when I leave town or do something with the
    > inside of the computer. Current MB temperature is at 30 C.

    If the case temp is not excessive, the electrolytic caps should
    be good for 10 years. Solder joints under stress, could be
    anyone's guess (more likely to happen with a P4 retail heatsink
    and its high clamping forces).

    In ten years, you can expect several PSU failures, and any one of
    those PSU failures could damage the motherboard.

    If you have a lot of lightning storms, or bad quality power,
    that could influence how long the mobo lasts. Look carefully
    at any modem, cable modem, ADSL wires etc, to see if there are
    any protection devices to take a (nearby) lightning hit, before
    it gets to the motherboard. For example, on a phone line, there
    may be a carbon block at the entry point, and you could enhance
    that by using a second protection device nearer the computer.
    For the really paranoid, a wireless network would reduce the
    wiring exposure to just the power lines. A real (>$1K purchase
    price) UPS would reduce the risk of an AC power event from
    getting you, and would help protect the PSU from getting
    damaged. Cheap UPSes offer no protection at all, as they are
    actually SPS (standby power supplies) - they are a "straight wire"
    to power spikes, and the unit only cuts over to batteries if
    the AC power dies for enough milliseconds.

    On the motherboard itself, the Vcore circuit is the circuit under
    the most stress. If the MOSFETs are cool to the touch, that is
    a good sign. I've never read any MTBF estimates for switching
    regulators on motherboards, so don't know whether they are
    good for a 1 million hour MTBF or not.

    Large BGA packages also have a rating, for solder joint
    reliability. For example, a BGA with 750 pins, will last for
    about 10 years, with a certain daily temperature variation.
    From the Via web page:

    * 552-pin BGA VT8366A North Bridge
    * 376-pin BGA VT8233 South Bridge

    so you have little risk of a failure there (caps will fail
    first).

    Handling the processor a lot (removal, regrease, reposition
    heatsink) will cut into the life expectancy, if say the
    processor gets cracked, and it happens to overload the Vcore
    circuit. If the processor has the rubber bumpers on the top
    of the chip, that will cut that risk a bit.

    I would say your biggest exposure, is to external factors.

    Paul
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Paul wrote:

    > In article <URjEd.32449$3m6.5163@attbi_s51>, "Travis King"
    > <Anonymous@none.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What's probably the life expectancy of my A7V333 motherboard if I take good
    >>care of it? It has 2 years on it right now. I run the computer for the
    >>most part constantly except when I leave town or do something with the
    >>inside of the computer. Current MB temperature is at 30 C.
    >
    >
    > If the case temp is not excessive, the electrolytic caps should
    > be good for 10 years. Solder joints under stress, could be
    > anyone's guess (more likely to happen with a P4 retail heatsink
    > and its high clamping forces).
    >
    > In ten years, you can expect several PSU failures, and any one of
    > those PSU failures could damage the motherboard.
    >
    > If you have a lot of lightning storms, or bad quality power,
    > that could influence how long the mobo lasts. Look carefully
    > at any modem, cable modem, ADSL wires etc, to see if there are
    > any protection devices to take a (nearby) lightning hit, before
    > it gets to the motherboard. For example, on a phone line, there
    > may be a carbon block at the entry point, and you could enhance
    > that by using a second protection device nearer the computer.
    > For the really paranoid, a wireless network would reduce the
    > wiring exposure to just the power lines. A real (>$1K purchase
    > price) UPS would reduce the risk of an AC power event from
    > getting you, and would help protect the PSU from getting
    > damaged. Cheap UPSes offer no protection at all, as they are
    > actually SPS (standby power supplies) - they are a "straight wire"
    > to power spikes, and the unit only cuts over to batteries if
    > the AC power dies for enough milliseconds.
    >
    > On the motherboard itself, the Vcore circuit is the circuit under
    > the most stress. If the MOSFETs are cool to the touch, that is
    > a good sign. I've never read any MTBF estimates for switching
    > regulators on motherboards, so don't know whether they are
    > good for a 1 million hour MTBF or not.
    >
    > Large BGA packages also have a rating, for solder joint
    > reliability. For example, a BGA with 750 pins, will last for
    > about 10 years, with a certain daily temperature variation.
    > From the Via web page:
    >
    > * 552-pin BGA VT8366A North Bridge
    > * 376-pin BGA VT8233 South Bridge
    >
    > so you have little risk of a failure there (caps will fail
    > first).
    >
    > Handling the processor a lot (removal, regrease, reposition
    > heatsink) will cut into the life expectancy, if say the
    > processor gets cracked, and it happens to overload the Vcore
    > circuit. If the processor has the rubber bumpers on the top
    > of the chip, that will cut that risk a bit.
    >
    > I would say your biggest exposure, is to external factors.
    >
    > Paul

    I would agree, and add that IME motherboards are far more tolerant of
    external factors than one has any right to expect ;-)

    Our Cottage PC runs an Asus P2B-S, manufactured in 1998 and in service
    for almost 6 years. We use it on weekends in winter, but the cottage is
    not heated while we are away, so the system experiences repeated thermal
    stress cycles - it's common for the inside temperature to be -20C or
    lower when we arrive. I discourage the kids from powering up the PC
    until the place has warmed up, with limited success :-)

    Power is unreliable at the Cottage, and we experience frequent
    thunderstorms, however despite a lack of protective measures the only PC
    failure which has occurred there to date was a sound card that stopped
    working after lightning struck a tree behind the building - no doubt due
    to a spike induced in the 40' cable running from the sound card to a
    stereo system on the other side of the room. Hardly surprising, but
    damage was limited to the sound card.

    I expect the Cottage P2B-S to be the first of my numerous P2B series
    boards to eventually fail, but perhaps not since I use several in my lab
    and subject them to frequent CPU swaps and other hardware changes. My
    primary system runs a P2B-DS and has been in service 7x24 since October
    1997 except for occasional shutdowns for hardware upgrades or fan
    service. The power supply refused to restart after a shutdown in 2002
    and was replaced, but no other failures have occurred. I have a total of
    11 P2B series boards in regular use, with zero motherboard failures to date.

    I'd better start saving my pennies since replacing all my systems when
    the electrolytic caps fail in 2008 will be expensive ;-)

    P2B
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <URjEd.32449$3m6.5163@attbi_s51>, Anonymous@none.com says...
    > What's probably the life expectancy of my A7V333 motherboard if I take good
    > care of it? It has 2 years on it right now. I run the computer for the
    > most part constantly except when I leave town or do something with the
    > inside of the computer. Current MB temperature is at 30 C.

    I have a number of computers that date back to 1977 that still run just
    fine. I also have a couple Dual Celeron 500Mhz machines that run well
    that are almost 5 years old (or older I think).

    As long as you change the PSU when it gets old (fan starts slowing and
    not cooling properly) and protect the system with a good UPS, and keep
    the vents clean (and CPU fan) it will last a long time - there are no
    moving parts on a motherboard - you may need a new floppy, CD-ROM, or
    hard drive.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    I have a relative that I had to replace her ECS board at 6 years old. Not
    even 6 months before that, she gave me her computer and it wouldn't turn on
    because the PSU went out. None of the card devices were no longer being
    detected properly including the video card, modem, etc., but they all used
    to be detected just fine. I reinstalled XP on it with no luck. By the way,
    I did have a chipped AMD Athlon XP 1800+ running on it for a year. The
    temperatures were a little higher on it than my 2400+, which is what I have
    now. I have a 400w PSU. WD 80GB HD and WD 120GB HD. Lite On DVD drive.
    Memorex 52x CD RW drive. NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti200. Do you think 4 years is a
    good amount of time for getting a new computer for someone who edits
    pictures frequently, does some gaming, lots of music, and some
    multi-tasking? Thanks.
    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c4bc07d5e17253d989e76@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article <URjEd.32449$3m6.5163@attbi_s51>, Anonymous@none.com says...
    >> What's probably the life expectancy of my A7V333 motherboard if I take
    >> good
    >> care of it? It has 2 years on it right now. I run the computer for the
    >> most part constantly except when I leave town or do something with the
    >> inside of the computer. Current MB temperature is at 30 C.
    >
    > I have a number of computers that date back to 1977 that still run just
    > fine. I also have a couple Dual Celeron 500Mhz machines that run well
    > that are almost 5 years old (or older I think).
    >
    > As long as you change the PSU when it gets old (fan starts slowing and
    > not cooling properly) and protect the system with a good UPS, and keep
    > the vents clean (and CPU fan) it will last a long time - there are no
    > moving parts on a motherboard - you may need a new floppy, CD-ROM, or
    > hard drive.
    >
    > --
    > --
    > spamfree999@rrohio.com
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    The fans, disks and power supplies will most likely wear out before
    the mobo components themselves. If you're not overclocking, IMO the
    only thing that would normally prematurely kill a mobo would be dirty
    power, a dusty environment (which can cause fans to fail or not work
    properly, overheating the mobo), or high humidity.

    We have a two of Pentium (I) servers at work that have been running
    pretty much 24/7 (give or take a week or so) since '95/'96. I've had
    to relace HD's, fans and power supplies (and one PCI video card), but
    zero mobo components.

    ---
    Bob
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <KQyEd.8820$ig7.3266@trnddc04>, no.spam@all.thank.you says...
    > The fans, disks and power supplies will most likely wear out before
    > the mobo components themselves. If you're not overclocking, IMO the
    > only thing that would normally prematurely kill a mobo would be dirty
    > power, a dusty environment (which can cause fans to fail or not work
    > properly, overheating the mobo), or high humidity.
    >
    > We have a two of Pentium (I) servers at work that have been running
    > pretty much 24/7 (give or take a week or so) since '95/'96. I've had
    > to relace HD's, fans and power supplies (and one PCI video card), but
    > zero mobo components.

    CAP's (capacitors) drying out is another thing that is common in older
    systems - not to mention the spread of lower quality components (CAP's)
    a couple years back.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:
    > In article <KQyEd.8820$ig7.3266@trnddc04>, no.spam@all.thank.you says...
    >
    >>The fans, disks and power supplies will most likely wear out before
    >>the mobo components themselves. If you're not overclocking, IMO the
    >>only thing that would normally prematurely kill a mobo would be dirty
    >>power, a dusty environment (which can cause fans to fail or not work
    >>properly, overheating the mobo), or high humidity.
    >>
    >>We have a two of Pentium (I) servers at work that have been running
    >>pretty much 24/7 (give or take a week or so) since '95/'96. I've had
    >>to relace HD's, fans and power supplies (and one PCI video card), but
    >>zero mobo components.
    >
    >
    > CAP's (capacitors) drying out is another thing that is common in older
    > systems - not to mention the spread of lower quality components (CAP's)
    > a couple years back.
    >
    Wasn't there something about swollen or blown capacitors on boards made
    in China circa 1999.

    BTW I have QDI board that still runs fine and was purchased in Nov 1997.
    Has run pretty much 24-7 since then. Gone through a couple of HDDs,
    CDROM drives, a case fan or two but the motherboard has survived it all.

    Ron
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <0cFEd.207251$Np3.8764145@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Freedom55
    <"joinertake this out"@ns.sympatico.ca> says...
    > Wasn't there something about swollen or blown capacitors on boards made
    > in China circa 1999.

    Yep, someone from a company stole the formula for the electrolyte and
    went to another company - that company didn't make it quite the same,
    and it caused the cap's to go bad early (very early).

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <75cFd.315$P_3.1910@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
    caldasfire@hades.com says...
    > As to RAID 1 I think you really need 4 drives, controller that is
    > smart and the software but maybe your definition is different than mine.

    RAID 1 is called Mirroring - one drive mirrored at all times to a second
    using either software based (as in the Operating system) or hardware
    based (as in a controller card). RAID 1 uses two drive only.

    RAID 5 is called striping with parity - three or more drives with data
    on N-1 number of drives and parity information on N drive - the tracks
    are laid out so that parity rotates it's position across all drives like
    this D-D-P P-D-D D-P-D and then it repeats (change for more drives).

    RAID 1 provides good read performance and is good for normal
    workstations and sequential type writes.

    RAID 5 provides great read performance and good write performance - RAID
    5 is used where you might have data spread all over the place and
    multiple requests for it at the same time (different data).

    The above is VERY GENERAL and does not exactly define it.

    I use RAID-1 on all high end workstations and some servers, RAID-5 is
    good for web sites, database data files (not the log files). RAID 1 & 5
    are good where you don't want a lost drive to kill your system.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    We still don't build as if the transistor exists.
    Principles are well proven in telephone switching facilities.
    A massive improvement can be install in homes for about $1 per
    protected appliance. Effective protection is just not that
    expensive. But unfortunately, some spend many times more
    money for far less effective (plug-in) solutions. They
    purchase protectors that can even contribute to damage of an
    adjacent computer. Then rumors such as 'too slow' persist.

    Concepts requires comprehension of some basic principles.
    Fundamental to surge protection is why a Ben Franklin
    lightning rod works. Too many assume based upon what they see
    - that a lightning rod is protection. Wrong. The protection
    is and is defined by the quality of earth ground. That is the
    art - earthing. An art only because it is not intuitively
    obvious. Protectors are only as effective as the protection
    connected to. Protector and protection are two different
    components of a surge protection 'system'.

    Protection is earth ground. Sometimes earthing installed
    standard in most buildings (sufficient for human safety) is
    not sufficient for transistor safety. Human safety is mostly
    concerned with wire 'resistance'. Transistor safety is mostly
    concerned with wire impedance. Sometimes the earthing systems
    must be enhanced to also provide transistor protection.

    Even ineffective protectors operate plenty fast - as did the
    slower GDTs decades previous that operated so effectively.
    Problems understanding effective protection even causes one to
    confuse a wall receptacle safety ground (also called equipment
    ground) with something located elsewhere and completely
    different - earth ground. Why are they different? Wire has
    impedance.

    These concepts are introduced in a previous discussion
    entitled "Is it safe to use computer during lightning/thunder
    storm?" in the newsgroup sci.electronics.basics on 22 Sept
    2004 at
    http://tinyurl.com/5fu8n
    Further details from same author (including figures from
    industry professionals) are in two posts that precede this
    above post.

    Protection is so easily installed and is so effective that
    damage is considered a human failure. One additional point.
    Destructive surges occur typically once every eight years.
    Five years with no damage proves little. Protection is only
    as effective as its earth ground which is why earthing is so
    important in telco buildings that must operate without
    interruption during every thunderstorm.

    notritenoteri wrote:
    > THe reason they don't operate fast enough is not really the problem
    > it is the fact that most of them don't. I think your comment about
    > building grounding is misleading. At least in this country buildings
    > are well enough grounded to be safe in most circumstances. In
    > building design it is possible to reach a very high level of
    > lightening and surge protection. the issue is one of cost mostly. PC
    > are cheap relatively. My experience (5 years as telecom guy in a
    > building with about 1000 networked pcs) suggest lightening or surges
    > are very minor problems. From what I know of lightening protection
    > engineering it is an art form to some degree. Sometimes the
    > engineers get it right, sometimes despite the best of designs the
    > stuff blows.
    > As I said its the data thats important.
    > BTW as I said $250 Can will buy you an 800 watt output battery
    > inverter pack to run your Ipod or laptop on your "camping trip".
    > That gets you one that plugs into the wall (110-120 here) and
    > outputs to 2 sockets for a total of 800 watts AC on the other side.
    > That's it said my piece
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:50:06 -0500, nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote:

    >......
    >wiring exposure to just the power lines. A real (>$1K purchase
    >price) UPS would reduce the risk of an AC power event from
    >getting you, and would help protect the PSU from getting
    >damaged. Cheap UPSes offer no protection at all, as they are
    >actually SPS (standby power supplies) - they are a "straight wire"
    >to power spikes, and the unit only cuts over to batteries if
    >the AC power dies for enough milliseconds.
    >

    I think that you are being unduly negative about cheap "UPSes". You
    are absolutely correct that they are not true UPSes, since:
    a) they normally connect the mains power (effectively) straight
    through to the controlled devices, thus offering no _intrinsic_
    protection from spikes; and
    b) they have to switch to inverter mode when the power fails, which
    takes finite time.
    However:
    a) almost all SPSes include at least as much separate surge protection
    on the mains supply line as a decent standalone surge protector would
    provide; and
    b) All except the cheapest, no-name, ones switch fast enough so that a
    normal computer system power supply does not "notice" the transient
    power loss (though network switches, hubs, and the like may "glitch").
    For most home and SOHO users, an SPS will provide cost-effective
    protection against most of the data loss problems which might
    otherwise be caused by brownouts and/or power outages, while their
    built in (but unrelated) surge protection circuitry is a _lot_ better
    than nothing as insurance against damage from power line spikes.

    Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
    Peter R. Fletcher
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    You're right 5 years with no damage doesn't prove anything but it does point
    to the fact that the cost to take extraordinary precautions to protect
    against rare events is probably not worth it. On the other hand spending
    money on the best possible lightening protection for a radio antenna tower
    may be worthwhile.
    Your claim that protection is easily installed is somewhat misleading. The
    facts are "it depends"
    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41E776DA.127B32F0@hotmail.com...
    > We still don't build as if the transistor exists.
    > Principles are well proven in telephone switching facilities.
    > A massive improvement can be install in homes for about $1 per
    > protected appliance. Effective protection is just not that
    > expensive. But unfortunately, some spend many times more
    > money for far less effective (plug-in) solutions. They
    > purchase protectors that can even contribute to damage of an
    > adjacent computer. Then rumors such as 'too slow' persist.
    >
    > Concepts requires comprehension of some basic principles.
    > Fundamental to surge protection is why a Ben Franklin
    > lightning rod works. Too many assume based upon what they see
    > - that a lightning rod is protection. Wrong. The protection
    > is and is defined by the quality of earth ground. That is the
    > art - earthing. An art only because it is not intuitively
    > obvious. Protectors are only as effective as the protection
    > connected to. Protector and protection are two different
    > components of a surge protection 'system'.
    >
    > Protection is earth ground. Sometimes earthing installed
    > standard in most buildings (sufficient for human safety) is
    > not sufficient for transistor safety. Human safety is mostly
    > concerned with wire 'resistance'. Transistor safety is mostly
    > concerned with wire impedance. Sometimes the earthing systems
    > must be enhanced to also provide transistor protection.
    >
    > Even ineffective protectors operate plenty fast - as did the
    > slower GDTs decades previous that operated so effectively.
    > Problems understanding effective protection even causes one to
    > confuse a wall receptacle safety ground (also called equipment
    > ground) with something located elsewhere and completely
    > different - earth ground. Why are they different? Wire has
    > impedance.
    >
    > These concepts are introduced in a previous discussion
    > entitled "Is it safe to use computer during lightning/thunder
    > storm?" in the newsgroup sci.electronics.basics on 22 Sept
    > 2004 at
    > http://tinyurl.com/5fu8n
    > Further details from same author (including figures from
    > industry professionals) are in two posts that precede this
    > above post.
    >
    > Protection is so easily installed and is so effective that
    > damage is considered a human failure. One additional point.
    > Destructive surges occur typically once every eight years.
    > Five years with no damage proves little. Protection is only
    > as effective as its earth ground which is why earthing is so
    > important in telco buildings that must operate without
    > interruption during every thunderstorm.
    >
    > notritenoteri wrote:
    > > THe reason they don't operate fast enough is not really the problem
    > > it is the fact that most of them don't. I think your comment about
    > > building grounding is misleading. At least in this country buildings
    > > are well enough grounded to be safe in most circumstances. In
    > > building design it is possible to reach a very high level of
    > > lightening and surge protection. the issue is one of cost mostly. PC
    > > are cheap relatively. My experience (5 years as telecom guy in a
    > > building with about 1000 networked pcs) suggest lightening or surges
    > > are very minor problems. From what I know of lightening protection
    > > engineering it is an art form to some degree. Sometimes the
    > > engineers get it right, sometimes despite the best of designs the
    > > stuff blows.
    > > As I said its the data thats important.
    > > BTW as I said $250 Can will buy you an 800 watt output battery
    > > inverter pack to run your Ipod or laptop on your "camping trip".
    > > That gets you one that plugs into the wall (110-120 here) and
    > > outputs to 2 sockets for a total of 800 watts AC on the other side.
    > > That's it said my piece
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    What you describe as describe as "all SPSes include at least
    as much separate surge protection on the mains supply line as
    a decent standalone surge protector would provide;" is really
    near zero protection for numerous reasons. Both the plug-in
    UPS and power strip protector have the same protector
    circuit. And both are typically so grossly undersized to be
    ineffective. Always start with the numbers. In this case
    joules.

    In another post and in those previously cited posts are
    examples of how joules define protection. Notice that so many
    plug-in protectors AND their plug-in UPS counterparts may be
    rated at 345 joules. As joules increase, the life expectancy
    of that protector increases exponentially. IOW if the plug-in
    protector is good for two same size surges, then the 1000
    joule 'whole house' protector is good for something on the
    order of 300 of those same size surges.

    Then it continues farther. The plug-in protector has no
    earth ground. Therefore the manufacturer avoids the entire
    topic altogether. This is how one identified ineffective (and
    grossly overpriced - yes grossly overpriced) plug-in
    protectors. 1) No dedicated wire connection to earth ground
    AND 2) manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.

    Further details will be provided in response to Milleron.
    But the plug-in protectors are on the order of 10 and 50 times
    more expensive per protected appliance. So yes, what you are
    calling cheap protectors are really overpriced and expensive
    protectors that also are not effective.

    BTW, UPSes switch in milliseconds. (One must be careful to
    buy power supplies with numerical specs that read: Hold up
    time, full load: 16ms. typical). Surges do their damage and
    are done in microseconds. 300 consecutive surges could pass
    through a UPS before the UPS even considered switching to
    battery power. Plug-in UPSes have one function - data
    protection. They do not provide the hardware protection so
    often implied.

    You want a UPS that also provides hardware protection? That
    is typically the building wide UPS that also makes this all so
    important 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground.
    Plug-in UPSes are for data protection; not for hardware
    protection.

    "Peter R. Fletcher" wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:50:06 -0500, nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote:
    >>......
    >> wiring exposure to just the power lines. A real (>$1K purchase
    >> price) UPS would reduce the risk of an AC power event from
    >> getting you, and would help protect the PSU from getting
    >> damaged. Cheap UPSes offer no protection at all, as they are
    >> actually SPS (standby power supplies) - they are a "straight wire"
    >> to power spikes, and the unit only cuts over to batteries if
    >> the AC power dies for enough milliseconds.
    >
    > I think that you are being unduly negative about cheap "UPSes". You
    > are absolutely correct that they are not true UPSes, since:
    > a) they normally connect the mains power (effectively) straight
    > through to the controlled devices, thus offering no _intrinsic_
    > protection from spikes; and
    > b) they have to switch to inverter mode when the power fails, which
    > takes finite time.
    > However:
    > a) almost all SPSes include at least as much separate surge protection
    > on the mains supply line as a decent standalone surge protector would
    > provide; and
    > b) All except the cheapest, no-name, ones switch fast enough so that a
    > normal computer system power supply does not "notice" the transient
    > power loss (though network switches, hubs, and the like may "glitch").
    > For most home and SOHO users, an SPS will provide cost-effective
    > protection against most of the data loss problems which might
    > otherwise be caused by brownouts and/or power outages, while their
    > built in (but unrelated) surge protection circuitry is a _lot_ better
    > than nothing as insurance against damage from power line spikes.
    >
    > Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
    > Peter R. Fletcher
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Effective protection costs so little. For example, go to
    Home Depot or Radio Shack from something called a grounding
    block for incoming cable TV line. It costs less than $2
    retail. Connect this grounding block less than 10 feet using
    12 AWG or heavier wire. Now the CATV line is fully surge
    protected. Yes, the cable line requires no surge protector.
    A surge protector is nothing more than a temporary connection
    to earth ground. BUT the ground block has already made that
    protection connection using a 12 AWG wire. Where is the big
    cost?

    Unfortunately we still don't build new homes for transistor
    safety. So effective protection often must be installed as an
    after thought. Sometimes, this means the incoming cable -
    improperly installed - must be moved. Now we are talking big
    bucks; and only because humans were the reasons for failure.
    I recently had this discussion with some cable installer who
    keep saying, "Is that what they were saying", or "That's
    right. They said something about that". Every incoming
    wire must connect to single point earth ground. That
    connection is either via a protector or hard wire. The
    telephone company even installs a 'whole house' protector ....
    for free. But again, it is only as effective as the earth
    ground provided by the home builder.

    I don't see where all this expense is. Many waste big bucks
    on plug in protectors that (quietly) don't even claim to
    provide effective protection. The missing information is that
    damning. IOW those expensive protectors also are ineffective
    solutions. The less expensive 'whole house' protector
    connected 'less than 10 feet' to protection is the less
    expensive and more effective solution.

    Which wire is most often struck? Wire highest on telephone
    pole. AC electric. This is a direct strike to the computer
    inside the house IF effective 'whole house' protectors do not
    connect to that all so essential single point earth ground.

    "It depends" is a discussion about the human who did or did
    not install effective protection - and what it takes to
    correct that mistake. There is no reason for any electronics
    to be damaged by surges. And some locations make protection
    far more essential. The need for earthed protection varies
    even with geology AND can vary significantly even within the
    same town.

    notritenoteri wrote:
    > You're right 5 years with no damage doesn't prove anything but it
    > does point to the fact that the cost to take extraordinary
    > precautions to protect against rare events is probably not worth it.
    > On the other hand spending money on the best possible lightening
    > protection for a radio antenna tower may be worthwhile.
    > Your claim that protection is easily installed is somewhat
    > misleading. The facts are "it depends"
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    w_tom,
    I read your referenced thread with great interest. The principles were
    clearly explained but some of the stuff about different types of
    surges was over my head (I'm a physician whose use and knowledge of
    electricity is pretty much limited to dc defibrillators).
    At my newly constructed home, I employed an electrician whose business
    is limited to surge protection to provide and install the whole-house
    suppressor. He put in an Eaton/Cutler Hammer CHSP Ultra that comes
    with a $100,000 warranty. He says he's never in his career seen a
    claim against Cutler Hammer for damage occurring in spite of this
    unit. I have faith in this electrician and his recommendations, but
    the whole-house suppressor was MUCH smaller than what I expected from
    my minuscule knowledge of electricity.
    Here's my question: This unit is mounted on the side of the
    circuit-breaker box, so where is it's connection to ground? It is
    very clearly within ten feet of the external earthing rod, but does it
    connect to this through the inside of the breaker box? Can you give
    me a brief explanation, of how this thing is wired to protect all the
    circuits in the house? Also, in one of your posts, you mentioned that
    phones and cable do not require separate protection because they have
    built-in surge suppression, and, yet, my guy installed a companion
    module (on the whole-house suppressor) for cable (not phone)
    connections. Is that superfluous?

    Thanks for all the time you take to provide us with these
    explanations. They're great.

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:38:02 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > We still don't build as if the transistor exists.
    >Principles are well proven in telephone switching facilities.
    >A massive improvement can be install in homes for about $1 per
    >protected appliance. Effective protection is just not that
    >expensive. But unfortunately, some spend many times more
    >money for far less effective (plug-in) solutions. They
    >purchase protectors that can even contribute to damage of an
    >adjacent computer. Then rumors such as 'too slow' persist.
    >
    > Concepts requires comprehension of some basic principles.
    >Fundamental to surge protection is why a Ben Franklin
    >lightning rod works. Too many assume based upon what they see
    >- that a lightning rod is protection. Wrong. The protection
    >is and is defined by the quality of earth ground. That is the
    >art - earthing. An art only because it is not intuitively
    >obvious. Protectors are only as effective as the protection
    >connected to. Protector and protection are two different
    >components of a surge protection 'system'.
    >
    > Protection is earth ground. Sometimes earthing installed
    >standard in most buildings (sufficient for human safety) is
    >not sufficient for transistor safety. Human safety is mostly
    >concerned with wire 'resistance'. Transistor safety is mostly
    >concerned with wire impedance. Sometimes the earthing systems
    >must be enhanced to also provide transistor protection.
    >
    > Even ineffective protectors operate plenty fast - as did the
    >slower GDTs decades previous that operated so effectively.
    >Problems understanding effective protection even causes one to
    >confuse a wall receptacle safety ground (also called equipment
    >ground) with something located elsewhere and completely
    >different - earth ground. Why are they different? Wire has
    >impedance.
    >
    > These concepts are introduced in a previous discussion
    >entitled "Is it safe to use computer during lightning/thunder
    >storm?" in the newsgroup sci.electronics.basics on 22 Sept
    >2004 at
    > http://tinyurl.com/5fu8n
    >Further details from same author (including figures from
    >industry professionals) are in two posts that precede this
    >above post.
    >
    > Protection is so easily installed and is so effective that
    >damage is considered a human failure. One additional point.
    >Destructive surges occur typically once every eight years.
    >Five years with no damage proves little. Protection is only
    >as effective as its earth ground which is why earthing is so
    >important in telco buildings that must operate without
    >interruption during every thunderstorm.
    >
    >notritenoteri wrote:
    >> THe reason they don't operate fast enough is not really the problem
    >> it is the fact that most of them don't. I think your comment about
    >> building grounding is misleading. At least in this country buildings
    >> are well enough grounded to be safe in most circumstances. In
    >> building design it is possible to reach a very high level of
    >> lightening and surge protection. the issue is one of cost mostly. PC
    >> are cheap relatively. My experience (5 years as telecom guy in a
    >> building with about 1000 networked pcs) suggest lightening or surges
    >> are very minor problems. From what I know of lightening protection
    >> engineering it is an art form to some degree. Sometimes the
    >> engineers get it right, sometimes despite the best of designs the
    >> stuff blows.
    >> As I said its the data thats important.
    >> BTW as I said $250 Can will buy you an 800 watt output battery
    >> inverter pack to run your Ipod or laptop on your "camping trip".
    >> That gets you one that plugs into the wall (110-120 here) and
    >> outputs to 2 sockets for a total of 800 watts AC on the other side.
    >> That's it said my piece

    Ron
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Plug in protectors claim to protect from one type of surge.
    Do some punching. As one arm swings out, the other
    withdrawals. That 1-2 punching is an example of a surge that
    typically does not do damage. Now instead punch with both
    left and right arms simultaneously. That is the common mode
    surge that typically damages electronics.

    Lightning seeks earth ground. It comes down any and all
    'arms', passes through punching bag, and exits out other side
    of punching bag. The plug-in protector does not stop, block,
    or absorb such destructive surges. IOW it does not sit
    between surge and the electronics - even though they hope you
    will assume that. And effective protector connects earlier
    where wires enter the building so that the 'surge down all
    wires simultaneously' all find the same earth ground.

    Lightning in 1752 found earth ground destructively via a
    church steeple. Franklin simply gave lightning a better path
    to earth. Lightning is the 'all arms moving forward at the
    same time" type of surge. You don't stop, block, or filter
    what miles of sky could not even stop. You 'shunt' lightning
    to earth ground. That is also what the 'whole house'
    protector does. It provides lightning with a short path to
    earth ground.

    You are surprised how small the Cutler Hammer unit is. It
    need not be large because it does not stop, block, or absorb
    the energy. Wire is also not massive because it too carry
    massive electrical energy and does not try to stop or block
    it. A surge protector is nothing more than a wire. A wire
    that conducts only during the rare and short transient. It
    can be small because the transient is only in microseconds.

    In a parallel example, try to push a common nail into wood.
    You cannot. It takes the force of a backhoe to drive that
    nail. However, we hit that nail with only a 20 oz hammer.
    Does the human arm have same energy as the backhoe? Of course
    not. People often confuse energy with power. The hammer has
    low energy but high power. Lightning has low energy but high
    power. The protector need not be monstrous because 1) it does
    not stop or absorb the energy, and 2) the energy is not as
    massive as urban myths portray. Too many only 'feel' that a
    lightning strike is high energy.

    The electrical circuit is best demonstrated by an NIST
    figure used in an example from:
    http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
    They demonstrate why a fax machine was damaged. Notice that
    the phone line was not 'earthed' less than 10 feet to the same
    single point ground as AC electric. Telephone line protector
    is inside the box labeled NID.

    The 'whole house' protector is located where 'Arrestor' is
    labeled. Notice that the destructive surge goes through
    Arrestor, then to earth ground. Since it need not pass
    through fax machine to get earth ground, then an AC electric
    surge does not damage fax machine.

    All electronic appliances contain effective protection.
    Anything that is going to work on the end of a power cord
    (those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors) is already
    inside electronics - as even required by industry standards.
    But we worry that internal electronics protection might be
    overwhelmed. So we install a 'whole house' protector on every
    incoming utility wire - to same earth ground.

    Demonstrated in various posts is the AC electric 'whole
    house' protector (such as the Cutler Hammer), the telco
    provided protector, and a ground block for cable wire (no
    protector required). All are only as effective as that earth
    ground.

    Now about earthing. Engineered discussed this in two
    discussions in the newsgroup misc.rural entitled:
    Storm and Lightning damage in the country 28 Jul 2002
    Lightning Nightmares!! 10 Aug 2002
    http://tinyurl.com/ghgv and http://tinyurl.com/ghgm

    Depending on the problem with transients, the earth ground
    may need be enhanced. Important is the neighborhood history.
    Also important is the geology. Does the ground tend to
    attract more CG lightning? For example, mid-west storms may
    be spectacular, but most of the lightning remains sky to sky.
    WV is a region with high numbers of CG (cloud to ground)
    strikes per thunderstorm.

    Those discussions also mention equipotential which is why
    Ufer grounds and halo grounds make the protector even more
    effective.

    Also is earth conductive or is it sand. I believe that
    previous discussion also tells a story of a house struck
    multiple times - and lightning rods did not work. Why?
    Lightning rods were earthed poorly in non-conductive sand.
    Bottom line - a surge protector is only as effective as its
    earth ground. In most locations, a single ground rod may
    provide massive increase in protection. A house that does not
    at least meet post 1990 National Electrical Code earthing
    requirements does not have the necessary earth ground.

    Also in that misc.rural discussion would be how wire must be
    routed. For example, no sharp bends and no splices. A ground
    wire bundled with other wires may only induce more surges on
    that other wire (which is but another reason why plug-in
    protectors have no effective earth ground).

    There is much to read. Come back with questions. The
    simple earthing of surges is surprisingly not intuitively
    obvious. In discussing this, I was amazed how many don't even
    know what a Ben Franklin air terminal (lightning rod) does -
    AND yet would recommend surge protectors. Many even argue
    pointed verse blunt lighting rods - when earth ground defines
    the effectiveness of that rod. A surge protector is only as
    effective as its earth ground.

    Milleron wrote:
    tom,
    > I read your referenced thread with great interest. The principles were
    > clearly explained but some of the stuff about different types of
    > surges was over my head (I'm a physician whose use and knowledge of
    > electricity is pretty much limited to dc defibrillators).
    > At my newly constructed home, I employed an electrician whose business
    > is limited to surge protection to provide and install the whole-house
    > suppressor. He put in an Eaton/Cutler Hammer CHSP Ultra that comes
    > with a $100,000 warranty. He says he's never in his career seen a
    > claim against Cutler Hammer for damage occurring in spite of this
    > unit. I have faith in this electrician and his recommendations, but
    > the whole-house suppressor was MUCH smaller than what I expected from
    > my minuscule knowledge of electricity.
    > Here's my question: This unit is mounted on the side of the
    > circuit-breaker box, so where is it's connection to ground? It is
    > very clearly within ten feet of the external earthing rod, but does it
    > connect to this through the inside of the breaker box? Can you give
    > me a brief explanation, of how this thing is wired to protect all the
    > circuits in the house? Also, in one of your posts, you mentioned that
    > phones and cable do not require separate protection because they have
    > built-in surge suppression, and, yet, my guy installed a companion
    > module (on the whole-house suppressor) for cable (not phone)
    > connections. Is that superfluous?
    >
    > Thanks for all the time you take to provide us with these
    > explanations. They're great.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Are you selling lightening protection? You have so much faith. Tell us
    about ground loops.
    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41E81FE3.BDF9D4D@hotmail.com...
    > Effective protection costs so little. For example, go to
    > Home Depot or Radio Shack from something called a grounding
    > block for incoming cable TV line. It costs less than $2
    > retail. Connect this grounding block less than 10 feet using
    > 12 AWG or heavier wire. Now the CATV line is fully surge
    > protected. Yes, the cable line requires no surge protector.
    > A surge protector is nothing more than a temporary connection
    > to earth ground. BUT the ground block has already made that
    > protection connection using a 12 AWG wire. Where is the big
    > cost?
    >
    > Unfortunately we still don't build new homes for transistor
    > safety. So effective protection often must be installed as an
    > after thought. Sometimes, this means the incoming cable -
    > improperly installed - must be moved. Now we are talking big
    > bucks; and only because humans were the reasons for failure.
    > I recently had this discussion with some cable installer who
    > keep saying, "Is that what they were saying", or "That's
    > right. They said something about that". Every incoming
    > wire must connect to single point earth ground. That
    > connection is either via a protector or hard wire. The
    > telephone company even installs a 'whole house' protector ....
    > for free. But again, it is only as effective as the earth
    > ground provided by the home builder.
    >
    > I don't see where all this expense is. Many waste big bucks
    > on plug in protectors that (quietly) don't even claim to
    > provide effective protection. The missing information is that
    > damning. IOW those expensive protectors also are ineffective
    > solutions. The less expensive 'whole house' protector
    > connected 'less than 10 feet' to protection is the less
    > expensive and more effective solution.
    >
    > Which wire is most often struck? Wire highest on telephone
    > pole. AC electric. This is a direct strike to the computer
    > inside the house IF effective 'whole house' protectors do not
    > connect to that all so essential single point earth ground.
    >
    > "It depends" is a discussion about the human who did or did
    > not install effective protection - and what it takes to
    > correct that mistake. There is no reason for any electronics
    > to be damaged by surges. And some locations make protection
    > far more essential. The need for earthed protection varies
    > even with geology AND can vary significantly even within the
    > same town.
    >
    > notritenoteri wrote:
    > > You're right 5 years with no damage doesn't prove anything but it
    > > does point to the fact that the cost to take extraordinary
    > > precautions to protect against rare events is probably not worth it.
    > > On the other hand spending money on the best possible lightening
    > > protection for a radio antenna tower may be worthwhile.
    > > Your claim that protection is easily installed is somewhat
    > > misleading. The facts are "it depends"
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    notritenoteri wrote:
    > You're right 5 years with no damage doesn't prove anything but it does point
    > to the fact that the cost to take extraordinary precautions to protect
    > against rare events is probably not worth it. On the other hand spending
    > money on the best possible lightening protection for a radio antenna tower
    > may be worthwhile.
    > Your claim that protection is easily installed is somewhat misleading. The
    > facts are "it depends"

    And "easily installed" doesn't matter much to people like me.

    I live in a rental apartment and I have to deal as best I can
    with the existing wiring. Screwing around with the wiring is not
    an option for me. I - and many others like me - have to do the
    best I can with surge suppressors and UPSes.

    > "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:41E776DA.127B32F0@hotmail.com...
    >
    >> We still don't build as if the transistor exists.
    >>Principles are well proven in telephone switching facilities.
    >>A massive improvement can be install in homes for about $1 per
    >>protected appliance. Effective protection is just not that
    >>expensive. But unfortunately, some spend many times more
    >>money for far less effective (plug-in) solutions. They
    >>purchase protectors that can even contribute to damage of an
    >>adjacent computer. Then rumors such as 'too slow' persist.
    >>
    >> Concepts requires comprehension of some basic principles.
    >>Fundamental to surge protection is why a Ben Franklin
    >>lightning rod works. Too many assume based upon what they see
    >>- that a lightning rod is protection. Wrong. The protection
    >>is and is defined by the quality of earth ground. That is the
    >>art - earthing. An art only because it is not intuitively
    >>obvious. Protectors are only as effective as the protection
    >>connected to. Protector and protection are two different
    >>components of a surge protection 'system'.
    >>
    >> Protection is earth ground. Sometimes earthing installed
    >>standard in most buildings (sufficient for human safety) is
    >>not sufficient for transistor safety. Human safety is mostly
    >>concerned with wire 'resistance'. Transistor safety is mostly
    >>concerned with wire impedance. Sometimes the earthing systems
    >>must be enhanced to also provide transistor protection.
    >>
    >> Even ineffective protectors operate plenty fast - as did the
    >>slower GDTs decades previous that operated so effectively.
    >>Problems understanding effective protection even causes one to
    >>confuse a wall receptacle safety ground (also called equipment
    >>ground) with something located elsewhere and completely
    >>different - earth ground. Why are they different? Wire has
    >>impedance.
    >>
    >> These concepts are introduced in a previous discussion
    >>entitled "Is it safe to use computer during lightning/thunder
    >>storm?" in the newsgroup sci.electronics.basics on 22 Sept
    >>2004 at
    >> http://tinyurl.com/5fu8n
    >>Further details from same author (including figures from
    >>industry professionals) are in two posts that precede this
    >>above post.
    >>
    >> Protection is so easily installed and is so effective that
    >>damage is considered a human failure. One additional point.
    >>Destructive surges occur typically once every eight years.
    >>Five years with no damage proves little. Protection is only
    >>as effective as its earth ground which is why earthing is so
    >>important in telco buildings that must operate without
    >>interruption during every thunderstorm.
    >>
    >>notritenoteri wrote:
    >>
    >>>THe reason they don't operate fast enough is not really the problem
    >>>it is the fact that most of them don't. I think your comment about
    >>>building grounding is misleading. At least in this country buildings
    >>>are well enough grounded to be safe in most circumstances. In
    >>>building design it is possible to reach a very high level of
    >>>lightening and surge protection. the issue is one of cost mostly. PC
    >>>are cheap relatively. My experience (5 years as telecom guy in a
    >>>building with about 1000 networked pcs) suggest lightening or surges
    >>>are very minor problems. From what I know of lightening protection
    >>>engineering it is an art form to some degree. Sometimes the
    >>>engineers get it right, sometimes despite the best of designs the
    >>>stuff blows.
    >>>As I said its the data thats important.
    >>>BTW as I said $250 Can will buy you an 800 watt output battery
    >>>inverter pack to run your Ipod or laptop on your "camping trip".
    >>>That gets you one that plugs into the wall (110-120 here) and
    >>>outputs to 2 sockets for a total of 800 watts AC on the other side.
    >>> That's it said my piece
    >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Equipment can be replaced data mostly can't . Any problem that can be fixed
    by the application of money is not a problem, at most an inconvenience. Data
    is not one of those. Lost data is a problem.
    "Rob Stow" <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:AqUFd.78839$6l.50962@pd7tw2no...
    > notritenoteri wrote:
    > > You're right 5 years with no damage doesn't prove anything but it does
    point
    > > to the fact that the cost to take extraordinary precautions to protect
    > > against rare events is probably not worth it. On the other hand
    spending
    > > money on the best possible lightening protection for a radio antenna
    tower
    > > may be worthwhile.
    > > Your claim that protection is easily installed is somewhat misleading.
    The
    > > facts are "it depends"
    >
    > And "easily installed" doesn't matter much to people like me.
    >
    > I live in a rental apartment and I have to deal as best I can
    > with the existing wiring. Screwing around with the wiring is not
    > an option for me. I - and many others like me - have to do the
    > best I can with surge suppressors and UPSes.
    >
    > > "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:41E776DA.127B32F0@hotmail.com...
    > >
    > >> We still don't build as if the transistor exists.
    > >>Principles are well proven in telephone switching facilities.
    > >>A massive improvement can be install in homes for about $1 per
    > >>protected appliance. Effective protection is just not that
    > >>expensive. But unfortunately, some spend many times more
    > >>money for far less effective (plug-in) solutions. They
    > >>purchase protectors that can even contribute to damage of an
    > >>adjacent computer. Then rumors such as 'too slow' persist.
    > >>
    > >> Concepts requires comprehension of some basic principles.
    > >>Fundamental to surge protection is why a Ben Franklin
    > >>lightning rod works. Too many assume based upon what they see
    > >>- that a lightning rod is protection. Wrong. The protection
    > >>is and is defined by the quality of earth ground. That is the
    > >>art - earthing. An art only because it is not intuitively
    > >>obvious. Protectors are only as effective as the protection
    > >>connected to. Protector and protection are two different
    > >>components of a surge protection 'system'.
    > >>
    > >> Protection is earth ground. Sometimes earthing installed
    > >>standard in most buildings (sufficient for human safety) is
    > >>not sufficient for transistor safety. Human safety is mostly
    > >>concerned with wire 'resistance'. Transistor safety is mostly
    > >>concerned with wire impedance. Sometimes the earthing systems
    > >>must be enhanced to also provide transistor protection.
    > >>
    > >> Even ineffective protectors operate plenty fast - as did the
    > >>slower GDTs decades previous that operated so effectively.
    > >>Problems understanding effective protection even causes one to
    > >>confuse a wall receptacle safety ground (also called equipment
    > >>ground) with something located elsewhere and completely
    > >>different - earth ground. Why are they different? Wire has
    > >>impedance.
    > >>
    > >> These concepts are introduced in a previous discussion
    > >>entitled "Is it safe to use computer during lightning/thunder
    > >>storm?" in the newsgroup sci.electronics.basics on 22 Sept
    > >>2004 at
    > >> http://tinyurl.com/5fu8n
    > >>Further details from same author (including figures from
    > >>industry professionals) are in two posts that precede this
    > >>above post.
    > >>
    > >> Protection is so easily installed and is so effective that
    > >>damage is considered a human failure. One additional point.
    > >>Destructive surges occur typically once every eight years.
    > >>Five years with no damage proves little. Protection is only
    > >>as effective as its earth ground which is why earthing is so
    > >>important in telco buildings that must operate without
    > >>interruption during every thunderstorm.
    > >>
    > >>notritenoteri wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>THe reason they don't operate fast enough is not really the problem
    > >>>it is the fact that most of them don't. I think your comment about
    > >>>building grounding is misleading. At least in this country buildings
    > >>>are well enough grounded to be safe in most circumstances. In
    > >>>building design it is possible to reach a very high level of
    > >>>lightening and surge protection. the issue is one of cost mostly. PC
    > >>>are cheap relatively. My experience (5 years as telecom guy in a
    > >>>building with about 1000 networked pcs) suggest lightening or surges
    > >>>are very minor problems. From what I know of lightening protection
    > >>>engineering it is an art form to some degree. Sometimes the
    > >>>engineers get it right, sometimes despite the best of designs the
    > >>>stuff blows.
    > >>>As I said its the data thats important.
    > >>>BTW as I said $250 Can will buy you an 800 watt output battery
    > >>>inverter pack to run your Ipod or laptop on your "camping trip".
    > >>>That gets you one that plugs into the wall (110-120 here) and
    > >>>outputs to 2 sockets for a total of 800 watts AC on the other side.
    > >>> That's it said my piece
    > >
    > >
    > >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Ground loops is why surge protection must be the single
    point ground. Problems created by ground loop (the damaged
    fax machine) is demonstrated by the NIST figure and previously
    cited discussion in:
    http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html

    Which would you believe? Lies promoted by half truths on
    retail store shelves? Or fact demonstrated by telephone and
    911 emergency operators who never need remove headsets during
    every lightning storm. Effective protection is demonstrated by
    telephone switching computers that connect to overhead wires
    everywhere in town. Its not called faith. Its called facts.
    1) Demonstrated by theory and 2) proven by example virtually
    everywhere in the civilized world.

    Posted was well understood and repeatedly proven even before
    WWII. One classic myths is that surge protectors operate too
    slow. Even the GDTs that routinely provided surge protection
    before WWII and that were much slower were also fast enough
    for surge protection. These are facts know to those who
    understood how surge protectors work. 'Surge protector works
    too slow' is but another myth. Obviously a myth because it is
    routinely promoted without numbers. One must believe such
    myths only on faith.

    notritenoteri wrote:
    > Are you selling lightening protection? You have so much faith. Tell
    > us about ground loops.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    w_tom wrote:
    >
    > Effective protection costs so little. For example, go to
    > Home Depot or Radio Shack from something called a grounding
    > block for incoming cable TV line. It costs less than $2
    > retail. Connect this grounding block less than 10 feet using
    > 12 AWG or heavier wire. Now the CATV line is fully surge
    > protected. Yes, the cable line requires no surge protector.
    > A surge protector is nothing more than a temporary connection
    > to earth ground. BUT the ground block has already made that
    > protection connection using a 12 AWG wire. Where is the big
    > cost?

    I think you'll find - if you check really carefully - that the
    grounding block merely ensures that the incoming cable ground
    connection is, in fact, connected to a good ground close to it's final
    destination.

    Surge protectors otoh make sure that the *signal* (or hot wire in the
    case of AC cables) can short rapidly to ground in the event of an
    over-voltage. It's done by connecting a MOV (metal oxide varistor)
    from signal/hot to ground. At normal operating voltages, this device
    is an open-circuit but in the case of a voltage surge rapidly
    transforms to a short-circuit shunting the surge to ground.

    Having a decent ground alone helps but if you think the grounding
    block you refer to means your CATV is "fully" surge protected, you are
    sadly mislead.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <41E81C3F.4C59FFA6@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
    > BTW, UPSes switch in milliseconds. (One must be careful to
    > buy power supplies with numerical specs that read: Hold up
    > time, full load: 16ms. typical). Surges do their damage and
    > are done in microseconds. 300 consecutive surges could pass
    > through a UPS before the UPS even considered switching to
    > battery power. Plug-in UPSes have one function - data
    > protection. They do not provide the hardware protection so
    > often implied.
    >
    > You want a UPS that also provides hardware protection? That
    > is typically the building wide UPS that also makes this all so
    > important 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground.
    > Plug-in UPSes are for data protection; not for hardware
    > protection.

    I agree and have to point out one thing here in case people become
    confused: In most homes the typical problem is cause by loss of power
    for any length of time - this causes the computer to reset in the middle
    of anything it was/is doing. This is more likely to happen than a spike
    or sag in line power. A UPS, even a cheap 750VA unit, will protect your
    computer from power outages, sags and some increases in line voltage
    that happen within the amount of time that the unit can respond.

    If you want lightning protection you're looking at something other than
    a home user UPS. If you combine lightning protection at the breaker
    panel (where this is a good earth ground - at least there's suppose to
    be one) with a home user UPS, then you've got the protection you need
    for about 99% of anything you will run into.

    I have a lot of APC Smart-UPS 2200VA units around the country and love
    them, but at $800 they are not something that most home users are going
    to buy.

    The short of this discussion is that the small UPS units people purchase
    for their home computers are not likely to protect them or survive a
    lightning surge, but, since those are rare for most of us, the UPS will
    save you when the power sags, surges, or goes out completely - which is
    much more likely to happen.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Power loss will not damage hardware. 'Power loss causes
    damage' is often suggested without underlying technical fact.
    Why? Underlying facts were never learned.

    Sometimes, a power loss is preceded by a surge. Then a
    human may blame power loss rather than the undetected surge.
    The surge caused both hardware damage and power loss. Human
    instead blamed power loss.

    Computers using obsolete technology such as FAT file systems
    can (in rare cases) erase data previously saved on disk
    drive. But power loss does not cause the damage. Damage is
    caused by a well known and long since eliminated problem that
    still exists in FAT file systems. Systems with critical data
    on FAT filesystems should use a UPS - to protect that data.

    If 'power loss' causes hardware damage, then 'power off'
    also causes hardware damage. Most parts in a computer (ie
    hard drive) don't know the difference between 'power loss' and
    'power shutdown'. They power down normally no matter how
    power is removed.

    BTW, how does a UPS protect from power outages? First power
    is completely lost for a short time. Then the UPS switches
    over to battery. IOW one spec essential for a computer power
    supply is its Hold Up Time. Computer power supply must keep
    outputting voltage while no power is incoming - while UPS is
    trying to decide that power is lost. No problem IF a power
    supply contains functions that were defacto 30 years ago AND
    that are required in Intel specs. But again, just another
    reason why intermittent power loss should not cause damage.

    UPS claims no protection from the typically destructive
    surges. If it did, then numbers could be provided for that
    specification. Anything that provides protection at a
    computer is already inside that computer. The plug-in UPS can
    even give lightning other destructive paths through the
    computer. Yes, an adjacent UPS could even contribute to
    hardware damage of adjacent electronics. Instead, the plug-in
    UPS manufacturer provided no numerical specs for each type of
    transient AND avoids all discussion about earthing. Plug-in
    UPS provides no effective hardware protection when the
    manufacturer does not even provide numerical specs for that
    ability.

    Another function that is already in a minimally acceptable
    power supply. When line voltage dips so low that incandescent
    bulbs are less than 40% intensity: even Intel specs state the
    power supply under full load must startup and run as if line
    voltage was normal. IOW a UPS for moderate voltage sags is
    sometimes a cure for a defective power supply. That is but
    another reason why a minimally acceptable power supply retails
    for $65. Also why those who buy $25 power supply suddenly
    discover they need the plug-in UPS.

    Bottom line - the plug-in UPS is only for data protection.
    Hardware protection is located elsewhere such as inside a
    minimally acceptable power supply, and in the 'whole house'
    protection system.

    How resilient are computers? Well this plug-in 120 volt UPS
    in battery backup mode outputs two 200 volt square waves with
    a 270 volt spike while under minimum load. Is that 270 volt
    spike, et al destructive? Yes, it can be destructive to some
    small electric motors. But this UPS is 'computer grade'.
    That means UPS is for devices that are more resilient - such
    as computers. Where is the transient protection? Inside the
    power supply so that even a UPS in battery backup mode will
    not damage the computer.

    Leythos wrote:
    > I agree and have to point out one thing here in case people become
    > confused: In most homes the typical problem is cause by loss of power
    > for any length of time - this causes the computer to reset in the middle
    > of anything it was/is doing. This is more likely to happen than a spike
    > or sag in line power. A UPS, even a cheap 750VA unit, will protect your
    > computer from power outages, sags and some increases in line voltage
    > that happen within the amount of time that the unit can respond.
    >
    > If you want lightning protection you're looking at something other than
    > a home user UPS. If you combine lightning protection at the breaker
    > panel (where this is a good earth ground - at least there's suppose to
    > be one) with a home user UPS, then you've got the protection you need
    > for about 99% of anything you will run into.
    >
    > I have a lot of APC Smart-UPS 2200VA units around the country and love
    > them, but at $800 they are not something that most home users are going
    > to buy.
    >
    > The short of this discussion is that the small UPS units people purchase
    > for their home computers are not likely to protect them or survive a
    > lightning surge, but, since those are rare for most of us, the UPS will
    > save you when the power sags, surges, or goes out completely - which is
    > much more likely to happen.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Consult industry professionals: if a center conductor
    connects to coax shield using an MOV, well, MOVs have too much
    capacitance. They would short out (attenuate) high frequency
    signals. Even the telco protector does not use MOVs due to
    too much capacitance on lower frequency phone lines.

    First, MOV shorting center conductor to coax shield is
    enough to suspect insufficient technical knowledge. MOV
    capacitance and impedance problems created by that capacitance
    are well understood - which is why MOVs are not acceptable for
    CATV, DSL, ISDN, satellite receivers, etc.

    Second, leakages from the center conductor to shield means
    that the destructive surge - if surge even gets to the center
    conductor - is leaked to shield and earthed by the ground
    block.

    Again, earth ground - not a surge protector - defines the
    quality and effectiveness of protection. Problem with being
    'sadly mislead' is that I know why that MOV cannot be located
    as was posted.

    WoofWoof wrote:
    > I think you'll find - if you check really carefully - that the
    > grounding block merely ensures that the incoming cable ground
    > connection is, in fact, connected to a good ground close to it's final
    > destination.
    >
    > Surge protectors otoh make sure that the *signal* (or hot wire in the
    > case of AC cables) can short rapidly to ground in the event of an
    > over-voltage. It's done by connecting a MOV (metal oxide varistor)
    > from signal/hot to ground. At normal operating voltages, this device
    > is an open-circuit but in the case of a voltage surge rapidly
    > transforms to a short-circuit shunting the surge to ground.
    >
    > Having a decent ground alone helps but if you think the grounding
    > block you refer to means your CATV is "fully" surge protected, you are
    > sadly mislead.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
    national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
    correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
    inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
    10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
    if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
    is earthed correctly?

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:28:21 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Plug in protectors claim to protect from one type of surge.
    >Do some punching. As one arm swings out, the other
    >withdrawals. That 1-2 punching is an example of a surge that
    >typically does not do damage. Now instead punch with both
    >left and right arms simultaneously. That is the common mode
    >surge that typically damages electronics.
    >
    > Lightning seeks earth ground. It comes down any and all
    >'arms', passes through punching bag, and exits out other side
    >of punching bag. The plug-in protector does not stop, block,
    >or absorb such destructive surges. IOW it does not sit
    >between surge and the electronics - even though they hope you
    >will assume that. And effective protector connects earlier
    >where wires enter the building so that the 'surge down all
    >wires simultaneously' all find the same earth ground.
    >
    > Lightning in 1752 found earth ground destructively via a
    >church steeple. Franklin simply gave lightning a better path
    >to earth. Lightning is the 'all arms moving forward at the
    >same time" type of surge. You don't stop, block, or filter
    >what miles of sky could not even stop. You 'shunt' lightning
    >to earth ground. That is also what the 'whole house'
    >protector does. It provides lightning with a short path to
    >earth ground.
    >
    > You are surprised how small the Cutler Hammer unit is. It
    >need not be large because it does not stop, block, or absorb
    >the energy. Wire is also not massive because it too carry
    >massive electrical energy and does not try to stop or block
    >it. A surge protector is nothing more than a wire. A wire
    >that conducts only during the rare and short transient. It
    >can be small because the transient is only in microseconds.
    >
    > In a parallel example, try to push a common nail into wood.
    >You cannot. It takes the force of a backhoe to drive that
    >nail. However, we hit that nail with only a 20 oz hammer.
    >Does the human arm have same energy as the backhoe? Of course
    >not. People often confuse energy with power. The hammer has
    >low energy but high power. Lightning has low energy but high
    >power. The protector need not be monstrous because 1) it does
    >not stop or absorb the energy, and 2) the energy is not as
    >massive as urban myths portray. Too many only 'feel' that a
    >lightning strike is high energy.
    >
    > The electrical circuit is best demonstrated by an NIST
    >figure used in an example from:
    > http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
    >They demonstrate why a fax machine was damaged. Notice that
    >the phone line was not 'earthed' less than 10 feet to the same
    >single point ground as AC electric. Telephone line protector
    >is inside the box labeled NID.
    >
    > The 'whole house' protector is located where 'Arrestor' is
    >labeled. Notice that the destructive surge goes through
    >Arrestor, then to earth ground. Since it need not pass
    >through fax machine to get earth ground, then an AC electric
    >surge does not damage fax machine.
    >
    > All electronic appliances contain effective protection.
    >Anything that is going to work on the end of a power cord
    >(those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors) is already
    >inside electronics - as even required by industry standards.
    >But we worry that internal electronics protection might be
    >overwhelmed. So we install a 'whole house' protector on every
    >incoming utility wire - to same earth ground.
    >
    > Demonstrated in various posts is the AC electric 'whole
    >house' protector (such as the Cutler Hammer), the telco
    >provided protector, and a ground block for cable wire (no
    >protector required). All are only as effective as that earth
    >ground.
    >
    > Now about earthing. Engineered discussed this in two
    >discussions in the newsgroup misc.rural entitled:
    > Storm and Lightning damage in the country 28 Jul 2002
    > Lightning Nightmares!! 10 Aug 2002
    > http://tinyurl.com/ghgv and http://tinyurl.com/ghgm
    >
    > Depending on the problem with transients, the earth ground
    >may need be enhanced. Important is the neighborhood history.
    >Also important is the geology. Does the ground tend to
    >attract more CG lightning? For example, mid-west storms may
    >be spectacular, but most of the lightning remains sky to sky.
    >WV is a region with high numbers of CG (cloud to ground)
    >strikes per thunderstorm.
    >
    > Those discussions also mention equipotential which is why
    >Ufer grounds and halo grounds make the protector even more
    >effective.
    >
    > Also is earth conductive or is it sand. I believe that
    >previous discussion also tells a story of a house struck
    >multiple times - and lightning rods did not work. Why?
    >Lightning rods were earthed poorly in non-conductive sand.
    >Bottom line - a surge protector is only as effective as its
    >earth ground. In most locations, a single ground rod may
    >provide massive increase in protection. A house that does not
    >at least meet post 1990 National Electrical Code earthing
    >requirements does not have the necessary earth ground.
    >
    > Also in that misc.rural discussion would be how wire must be
    >routed. For example, no sharp bends and no splices. A ground
    >wire bundled with other wires may only induce more surges on
    >that other wire (which is but another reason why plug-in
    >protectors have no effective earth ground).
    >
    > There is much to read. Come back with questions. The
    >simple earthing of surges is surprisingly not intuitively
    >obvious. In discussing this, I was amazed how many don't even
    >know what a Ben Franklin air terminal (lightning rod) does -
    >AND yet would recommend surge protectors. Many even argue
    >pointed verse blunt lighting rods - when earth ground defines
    >the effectiveness of that rod. A surge protector is only as
    >effective as its earth ground.
    snip
    Ron
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <mcvgu0dior622r32ck274dablqgpkqfqba@4ax.com>,
    millerdot90@osu.edu wrote:

    > My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
    > national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
    > correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
    > inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
    > 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
    > if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
    > is earthed correctly?

    Try searching on "National Electrical Code", grounding, lightning
    as search terms. I found an article here:

    http://bg.ecmweb.com/ar/electric_combating_lightning_florida/

    "He measured the ground resistance of the system using a
    fall-of-potential meter, gathering a reading of 105 ohms.
    Though it was high, it wasn't unusual in that part of Florida,
    despite the area's high water table."

    "The NEC allows for a maximum resistance of 25 ohms at the
    grounding electrode (250.56)."

    Just what I found in a five minute search. As that article
    notes, ground depends on local geology, so practice could be
    different between regions of the country. (More rods, different
    depth, etc.)

    When I searched on "fall-of-potential meter", it turned out
    someone made the term up, as there were few hits on that
    exact phrase. This article describes the method used:

    http://ceenews.com/mag/electric_quick_primer_grounding/

    "The most reliable post-installation testing procedure involves
    the Fall-of-Potential (three point) method. Utilizing a digital
    ground resistance meter, two auxiliary electrodes are driven into
    the soil at predetermined distances as per testing specifications
    in a straight line from the ground rod under test. The meter
    supplies a constant current between the ground rod under test
    and the most remote electrode."

    Sounds pretty hokey to me. That article at least contains terms
    that you could use to query a contractor.

    Paul
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    A ten foot rod with a less than ten foot connection to each
    utility provides a major protection improvement. To get
    additional but lesser improvements, the grounding system gets
    exponentially larger and expensive. High reliability systems
    can spend $thousands just to get a minor increase in earthing.

    The ten foot rod is often more than sufficient. However
    earth geology itself can be a major determining factor. For
    example, clay can be an excellent earthing material. Sand can
    be horrendous. And as the 'house with lightning rods' failure
    story demonstrated, if something else in the house makes a
    connection to more conductive (deeper) geology, then the
    single point earthing can be compromised. To understand
    earthing, understand your geology.

    If the house has a water well, this can make a complication
    that is firstmost solved by routing the water and power lines
    in at the same single point service entrance. Will the surge
    use your single point ground or will it cross the house to get
    to water well? Later could result in household appliance
    damage AND a damaged well pump.

    Other factors may make surges problematic such as being at
    the end of a street and therefore at the end of an AC electric
    distribution line. Is that a vein of copper, graphite, or
    iron nearby? Those too could compromise an earthing system
    that is on the wrong side of the house - farthest from that
    most conductive earth.

    As noted, if we built new homes as if the transistor
    existed, then rebar to reinforce footings are connected to
    become the earthing system. An Ufer ground that surrounds the
    building both makes a most superior ground AND makes earth
    beneath that building equipotential. We would do this to
    every building if we really were serious about surge
    protection. Costs so little. Does so much.

    To improve their earthing system, some bury a bare copper
    ground wire around the building. This halo ground both makes
    earthing more conductive AND again makes earth beneath the
    building equipotential:
    http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

    Another example of everything that could be done in a cell
    phone tower site is the figure on page 14 of:
    http://www.leminstruments.com/pdf/LEGP.pdf or
    the section entitled "Measuring Ground Resistance at Cellular
    Sites,Microwave and Radio Towers" in:

    http://leminstruments.com/grounding_tutorial/html/index.shtml

    Lem Instruments makes equipment to measure earthing - for
    those who are serious. You need not get so extreme because
    you don't need the reliability of a power company or a
    telephone switching station.

    Above are ideas. Implement any of these ideas if easy.
    Outside of anomalies such as a vein of buried iron or unusual
    number of strikes in your neighborhood, then a single 10 foot
    ground rod (or rods) is often more than enough earthing to
    eliminate problems from most direct strikes.

    Should you feel more is needed, then expand a single point
    ground with more 10 foot ground rods. NEC notes how far apart
    those rods must be. Best to interconnect those rods with
    buried ground wires - again per code requirement for wire size
    and depth. Interconnecting wire supplements - makes that
    network of ground rods even better. Better to make those
    below surface rod connections inside a 4 or 6" plastic pipe
    with a cover so that the below ground rod connection can be
    uncovered and inspected.

    All this is the secondary protection system. You should
    also inspect your primary protection system:
    http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

    Yes there is much you can do. But again, what is the
    neighborhood history?

    Don't remember if those previous posts included application
    notes from erico.com. Their figure and application note 002
    makes another point. Surges are carried into the building
    even on buried cables. Even buried cables must make a
    connection to single point earth ground before entering the
    building.

    One thing I have seen is some electricians cut the ground
    rod in half. Too short. That rod must be at least 8 feet
    down (because the first couple of feet really is not good
    earthing) AND must remain firm in ground. If you can shake a
    ground rod, then it is not electrically connected to earth.

    Yes it is an art - as to what is good enough. Complicating
    is that earthing measurements are only in resistance. Surges
    are really more concern with impedance - due to higher
    frequencies. So yes, a lower resistance can mean a better
    impedance - most of the time. The art. But as I said, most
    have more than sufficient earthing with one earth ground rod
    in good conductive soil and a very short connection to every
    incoming utility.

    Inspectors don't verify any of this. Inspector are concerned
    with human safety. You also want transistor safety. Both use
    many of the same components. But both have slightly different
    needs - as that discussion in misc.rural should demonstrate.

    Milleron wrote:
    > My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
    > national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
    > correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
    > inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
    > 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
    > if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
    > is earthed correctly?
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <41E86DCF.964F9664@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
    > Power loss will not damage hardware. 'Power loss causes
    > damage' is often suggested without underlying technical fact.
    > Why? Underlying facts were never learned.

    I don't believe I said ANYTHING about HARDWARE DAMAGE. I said the
    following:

    > > In most homes the typical problem is cause by loss of power
    > > for any length of time - this causes the computer to reset in the middle
    > > of anything it was/is doing. This is more likely to happen than a spike
    > > or sag in line power. A UPS, even a cheap 750VA unit, will protect your
    > > computer from power outages, sags and some increases in line voltage
    > > that happen within the amount of time that the unit can respond.

    Notice that I said "typical PROBLEM is caused by loss of power" - this
    has nothing to do with hardware, more the corruption of data on
    hardware, etc...

    If you loose power for 1 second, 50 times in a row, the inductive
    reaction cause by that cycle could blow the internal fuse on the power
    supply, same for a TV or VCR or other electronic hardware that might be
    sensitive.

    This was a common problem in Mexico City for years, a simple UPS (more
    of a battery backup) would prevent brown-out issues and power loss
    issues.

    There is a lot more to this thread than just failing to kill a surge,
    which is highly less likely to happen to people than a power outage or
    power outages.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <mcvgu0dior622r32ck274dablqgpkqfqba@4ax.com>, millerdot90
    @SPAMlessosu.edu says...
    > My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
    > national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
    > correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
    > inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
    > 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
    > if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
    > is earthed correctly?

    Hire a Electrical Engineer with a P.E. in your area to test it.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:23:43 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > What you describe as describe as "all SPSes include at least
    >as much separate surge protection on the mains supply line as
    >a decent standalone surge protector would provide;" is really
    >near zero protection for numerous reasons. Both the plug-in
    >UPS and power strip protector have the same protector
    >circuit. And both are typically so grossly undersized to be
    >ineffective. Always start with the numbers. In this case
    >joules.

    Unless you live in an area with frequent major thunderstorms, your
    surge protector will mainly be blocking the much smaller surges and
    spikes on the power line caused by local appliances starting and
    stopping. If you have a lighting strike near enough to damage
    unprotected equipment in your house, you may anyway want to replace
    your surge protectors (or surge-protector containing SPSes), for some
    of the reasons you imply - you can do that quite frequently for the
    cost of one good enough not to need replacing!

    >
    > In another post and in those previously cited posts are
    >examples of how joules define protection. Notice that so many
    >plug-in protectors AND their plug-in UPS counterparts may be
    >rated at 345 joules. As joules increase, the life expectancy
    >of that protector increases exponentially. IOW if the plug-in
    >protector is good for two same size surges, then the 1000
    >joule 'whole house' protector is good for something on the
    >order of 300 of those same size surges.

    See above.
    >
    > Then it continues farther. The plug-in protector has no
    >earth ground. Therefore the manufacturer avoids the entire
    >topic altogether. This is how one identified ineffective (and
    >grossly overpriced - yes grossly overpriced) plug-in
    >protectors. 1) No dedicated wire connection to earth ground
    >AND 2) manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.

    I live in England - all power circuits installed in the last 40 or 50
    years here are wired with a separate earth ground, and all half-way
    decent UK surge protectors will shunt common-mode surges to this
    ground. I must admit that I had forgotten that this (wired grounds to
    every power point) "aint necessarily so" in the rest of the world.

    >
    > Further details will be provided in response to Milleron.
    >But the plug-in protectors are on the order of 10 and 50 times
    >more expensive per protected appliance. So yes, what you are
    >calling cheap protectors are really overpriced and expensive
    >protectors that also are not effective.
    >
    > BTW, UPSes switch in milliseconds. (One must be careful to
    >buy power supplies with numerical specs that read: Hold up
    >time, full load: 16ms. typical). Surges do their damage and
    >are done in microseconds. 300 consecutive surges could pass
    >through a UPS before the UPS even considered switching to
    >battery power. Plug-in UPSes have one function - data
    >protection. They do not provide the hardware protection so
    >often implied.

    I think that it was perfectly clear from my earlier response that I
    did not believe that _the_ _SPS_ _component_ of a cheap "UPS" provided
    any surge or spike protection.

    >
    > You want a UPS that also provides hardware protection? That
    >is typically the building wide UPS that also makes this all so
    >important 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground.
    >Plug-in UPSes are for data protection; not for hardware
    >protection.

    I stand by my original statement, though with the proviso that plug-in
    surge protectors, to be reasonably effective, must have a separate
    wired ground connection (which can be, and in the UK usually will be,
    a connection to a properly wired ground circuit in the house wiring),
    and must shunt common mode spikes to it. If your
    system/application/business is so critical that you want a guarantee
    of 24/7 operation through any reasonably conceivable electrical storm,
    then the sort of approach to power protection that you advocate makes
    perfect sense, but most people are not in that position. As I think
    you or someone else says elsewhere, hardware can be replaced at finite
    (and often quite low) cost - lost data may be irreplaceable, and
    can't always be backed up to the minute. Relatively cheap UPSes
    provide a very high level of data protection gainst brownouts and
    power outages and (by virtue of their separate surge protection
    circuitry) a significant, though incomplete, level of hardware
    protection from the effects of "normally" dirty power. I would be very
    concerned if someone read your posts and concluded that, if (s)he
    can't afford to spend $1,000+ on whole-house power protection, (s)he
    should not bother with anything less.

    >
    >"Peter R. Fletcher" wrote:
    >> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:50:06 -0500, nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote:
    >>>......
    >>> wiring exposure to just the power lines. A real (>$1K purchase
    >>> price) UPS would reduce the risk of an AC power event from
    >>> getting you, and would help protect the PSU from getting
    >>> damaged. Cheap UPSes offer no protection at all, as they are
    >>> actually SPS (standby power supplies) - they are a "straight wire"
    >>> to power spikes, and the unit only cuts over to batteries if
    >>> the AC power dies for enough milliseconds.
    >>
    >> I think that you are being unduly negative about cheap "UPSes". You
    >> are absolutely correct that they are not true UPSes, since:
    >> a) they normally connect the mains power (effectively) straight
    >> through to the controlled devices, thus offering no _intrinsic_
    >> protection from spikes; and
    >> b) they have to switch to inverter mode when the power fails, which
    >> takes finite time.
    >> However:
    >> a) almost all SPSes include at least as much separate surge protection
    >> on the mains supply line as a decent standalone surge protector would
    >> provide; and
    >> b) All except the cheapest, no-name, ones switch fast enough so that a
    >> normal computer system power supply does not "notice" the transient
    >> power loss (though network switches, hubs, and the like may "glitch").
    >> For most home and SOHO users, an SPS will provide cost-effective
    >> protection against most of the data loss problems which might
    >> otherwise be caused by brownouts and/or power outages, while their
    >> built in (but unrelated) surge protection circuitry is a _lot_ better
    >> than nothing as insurance against damage from power line spikes.
    >>
    >> Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
    >> Peter R. Fletcher


    Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
    Peter R. Fletcher
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <bjshu0pb2vlbk3rsjhd3ru1aletdgjmbc7@4ax.com>, Peter R.
    Fletcher <pfletch(at)fletchers(hyphen)uk.com> says...
    > I live in England - all power circuits installed in the last 40 or 50
    > years here are wired with a separate earth ground, and all half-way
    > decent UK surge protectors will shunt common-mode surges to this
    > ground. I must admit that I had forgotten that this (wired grounds to
    > every power point) "aint necessarily so" in the rest of the world.

    My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
    rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
    outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
    prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.

    I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
    don't protect their electronics.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    No no tell us how you make sure ground loops don't occur in a large multi
    floor building with literally hundreds of power consuming devices at a real
    reasonable cost.

    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41E86889.786A8710@hotmail.com...
    > Ground loops is why surge protection must be the single
    > point ground. Problems created by ground loop (the damaged
    > fax machine) is demonstrated by the NIST figure and previously
    > cited discussion in:
    > http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
    >
    > Which would you believe? Lies promoted by half truths on
    > retail store shelves? Or fact demonstrated by telephone and
    > 911 emergency operators who never need remove headsets during
    > every lightning storm. Effective protection is demonstrated by
    > telephone switching computers that connect to overhead wires
    > everywhere in town. Its not called faith. Its called facts.
    > 1) Demonstrated by theory and 2) proven by example virtually
    > everywhere in the civilized world.
    >
    > Posted was well understood and repeatedly proven even before
    > WWII. One classic myths is that surge protectors operate too
    > slow. Even the GDTs that routinely provided surge protection
    > before WWII and that were much slower were also fast enough
    > for surge protection. These are facts know to those who
    > understood how surge protectors work. 'Surge protector works
    > too slow' is but another myth. Obviously a myth because it is
    > routinely promoted without numbers. One must believe such
    > myths only on faith.
    >
    > notritenoteri wrote:
    > > Are you selling lightening protection? You have so much faith. Tell
    > > us about ground loops.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    If I were you I'd be worrying more about the state of the power company's
    feed. If you live in a fairly new development say less tha 10 years old its
    likley to be in pretty good shape. WHere you might have an issue with
    grounding and the general state of the power grid is on an old
    neighbourhood. What no one has mentioned is that grounding rods etc
    eventually corrode.
    BAck up your data. In my opinion you're worrying about the wrong stuff. I've
    had a PC at home since the Apple II and never had power surge or brown out
    problems. I've been wiped out by data loss though because I don't practice
    what I preach and I was in the Data centre business.
    "Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
    news:mcvgu0dior622r32ck274dablqgpkqfqba@4ax.com...
    > My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
    > national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
    > correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
    > inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
    > 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
    > if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
    > is earthed correctly?
    >
    > On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:28:21 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Plug in protectors claim to protect from one type of surge.
    > >Do some punching. As one arm swings out, the other
    > >withdrawals. That 1-2 punching is an example of a surge that
    > >typically does not do damage. Now instead punch with both
    > >left and right arms simultaneously. That is the common mode
    > >surge that typically damages electronics.
    > >
    > > Lightning seeks earth ground. It comes down any and all
    > >'arms', passes through punching bag, and exits out other side
    > >of punching bag. The plug-in protector does not stop, block,
    > >or absorb such destructive surges. IOW it does not sit
    > >between surge and the electronics - even though they hope you
    > >will assume that. And effective protector connects earlier
    > >where wires enter the building so that the 'surge down all
    > >wires simultaneously' all find the same earth ground.
    > >
    > > Lightning in 1752 found earth ground destructively via a
    > >church steeple. Franklin simply gave lightning a better path
    > >to earth. Lightning is the 'all arms moving forward at the
    > >same time" type of surge. You don't stop, block, or filter
    > >what miles of sky could not even stop. You 'shunt' lightning
    > >to earth ground. That is also what the 'whole house'
    > >protector does. It provides lightning with a short path to
    > >earth ground.
    > >
    > > You are surprised how small the Cutler Hammer unit is. It
    > >need not be large because it does not stop, block, or absorb
    > >the energy. Wire is also not massive because it too carry
    > >massive electrical energy and does not try to stop or block
    > >it. A surge protector is nothing more than a wire. A wire
    > >that conducts only during the rare and short transient. It
    > >can be small because the transient is only in microseconds.
    > >
    > > In a parallel example, try to push a common nail into wood.
    > >You cannot. It takes the force of a backhoe to drive that
    > >nail. However, we hit that nail with only a 20 oz hammer.
    > >Does the human arm have same energy as the backhoe? Of course
    > >not. People often confuse energy with power. The hammer has
    > >low energy but high power. Lightning has low energy but high
    > >power. The protector need not be monstrous because 1) it does
    > >not stop or absorb the energy, and 2) the energy is not as
    > >massive as urban myths portray. Too many only 'feel' that a
    > >lightning strike is high energy.
    > >
    > > The electrical circuit is best demonstrated by an NIST
    > >figure used in an example from:
    > > http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
    > >They demonstrate why a fax machine was damaged. Notice that
    > >the phone line was not 'earthed' less than 10 feet to the same
    > >single point ground as AC electric. Telephone line protector
    > >is inside the box labeled NID.
    > >
    > > The 'whole house' protector is located where 'Arrestor' is
    > >labeled. Notice that the destructive surge goes through
    > >Arrestor, then to earth ground. Since it need not pass
    > >through fax machine to get earth ground, then an AC electric
    > >surge does not damage fax machine.
    > >
    > > All electronic appliances contain effective protection.
    > >Anything that is going to work on the end of a power cord
    > >(those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors) is already
    > >inside electronics - as even required by industry standards.
    > >But we worry that internal electronics protection might be
    > >overwhelmed. So we install a 'whole house' protector on every
    > >incoming utility wire - to same earth ground.
    > >
    > > Demonstrated in various posts is the AC electric 'whole
    > >house' protector (such as the Cutler Hammer), the telco
    > >provided protector, and a ground block for cable wire (no
    > >protector required). All are only as effective as that earth
    > >ground.
    > >
    > > Now about earthing. Engineered discussed this in two
    > >discussions in the newsgroup misc.rural entitled:
    > > Storm and Lightning damage in the country 28 Jul 2002
    > > Lightning Nightmares!! 10 Aug 2002
    > > http://tinyurl.com/ghgv and http://tinyurl.com/ghgm
    > >
    > > Depending on the problem with transients, the earth ground
    > >may need be enhanced. Important is the neighborhood history.
    > >Also important is the geology. Does the ground tend to
    > >attract more CG lightning? For example, mid-west storms may
    > >be spectacular, but most of the lightning remains sky to sky.
    > >WV is a region with high numbers of CG (cloud to ground)
    > >strikes per thunderstorm.
    > >
    > > Those discussions also mention equipotential which is why
    > >Ufer grounds and halo grounds make the protector even more
    > >effective.
    > >
    > > Also is earth conductive or is it sand. I believe that
    > >previous discussion also tells a story of a house struck
    > >multiple times - and lightning rods did not work. Why?
    > >Lightning rods were earthed poorly in non-conductive sand.
    > >Bottom line - a surge protector is only as effective as its
    > >earth ground. In most locations, a single ground rod may
    > >provide massive increase in protection. A house that does not
    > >at least meet post 1990 National Electrical Code earthing
    > >requirements does not have the necessary earth ground.
    > >
    > > Also in that misc.rural discussion would be how wire must be
    > >routed. For example, no sharp bends and no splices. A ground
    > >wire bundled with other wires may only induce more surges on
    > >that other wire (which is but another reason why plug-in
    > >protectors have no effective earth ground).
    > >
    > > There is much to read. Come back with questions. The
    > >simple earthing of surges is surprisingly not intuitively
    > >obvious. In discussing this, I was amazed how many don't even
    > >know what a Ben Franklin air terminal (lightning rod) does -
    > >AND yet would recommend surge protectors. Many even argue
    > >pointed verse blunt lighting rods - when earth ground defines
    > >the effectiveness of that rod. A surge protector is only as
    > >effective as its earth ground.
    > snip
    > Ron
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:54:14 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
    snip
    >
    > Other factors may make surges problematic such as being at
    >the end of a street and therefore at the end of an AC electric
    >distribution line. Is that a vein of copper, graphite, or
    >iron nearby? Those too could compromise an earthing system
    >that is on the wrong side of the house - farthest from that
    >most conductive earth.

    Interesting point about being the last house on the street. Several
    years ago, we had a nasty summer electrical storm in central Ohio that
    knocked out power to many homes and neighborhoods. We had no
    lightning real close to my house, but we lost power. We have
    underground wiring with transformers every so often. I'm sure it's
    exactly like overhead wires. At any rate the crew that came out
    pointed out that our transformer was the LAST one in a long chain.
    They thought the strike was distant and surged all the way to that
    point. It ruined our transformer (took 30 hours to replace it), but
    there was no damage at all in any of the houses that drew power from
    that particular transformer. What happened in this scenario? If the
    surge went to earth at that point, what killed the transformer without
    hurting any of the transformers farther up the line?

    snip
    Ron
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Lets assume a protector adjacent to a computer will earth a
    100 amp transient via that wall receptacle. Due to wire
    impedance, that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire (back to circuit
    breaker box) may be about 130 ohms impedance (not resistance -
    impedance). 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Will
    that 100 amp transient find earth ground via 13,000 volts of
    wire? Of course not. Those 100 amps will find other
    (destructive) paths to earth ground such as through a mouse
    wire touching the baseboard heat and via the computer's
    modem. Notice how a modem is damaged.

    Furthermore, if that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire is earthing a
    100 amp transient, then that ground wire induces transients on
    all adjacent wires. Now we have surges on other equipment
    thanks to that plug-in protector. Where is the protection?
    How does that 130 ohm impedance of wire create an earth ground
    AND not create induced transients?

    Wall receptacle does not provide an earth ground. Just
    another reason why the plug-in protector manufacturer fears to
    even discuss earthing. That wall receptacle (and plug-in
    protector) has all but no earth ground. And as we know even
    from pre-WWII GE and Westinghouse science papers - no earth
    ground means no effective protection.

    Wall receptacles provide 'safety' or 'equipment' ground.
    They are not 'earth ground' due to too much wire impedance.
    Wire impedance is a basic electrical concept that plug-in
    protector manufacturers hope you will not learn - to sell
    their ineffective, undersized, and overpriced product to the
    naive.

    Why must a 'whole house' protector make a 'less than 10
    foot' connection to earth ground? Why must earthing wire have
    no sharp bends and no splices and not be inside metallic
    conduit? Why must the earthing wire remain separated from
    other wires? Same reasons that a wall receptacle is not earth
    ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So
    plug-in manufacturers avoid the entire topic hoping others
    will promote myths. Leythos has promoted that myth: "Every
    outlet in the house has a earth ground ..."

    What does a ground fault indicator on that UPS report? It
    reports a defective safety ground. It cannot report a good
    safety ground. It can only report when the safety ground is
    defective. Furthermore, that UPS ground indicator says
    nothing - zero - about earth ground. But they hope others
    will confuse the word 'ground' with 'earth' to promote
    protector myths.

    Leythos wrote:
    > My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
    > rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
    > outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
    > prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.
    >
    > I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
    > don't protect their electronics.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    To understand a surge, one must first draw a complete
    electric circuit. Charges from a cloud may fall 4 kilometers
    to the east. Now a cloud must connect those cloud borne
    charges to earth borne charges. What, electrically, is the
    shortest path? 5 kilometers diagonally? Of course not. The
    shortest electrical path is 3 kilometers directly down to AC
    electric utility wires. Then 2 kilometers east through
    underground (or overhead) utility wires to the end of the
    block. Then through transformer (or household appliances)
    into earth. Then another 2 kilometers east through earth to
    those earth borne charges. Now we have a complete circuit.
    Anything that has both an incoming and outgoing path in that
    circuit may be damaged. Homes are the end of a utility
    distribution system may become an incoming and outgoing path
    in that circuit.

    Other transformers may have been an incoming path. But with
    no outgoing electrical path, those other transformers would
    suffer no damage. Some then assume lightning is capricious.
    Reality: those humans failed to first remember their
    elementary school science. Both incoming and outgoing path
    must exist to have electricity flow. Electricity of a
    destructive surge would only pass through the last
    transformer.

    Milleron wrote:
    > Interesting point about being the last house on the street. Several
    > years ago, we had a nasty summer electrical storm in central Ohio that
    > knocked out power to many homes and neighborhoods. We had no
    > lightning real close to my house, but we lost power. We have
    > underground wiring with transformers every so often. I'm sure it's
    > exactly like overhead wires. At any rate the crew that came out
    > pointed out that our transformer was the LAST one in a long chain.
    > They thought the strike was distant and surged all the way to that
    > point. It ruined our transformer (took 30 hours to replace it), but
    > there was no damage at all in any of the houses that drew power from
    > that particular transformer. What happened in this scenario? If the
    > surge went to earth at that point, what killed the transformer without
    > hurting any of the transformers farther up the line?
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    This whole discussion is turning into a big show-boat of technical
    knowledge. Somebody went to college I went to college too two degrees worth
    and I managed a university data centre for 17 years I've spent most of my
    career in the IT industry mostly in telecom and facilities management. I
    don't know bugger all, really. Anecdotal evidence, racial memories or
    whatever you want to call it suggest lightening and surges aren't a problem
    at least in my part of the world. What I do know is that in North America in
    Canada where I live which believe it or not has lightening storms even in
    January, lightening is a minor inconvenience with the standards that are in
    place. Interruption of service is an issue but a real UPS with the proper
    maintenance (both money issues not problems) will solve that.
    The big deal is loss of data. Whoever started this thread is worrying about
    the wrong thing in my opinion but hey that's what salesmen count on.


    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41EA272F.786FC2A4@hotmail.com...
    > Lets assume a protector adjacent to a computer will earth a
    > 100 amp transient via that wall receptacle. Due to wire
    > impedance, that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire (back to circuit
    > breaker box) may be about 130 ohms impedance (not resistance -
    > impedance). 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Will
    > that 100 amp transient find earth ground via 13,000 volts of
    > wire? Of course not. Those 100 amps will find other
    > (destructive) paths to earth ground such as through a mouse
    > wire touching the baseboard heat and via the computer's
    > modem. Notice how a modem is damaged.
    >
    > Furthermore, if that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire is earthing a
    > 100 amp transient, then that ground wire induces transients on
    > all adjacent wires. Now we have surges on other equipment
    > thanks to that plug-in protector. Where is the protection?
    > How does that 130 ohm impedance of wire create an earth ground
    > AND not create induced transients?
    >
    > Wall receptacle does not provide an earth ground. Just
    > another reason why the plug-in protector manufacturer fears to
    > even discuss earthing. That wall receptacle (and plug-in
    > protector) has all but no earth ground. And as we know even
    > from pre-WWII GE and Westinghouse science papers - no earth
    > ground means no effective protection.
    >
    > Wall receptacles provide 'safety' or 'equipment' ground.
    > They are not 'earth ground' due to too much wire impedance.
    > Wire impedance is a basic electrical concept that plug-in
    > protector manufacturers hope you will not learn - to sell
    > their ineffective, undersized, and overpriced product to the
    > naive.
    >
    > Why must a 'whole house' protector make a 'less than 10
    > foot' connection to earth ground? Why must earthing wire have
    > no sharp bends and no splices and not be inside metallic
    > conduit? Why must the earthing wire remain separated from
    > other wires? Same reasons that a wall receptacle is not earth
    > ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So
    > plug-in manufacturers avoid the entire topic hoping others
    > will promote myths. Leythos has promoted that myth: "Every
    > outlet in the house has a earth ground ..."
    >
    > What does a ground fault indicator on that UPS report? It
    > reports a defective safety ground. It cannot report a good
    > safety ground. It can only report when the safety ground is
    > defective. Furthermore, that UPS ground indicator says
    > nothing - zero - about earth ground. But they hope others
    > will confuse the word 'ground' with 'earth' to promote
    > protector myths.
    >
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
    > > rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
    > > outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
    > > prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.
    > >
    > > I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
    > > don't protect their electronics.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    How did the 100 amps get to the wall receptacle? Assuming that it came
    from outside, then, by exactly the same 'logic' that you are using, it
    should have been grounded through "other paths to earth ground" long
    before it got there. If lightning is going to strike your computer
    room, or even (probably) your house, under which circumstances your
    example might be more realistic, there is probably little you can do
    to save your hardware. If you calculate _instantaneous_ charge flow at
    a wall socket at the peak of a big, lightning-induced, transient, you
    may come up with tens or hundreds of amps as an answer, but it isn't
    really helpful or meaningful to use normal concepts of current flow in
    thinking about very short (microseconds) transients.

    In any event, no protective device will block 100% of a transient
    (true UPSes possible excepted, since they should totally disconnect
    the mains from the supplied device). The object of in-line surge
    suppressors is to provide a sufficiently low impedance path to ground
    for the peak of the transient that the power that gets through via the
    (typically much higher impedance) path through the protected equipment
    is not sufficient to do damage. It's like home security - the object
    there is not to make your house thief-proof, which is next to
    impossible, but to make it sufficiently challenging for the potential
    thief that (s)he will look elsewhere.

    On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:34:55 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Lets assume a protector adjacent to a computer will earth a
    >100 amp transient via that wall receptacle. Due to wire
    >impedance, that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire (back to circuit
    >breaker box) may be about 130 ohms impedance (not resistance -
    >impedance). 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Will
    >that 100 amp transient find earth ground via 13,000 volts of
    >wire? Of course not. Those 100 amps will find other
    >(destructive) paths to earth ground such as through a mouse
    >wire touching the baseboard heat and via the computer's
    >modem. Notice how a modem is damaged.
    >
    > Furthermore, if that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire is earthing a
    >100 amp transient, then that ground wire induces transients on
    >all adjacent wires. Now we have surges on other equipment
    >thanks to that plug-in protector. Where is the protection?
    >How does that 130 ohm impedance of wire create an earth ground
    >AND not create induced transients?
    >
    > Wall receptacle does not provide an earth ground. Just
    >another reason why the plug-in protector manufacturer fears to
    >even discuss earthing. That wall receptacle (and plug-in
    >protector) has all but no earth ground. And as we know even
    >from pre-WWII GE and Westinghouse science papers - no earth
    >ground means no effective protection.
    >
    > Wall receptacles provide 'safety' or 'equipment' ground.
    >They are not 'earth ground' due to too much wire impedance.
    >Wire impedance is a basic electrical concept that plug-in
    >protector manufacturers hope you will not learn - to sell
    >their ineffective, undersized, and overpriced product to the
    >naive.
    >
    > Why must a 'whole house' protector make a 'less than 10
    >foot' connection to earth ground? Why must earthing wire have
    >no sharp bends and no splices and not be inside metallic
    >conduit? Why must the earthing wire remain separated from
    >other wires? Same reasons that a wall receptacle is not earth
    >ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So
    >plug-in manufacturers avoid the entire topic hoping others
    >will promote myths. Leythos has promoted that myth: "Every
    >outlet in the house has a earth ground ..."
    >
    > What does a ground fault indicator on that UPS report? It
    >reports a defective safety ground. It cannot report a good
    >safety ground. It can only report when the safety ground is
    >defective. Furthermore, that UPS ground indicator says
    >nothing - zero - about earth ground. But they hope others
    >will confuse the word 'ground' with 'earth' to promote
    >protector myths.
    >
    >Leythos wrote:
    >> My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
    >> rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
    >> outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
    >> prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.
    >>
    >> I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
    >> don't protect their electronics.


    Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
    Peter R. Fletcher
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <SfuGd.834$P_3.5146@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
    caldasfire@hades.com says...
    > This whole discussion is turning into a big show-boat of technical
    > knowledge. Somebody went to college I went to college too two degrees worth
    > and I managed a university data centre for 17 years I've spent most of my
    > career in the IT industry mostly in telecom and facilities management. I
    > don't know bugger all, really. Anecdotal evidence, racial memories or
    > whatever you want to call it suggest lightening and surges aren't a problem
    > at least in my part of the world. What I do know is that in North America in
    > Canada where I live which believe it or not has lightening storms even in
    > January, lightening is a minor inconvenience with the standards that are in
    > place. Interruption of service is an issue but a real UPS with the proper
    > maintenance (both money issues not problems) will solve that.
    > The big deal is loss of data. [snip]

    I agree with the above, and I was pretty sure that I said the same thing
    - power loss is what we experience the most, and uncontrolled power loss
    does impact the life expectancy of the hardware systems.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    How does 100 amps get to a wall receptacle? Destructive
    transients are current sources. That means voltage will
    increase, as necessary, to maintain that 100 amps. If 100 amps
    into the protector and adjacent computer requires thousands of
    volts, then thousands of volts will be provided. However if
    something else closer makes the earth ground connection, then
    voltage need not increase to maintain 100 amps. Instead that
    closer computer, or TV, or modem becomes the destroyed
    appliance. If permitted inside a building, that surge will
    find some destructive path to earth ground via appliances.
    This is called a direct strike. Human failure is required to
    permit a surge inside the building.

    If lightning strikes your house - IOW strikes AC electric
    wires on a utility pole - AND if electronic damage occurs,
    then you (the human) are reason for that failure. Two
    reasons. 1) Because effective surge protection is available,
    so effective, and understood for so long. 2) Because
    effective surge protection is so inexpensive - tens of times
    less money per appliance compared to plug-in protectors.

    Don't post this myth: "no protective device will block 100%
    of a transient". Only mythical protectors block, stop, filter
    or absorb destructive transients. Effective protectors
    'shunt' surges. That means an effective protector is located
    at the service entrance AND connected 'less than 10 foot' to
    earth ground. So effective and so inexpensive that surge
    damage is considered unnecessary.

    You need not install such protection. No law requires it.
    But it is grossly irresponsible to tell others that no
    protector device will work. They worked just fine even before
    WWII, as even demonstrated in peer reviewed science papers.
    The Empire State Building is struck about 25 times per year.
    Where is all the FM and TV electronics damage?

    Why does a 'building wide' (real) UPS provide protection?
    UPS also does not stop, block or absorb surges. Again, those
    verbs would only promote myths. The 'real' UPS includes a
    'whole house' protector circuit. A UPS that does provide
    effective protection is also typically connected 'less than 10
    foot' to single point earth ground. Same principles apply.

    A protector adjacent to appliances does not provide
    effective protection, is typically undersized, and costs tens
    of times more money per protected appliance. How to identify
    the ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated earthing
    connection AND 2) it avoids all discussion about earthing.
    Two simple statements identify effective protection.

    How to install effective protection? Spend less money. Use
    well proven human knowledge. Earth before destructive
    transients can enter a building. Never think a surge
    protector will stop or block surges no matter how often that
    myth is promoted. A surge protector is only as effective as
    its earth ground.

    "Peter R. Fletcher" wrote:
    > How did the 100 amps get to the wall receptacle? Assuming that it came
    > from outside, then, by exactly the same 'logic' that you are using, it
    > should have been grounded through "other paths to earth ground" long
    > before it got there. If lightning is going to strike your computer
    > room, or even (probably) your house, under which circumstances your
    > example might be more realistic, there is probably little you can do
    > to save your hardware. If you calculate _instantaneous_ charge flow at
    > a wall socket at the peak of a big, lightning-induced, transient, you
    > may come up with tens or hundreds of amps as an answer, but it isn't
    > really helpful or meaningful to use normal concepts of current flow in
    > thinking about very short (microseconds) transients.
    >
    > In any event, no protective device will block 100% of a transient
    > (true UPSes possible excepted, since they should totally disconnect
    > the mains from the supplied device). The object of in-line surge
    > suppressors is to provide a sufficiently low impedance path to ground
    > for the peak of the transient that the power that gets through via the
    > (typically much higher impedance) path through the protected equipment
    > is not sufficient to do damage. It's like home security - the object
    > there is not to make your house thief-proof, which is next to
    > impossible, but to make it sufficiently challenging for the potential
    > thief that (s)he will look elsewhere.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    If power loss creates damage, then what electronic parts are
    damaged? To claim a blackout causes damage means failed
    electronic parts are identified. I do this. I learned by
    replacing parts AND tracing the destructive circuit to its
    source. Power loss damages computer hardware when a human
    buys defective hardware - often because he 'saved' money. An
    electrician temporarily disconnecting a neutral wire can also
    destroy electronics. Was that damage from the resulting
    blackout? No. Blackout was only another symptom of the
    failure. Too many only assume damage was created by the
    blackout only because damaged happened. This is how junk
    science reasoning gets promoted.

    Purpose of an adjacent UPS is as notritenoteri has posted:
    to protect data. A plug-in UPS contains same protector
    circuit found in power strip protectors. How do you know?
    The numbers. Review numbers on both that plug-in UPS and for
    power strip protector. What are both protector circuits rated
    in? Joules. Why? They both use the same protector
    circuit. Why is a plug-in UPS any better than a power strip
    protector? It is not. They both have the same protector
    circuit. IOW they both claim the same ineffective
    protection. Neither provides superior protection.

    You want 'data' protection? Install the UPS. You want
    'hardware' protection? Earth ground every incoming utility
    wire either by direct hardwire connection or via a surge
    protector. Some earthing connections are even required by
    electrical codes. Power loss does not damage hardware.
    Unfortunately much computer hardware purchased by computer
    assemblers is defective by design - as demonstrated by what is
    damaged.

    The original poster asked how to prolong an Asus
    motherboard. One solution starts with power supply
    selection. Many power supplies installed by computer
    assemblers are missing essential functions. Inferior supplies
    may even fail during power loss. Many essential power supply
    functions may exist only if the manufacturer includes a long
    list of numeric specs. Numbered specs are essential. But
    again, these numbers are too complex for those computer
    assemblers who instead may blame a blackout. No numeric
    specifications with that power supply? Then expect weird
    failures - such as damage created by a blackout or even Asus
    motherboard damage.

    Leythos wrote:
    > I agree with the above, and I was pretty sure that I said the same thing
    > - power loss is what we experience the most, and uncontrolled power loss
    > does impact the life expectancy of the hardware systems.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <41EACD73.16AD4339@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
    > If power loss creates damage, then what electronic parts are
    > damaged? To claim a blackout causes damage means failed
    > electronic parts are identified. I do this. I learned by
    > replacing parts AND tracing the destructive circuit to its
    > source. Power loss damages computer hardware when a human
    > buys defective hardware - often because he 'saved' money. An
    > electrician temporarily disconnecting a neutral wire can also
    > destroy electronics. Was that damage from the resulting
    > blackout? No. Blackout was only another symptom of the
    > failure. Too many only assume damage was created by the
    > blackout only because damaged happened. This is how junk
    > science reasoning gets promoted.

    You know, what it really comes down to is this: Like it or not, those
    crude devices you say have no merit, actually save people from data loss
    and hardware loss more times that I can count.

    Not every cheap PSU comes with a warning about cycling AC power source
    to many times or too frequently, in fact, I don't know of ANY PSU that
    comes with that warning.

    It's still a simple matter of experience in most cases a UPS
    (residential device connected to a line with ground) is going to be of
    more benefit that not having the device.

    When I was at the local computer store today I looked at every unit, all
    but one claimed joules protection level, most had ground fault
    indicators and reverse polarity indicators (meaning a swapped hot/neut).

    As a good example of how well a UPS works, we had a new client that had
    no UPS's in their buildings - not one and 70+ computers. On the average
    they required service related to power problems at least once a week (8
    buildings across the USA). After installing the UPS's at each device,
    there were no more power related service calls, not more lost data, and
    no more devices that were "broken" by storms. Even when other hardware
    in the buildings, not protected by a UPS was damaged, the computers
    protected by them were fine.

    So, you can list all the technical spec's, the NEC, and anything else
    you want, but the simple fact is that a UPS, even a cheap one, will pay
    for itself after the first power outage or other event where the systems
    survive.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
    a source of disagreement. Engineers first learn both the
    underlying theory of what happens AND also identify the
    failure at each individual component. It is the standard
    requirement of understanding the problem both theoretically
    and experimentally. That is called science. Sometimes a
    technician will see a failure, see that it coincided with an
    event, and the associate the two as same. And so we have this
    myth about power blackouts causing hardware problems.

    Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware.
    UPSes may be helpful for hardware protection WHEN that
    hardware is defective. One source of motherboard damage are
    power supplies that do not contain essential functions. Power
    supplies often purchased by computer assemblers who only
    understand one number - price. If a blackout or brownout
    causes hardware damage or other power related service calls,
    then the hardware was defective when purchased and installed
    by that shameful computer assembler.

    Some details. Just because a UPS has a joules rating does
    not mean it features protection. Basic technical knowledge
    would make that obvious. UPSes and power strip protectors
    both have joules ratings. IOW both provide same protection
    using same protector circuit. Both provide same ineffective
    protection for the same repeated reason using the same
    circuit.

    Power supplies have no warning about power cycling because
    power cycling is not a problem to properly designed power
    supplies. In the world of rumors, power cycling causes
    damage. Again, that can occur when hardware is missing
    essential functions that were common even 30 years ago. It is
    a problem created by bean counter mentalities who promote
    themselves as computer experts.

    You can blame problems on anything but the human. Its
    easy. The user would not know differently. And
    unfortunately, either do so many computer assemblers who never
    even learned basic functions of power supplies and UPSes. For
    example, the Ground Fault Indicator does not say anything
    about earth ground. Its function is not relevant to anything
    in this discussion. To test earth ground, the UPS would
    require a complete electric circuit through Earth ground.
    Where is the complete circuit through Earth ground? It does
    not exist - obviously it does not exist.

    That Ground Fault indicator only reports a defective SAFETY
    ground. Safety ground is different from earth ground even
    though both share some components. Furthermore, that Ground
    Fault Indicator cannot even report a good Safety ground. It
    can only report when the Safety ground is defective AND says
    absolutely nothing about Earth ground. But the Ground Fault
    Indicator can have technicians confusing Safety ground with
    Earth ground to promote the myths about hardware protection.

    A plug-in UPS is only for data protection. Hardware
    protection of the Asus motherboard is provided by things such
    as a 'whole house' protector AND by a power supply that
    actually meets Intel specs - requirements that were standard
    even 30 years ago. Many power supplies today do not even
    contain functions considered essential 30 years ago. That
    would explain hardware damage and other power related
    problems.

    Leythos wrote:
    > You know, what it really comes down to is this: Like it or not, those
    > crude devices you say have no merit, actually save people from data loss
    > and hardware loss more times that I can count.
    >
    > Not every cheap PSU comes with a warning about cycling AC power source
    > to many times or too frequently, in fact, I don't know of ANY PSU that
    > comes with that warning.
    >
    > It's still a simple matter of experience in most cases a UPS
    > (residential device connected to a line with ground) is going to be of
    > more benefit that not having the device.
    >
    > When I was at the local computer store today I looked at every unit, all
    > but one claimed joules protection level, most had ground fault
    > indicators and reverse polarity indicators (meaning a swapped hot/neut).
    >
    > As a good example of how well a UPS works, we had a new client that had
    > no UPS's in their buildings - not one and 70+ computers. On the average
    > they required service related to power problems at least once a week (8
    > buildings across the USA). After installing the UPS's at each device,
    > there were no more power related service calls, not more lost data, and
    > no more devices that were "broken" by storms. Even when other hardware
    > in the buildings, not protected by a UPS was damaged, the computers
    > protected by them were fine.
    >
    > So, you can list all the technical spec's, the NEC, and anything else
    > you want, but the simple fact is that a UPS, even a cheap one, will pay
    > for itself after the first power outage or other event where the systems
    > survive.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware." where is this
    axiom written? Science you say? More like junk science. This NG is full of
    people with problems that was caused by everything from bad design to the
    wind. How much practical experience have you had I'm curious. I obviously
    live on another planet where the techies are mostly concerned about fixing
    the problem. You tell me where I can get one of these power supplies that
    is guaranteed not to be responsible in any fashion whatsover for problems
    caused by blackouts or brown outs. I haven't heard of any but I don't know
    many of the answers in fact I don't know most of them. WHat an advertising
    advantage "we guarantee our power supplies are perfect in the event of
    blackouts or brownouts" .
    "w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com...
    > What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
    > a source of disagreement. Engineers first learn both the
    > underlying theory of what happens AND also identify the
    > failure at each individual component. It is the standard
    > requirement of understanding the problem both theoretically
    > and experimentally. That is called science. Sometimes a
    > technician will see a failure, see that it coincided with an
    > event, and the associate the two as same. And so we have this
    > myth about power blackouts causing hardware problems.
    >
    > Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware.
    > UPSes may be helpful for hardware protection WHEN that
    > hardware is defective. One source of motherboard damage are
    > power supplies that do not contain essential functions. Power
    > supplies often purchased by computer assemblers who only
    > understand one number - price. If a blackout or brownout
    > causes hardware damage or other power related service calls,
    > then the hardware was defective when purchased and installed
    > by that shameful computer assembler.
    >
    > Some details. Just because a UPS has a joules rating does
    > not mean it features protection. Basic technical knowledge
    > would make that obvious. UPSes and power strip protectors
    > both have joules ratings. IOW both provide same protection
    > using same protector circuit. Both provide same ineffective
    > protection for the same repeated reason using the same
    > circuit.
    >
    > Power supplies have no warning about power cycling because
    > power cycling is not a problem to properly designed power
    > supplies. In the world of rumors, power cycling causes
    > damage. Again, that can occur when hardware is missing
    > essential functions that were common even 30 years ago. It is
    > a problem created by bean counter mentalities who promote
    > themselves as computer experts.
    >
    > You can blame problems on anything but the human. Its
    > easy. The user would not know differently. And
    > unfortunately, either do so many computer assemblers who never
    > even learned basic functions of power supplies and UPSes. For
    > example, the Ground Fault Indicator does not say anything
    > about earth ground. Its function is not relevant to anything
    > in this discussion. To test earth ground, the UPS would
    > require a complete electric circuit through Earth ground.
    > Where is the complete circuit through Earth ground? It does
    > not exist - obviously it does not exist.
    >
    > That Ground Fault indicator only reports a defective SAFETY
    > ground. Safety ground is different from earth ground even
    > though both share some components. Furthermore, that Ground
    > Fault Indicator cannot even report a good Safety ground. It
    > can only report when the Safety ground is defective AND says
    > absolutely nothing about Earth ground. But the Ground Fault
    > Indicator can have technicians confusing Safety ground with
    > Earth ground to promote the myths about hardware protection.
    >
    > A plug-in UPS is only for data protection. Hardware
    > protection of the Asus motherboard is provided by things such
    > as a 'whole house' protector AND by a power supply that
    > actually meets Intel specs - requirements that were standard
    > even 30 years ago. Many power supplies today do not even
    > contain functions considered essential 30 years ago. That
    > would explain hardware damage and other power related
    > problems.
    >
    > Leythos wrote:
    > > You know, what it really comes down to is this: Like it or not, those
    > > crude devices you say have no merit, actually save people from data loss
    > > and hardware loss more times that I can count.
    > >
    > > Not every cheap PSU comes with a warning about cycling AC power source
    > > to many times or too frequently, in fact, I don't know of ANY PSU that
    > > comes with that warning.
    > >
    > > It's still a simple matter of experience in most cases a UPS
    > > (residential device connected to a line with ground) is going to be of
    > > more benefit that not having the device.
    > >
    > > When I was at the local computer store today I looked at every unit, all
    > > but one claimed joules protection level, most had ground fault
    > > indicators and reverse polarity indicators (meaning a swapped hot/neut).
    > >
    > > As a good example of how well a UPS works, we had a new client that had
    > > no UPS's in their buildings - not one and 70+ computers. On the average
    > > they required service related to power problems at least once a week (8
    > > buildings across the USA). After installing the UPS's at each device,
    > > there were no more power related service calls, not more lost data, and
    > > no more devices that were "broken" by storms. Even when other hardware
    > > in the buildings, not protected by a UPS was damaged, the computers
    > > protected by them were fine.
    > >
    > > So, you can list all the technical spec's, the NEC, and anything else
    > > you want, but the simple fact is that a UPS, even a cheap one, will pay
    > > for itself after the first power outage or other event where the systems
    > > survive.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Before cars had electronic ignitions, I built and installed
    one in my late 1960s model. And then wondered why Detroit
    could not do same. EPA regulations finally forced Detroit's
    bean counters to let the engineers design (even better). Is
    your experience (and theoretical training) anywhere near as
    comprehensive?

    Notice the difference between my posts and other. I keep
    insisting on and providing numbers. Numbers alone suggest
    underlying knowledge. No numbers suggests a poster has no
    knowledge and is probably rationalizing junk science. Numbers
    are a benchmark that should have made your question
    irrelevant. Since you did not recognize the significance of
    numbers, I better understand the breath and depth of your
    experience.

    How long can all power supply outputs be shorted before a
    power supply is destroyed? Knowing of functions that must be
    inside a power supply, then that answer is not only easy, but
    can be provided with relative numbers. Many computer people
    do not know that simple answer, would never understand why,
    and do not even know the simple 3 word phrase that summarizes
    that answer. But then one of my first jobs was design, debug,
    and manufacturer of power supplies. Ever have a large
    electrolytic capacitor explode in front of you? One supply
    was a hybrid of switching and linear circuits for analog
    operation. Of course, those with basic electrical knowledge
    would appreciate why. Just more background so that lurkers
    can appreciate which one here was posting technical facts and
    not urban myths.

    Again, more little facts that say, in no uncertain terms, my
    experience, training, and education are significant. If you
    did not know the above answers, then appreciate how much
    remains to be learned. I keep providing and referring to
    technical numbers that too many computer assemblers often
    don't know and will insist they need not know. Why? Many
    'computer experts' need only replace a silver box to prove
    their technical prowess. They don't even use a simple 3.5
    digit multimeter. The worst of them fix computers by
    shotgunning. They need not understand what happens inside
    that silver box. Then when other failures happen, they simply
    attach more boxes - such as a UPS. Then blame fictional
    excuses such as 'dirty' electricity or a mythical surge. Did
    they measure that problem? No. They just knew it must have
    existed - no numbers required.

    notritenoteri wrote:
    > "Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware." where
    > is this axiom written? Science you say? More like junk science.
    > This NG is full of people with problems that was caused by
    > everything from bad design to the wind. How much practical
    > experience have you had I'm curious. I obviously live on another
    > planet where the techies are mostly concerned about fixing
    > the problem. You tell me where I can get one of these power
    > supplies that is guaranteed not to be responsible in any
    > fashion whatsover for problems caused by blackouts or brown outs.
    > I haven't heard of any but I don't know many of the answers in fact
    > I don't know most of them. WHat an advertising advantage "we
    > guarantee our power supplies are perfect in the event of
    > blackouts or brownouts" .
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
    > What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
    > a source of disagreement.

    [snip]

    You win - but I'm still going to purchase, install, and use common UPS
    devices on all of our systems and clients systems because I can see the
    benefit of such devices each time there is a change in the AC line power
    being supplied to the building.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    If it raises your comfort level go for it. Remember UPS's are like cars they
    need maintenace, at a minimum a new battery every so often.
    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c55f02e82abd4db989f47@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article <41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
    > > What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
    > > a source of disagreement.
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > You win - but I'm still going to purchase, install, and use common UPS
    > devices on all of our systems and clients systems because I can see the
    > benefit of such devices each time there is a change in the AC line power
    > being supplied to the building.
    >
    > --
    > --
    > spamfree999@rrohio.com
    > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Use facts from cars to discuss a UPS. How long does that
    car battery last even in weather extremes? Six years? Nine
    years? Battery backup systems in high reliability buildings
    are surviving twenty years. So why does that plug-in UPS
    battery always in a perfect environment typically last only
    three years? Details may be found in technical concepts such
    as the battery recharge circuit. So how good is that plug-in
    UPS design? Serious battery backup or a disposable one?
    These quality questions would be understood by computer
    experts those with electrical knowledge. Just another
    function that should be inside the box. Is it? Or are they
    selling a UPS only on price?

    notritenoteri wrote:
    > If it raises your comfort level go for it. Remember UPS's are like
    > cars they need maintenace, at a minimum a new battery every so often.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <AwXGd.1026$P_3.5501@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
    caldasfire@hades.com says...
    > If it raises your comfort level go for it. Remember UPS's are like cars they
    > need maintenace, at a minimum a new battery every so often.

    From what I've read, I was working on these things before you were out
    of school, I'm more than aware that they need to have the batteries
    changed on scheduled intervals, more frequently if they are used
    frequently.

    And, again, it's not my comfort level that I'm raising, it's customer
    down-time and cost related to power problems.

    > "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1c55f02e82abd4db989f47@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > > In article <41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
    > > > What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
    > > > a source of disagreement.
    > >
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > > You win - but I'm still going to purchase, install, and use common UPS
    > > devices on all of our systems and clients systems because I can see the
    > > benefit of such devices each time there is a change in the AC line power
    > > being supplied to the building.
    > >
    > > --
    > > --
    > > spamfree999@rrohio.com
    > > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    >
    >
    >

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Computer Motherboards