Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lightning and computer?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
April 20, 2005 12:32:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.

One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never unplugged
her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector and
left everything plugged in.

Please give your opinion.

Thanks,
Susan

More about : lightning computer

Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:48:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Susan" <dsnsacree@msn.com> wrote in message news:eVSnT3aRFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
> that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
> protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
> computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.
>
> One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never unplugged
> her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector and
> left everything plugged in.
>
> Please give your opinion.

Better safe than sorry. Unplug everything, especially the computer,
and very definitely the phone line. You might as well unplug the
surge protector also to protect it too.

-- Bob Day
http://bobday.vze.com
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:48:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Lightning has more than enough electrical "potential" to jump the small gap
created when the switch in the surge protector is turned off. It depends
mostly upon whether the pole transformer you are connected to is properly
grounded. Even then, if the lightning strikes the wires in front of your
residence, you may still be taken down.

If it isn't plugged in - you are safe.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Susan" <dsnsacree@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eVSnT3aRFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
> that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
> protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
> computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.
>
> One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never
> unplugged
> her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector
> and
> left everything plugged in.
>
> Please give your opinion.
>
> Thanks,
> Susan
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 2:06:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <uh9$X#aRFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
Bob Day <bobday.nh@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Susan" <dsnsacree@msn.com> wrote in message news:eVSnT3aRFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
>> that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
>> protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
>> computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.
>>
>> One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never unplugged
>> her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector and
>> left everything plugged in.
>>
>> Please give your opinion.
>
>Better safe than sorry. Unplug everything, especially the computer,
>and very definitely the phone line. You might as well unplug the
>surge protector also to protect it too.
>
>-- Bob Day
>http://bobday.vze.com
>


get a small UPS that also filters you phone line and be happy. It
needs to be replaced every couple years.

Backup your system frequently. There 99 other things that will kill
your system just as dead. Don't fixate on lightning.

If you are in a steel frame highrise building with undeground power
and phone lines only a direct strike on your building will cause a
spike. If you are in a small building in the suburbs in Florida you
need to to take more care with surget protection and grounding.

You can't buy a real surge protector for less than $10. Anything
cheaper is just an extension cord. A real surge protector has a
limited lifetime if you are in lightning country. It will have an
idiot light to inform you when it's used up. The lmap on an extension
cord is just an on/off indicator.

You can get an electrician to install whole-house surge protection in
your electrical panel.



--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
April 20, 2005 9:02:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Susan" <dsnsacree@msn.com> wrote in message
news:eVSnT3aRFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
> that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
> protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
> computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.
>
> One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never
unplugged
> her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector
and
> left everything plugged in.
>
> Please give your opinion.
>
> Thanks,
> Susan
>
>

I worked for a company that was struck by lightning. The surge came in
through the phone line and took out all the computers, phones, fax machine,
and the laser printers.

best to unplug if you can!
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 9:58:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:02:13 +0100, Neil wrote:
>
> I worked for a company that was struck by lightning. The surge came in
> through the phone line and took out all the computers, phones, fax
> machine, and the laser printers.

It has a lot to do with things you may not control. In my area the
utilities are underground, we've never seen a static spike and seem to
only get drop-outs. About 6 blocks from here the lines are above ground
and I've talked with people that have lost appliances and other items
hooked only to the power lines.

When it comes to my computers (office or home), I install a quality APC
USP and filter the AC and Voice lines when used. I do not unplug anything
during storms and have never experienced a problem due to it.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
April 20, 2005 9:58:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:BLw9e.6664$0V2.5455@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com,
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:02:13 +0100, Neil wrote:
>>
>> I worked for a company that was struck by lightning. The surge came
>> in through the phone line and took out all the computers, phones, fax
>> machine, and the laser printers.
>
> It has a lot to do with things you may not control. In my area the
> utilities are underground, we've never seen a static spike and seem to
> only get drop-outs. About 6 blocks from here the lines are above
> ground and I've talked with people that have lost appliances and
> other items hooked only to the power lines.
>
> When it comes to my computers (office or home), I install a quality
> APC USP and filter the AC and Voice lines when used. I do not unplug
> anything during storms and have never experienced a problem due to it.

My home is well protected (I have to have it that way as I live on a
mountain with erratic power from the lines at best) and thus I never turn
anything off. In fact during lightning storms or the like I tend to sit here
still using the computer. The only time I'm not using the PC I'm either not
at home, the phone lines are out due to a snow storm, or I'm sleeping. Well,
okay, sometimes I eat and bathe but not then I'm not gone long enough to be
considered 'away' I guess. :) 

Assuming that you don't have these same measures in place it's best that you
unplug everything within reach that's important to you.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 12:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 10:06:51 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <uh9$X#aRFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>Bob Day <bobday.nh@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"Susan" <dsnsacree@msn.com> wrote in message news:eVSnT3aRFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
>>> that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
>>> protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
>>> computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.
>>>
>>> One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never unplugged
>>> her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector and
>>> left everything plugged in.
>>>
>>> Please give your opinion.
>>
>>Better safe than sorry. Unplug everything, especially the computer,
>>and very definitely the phone line. You might as well unplug the
>>surge protector also to protect it too.
>>
>>-- Bob Day
>>http://bobday.vze.com
>>
>
>
>get a small UPS that also filters you phone line and be happy. It
>needs to be replaced every couple years.

You don't need to replace the UPS every couple of years, just the
battery inside it.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 5:10:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:29:13 -0400, NobodyMan wrote:
>
>>get a small UPS that also filters you phone line and be happy. It needs
>>to be replaced every couple years.
>
> You don't need to replace the UPS every couple of years, just the
> battery inside it.

Quite true, but the cost of a new unit is often cheaper than the cost of a
battery - at least here in Ohio I can get a 900va UPS, new, for $65, and
the battery costs about that amount to replace.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 5:10:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <M3D9e.7036$0V2.5752@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:29:13 -0400, NobodyMan wrote:
>>
>>>get a small UPS that also filters you phone line and be happy. It needs
>>>to be replaced every couple years.
>>
>> You don't need to replace the UPS every couple of years, just the
>> battery inside it.
>
>Quite true, but the cost of a new unit is often cheaper than the cost of a
>battery - at least here in Ohio I can get a 900va UPS, new, for $65, and
>the battery costs about that amount to replace.
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>


And if you _are_ getting surges then the protective circuitry in looses
it's effectiveness.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 3:10:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:45 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> Effective protection: every incoming utility first connects
> short and direct to an earth ground either by direct hardwire (cable TV
> and satellite dish) or via a 'whole house' protector (telephone and AC
> electric). What is the one component that must be in every protection
> system? Single point earth ground. What is never even discussed by
> those who recommend that mythical UPS or power strip solution? Single
> point earth ground.

My house was built in 1972, it has a very nice, long, copper rod about 9"
from the wall of the house, driven into the earth, that rod connects to
the power panel earth ground bar, and that connection also connects to
incoming shields for Cable TV. As for the phones, they connect to a small
UPS at the incoming point to the house, which then go through the UPS to
the rest of the house.

Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was you,
but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person working with
sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with 20+ computers in
their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the hardware attached to
it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while my neighbors were not
protected.

You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but you
can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong about the
merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality earth ground
inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the same power system,
same wiring methods, and many experience outages, dips, surges, even
lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors that have lost devices
during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a UPS lost devices, the
ones that had a UPS during the same period, didn't lose any devices.

Now, before you go spouting your same old diatribe, explain how my
real-life experiences is false.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 3:10:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <dSL9e.7260$0V2.4440@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:45 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>>
>> Effective protection: every incoming utility first connects
>> short and direct to an earth ground either by direct hardwire (cable TV
>> and satellite dish) or via a 'whole house' protector (telephone and AC
>> electric). What is the one component that must be in every protection
>> system? Single point earth ground. What is never even discussed by
>> those who recommend that mythical UPS or power strip solution? Single
>> point earth ground.
>
>My house was built in 1972, it has a very nice, long, copper rod about 9"
>from the wall of the house, driven into the earth, that rod connects to
>the power panel earth ground bar, and that connection also connects to
>incoming shields for Cable TV. As for the phones, they connect to a small
>UPS at the incoming point to the house, which then go through the UPS to
>the rest of the house.
>
>Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was you,
>but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person working with
>sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with 20+ computers in
>their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the hardware attached to
>it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while my neighbors were not
>protected.
>
>You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but you
>can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong about the
>merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality earth ground
>inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the same power system,
>same wiring methods, and many experience outages, dips, surges, even
>lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors that have lost devices
>during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a UPS lost devices, the
>ones that had a UPS during the same period, didn't lose any devices.
>
>Now, before you go spouting your same old diatribe, explain how my
>real-life experiences is false.
>
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>


Well Said.

There are many things that can kill your PC just as dead as a
lightning strike, and not all power surges are caused by lightning.
Don't fixate on one threat. Full offsite backups are the only real
protection against lightning, or anything else.

A small UPS addresses so many potential risks properly that even if it
isn't the unachievable, theoretical perfect lightning protection you are
much better off for having one.

full house protection was mentioned in this thread (by me). I think
it's a good thing but it does not eliminate the need for a small UPS
on an important PC.

If your house takes a direct hit there _will_ be damage, even with the
ideal grounding system.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:01:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:29:15 -0400, Al Dykes wrote:
>
> In article <dSL9e.7260$0V2.4440@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, Leythos
> <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:44:45 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>>>
>>> Effective protection: every incoming utility first connects
>>> short and direct to an earth ground either by direct hardwire (cable
>>> TV and satellite dish) or via a 'whole house' protector (telephone and
>>> AC electric). What is the one component that must be in every
>>> protection system? Single point earth ground. What is never even
>>> discussed by those who recommend that mythical UPS or power strip
>>> solution? Single point earth ground.
>>
>>My house was built in 1972, it has a very nice, long, copper rod about
>>9" from the wall of the house, driven into the earth, that rod connects
>>to the power panel earth ground bar, and that connection also connects
>>to incoming shields for Cable TV. As for the phones, they connect to a
>>small UPS at the incoming point to the house, which then go through the
>>UPS to the rest of the house.
>>
>>Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was you,
>>but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person working
>>with sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with 20+
>>computers in their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the
>>hardware attached to it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while
>>my neighbors were not protected.
>>
>>You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but
>>you can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong
>>about the merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality earth
>>ground inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the same
>>power system, same wiring methods, and many experience outages, dips,
>>surges, even lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors that
>>have lost devices during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a UPS
>>lost devices, the ones that had a UPS during the same period, didn't
>>lose any devices.
>>
>>Now, before you go spouting your same old diatribe, explain how my
>>real-life experiences is false.
>>
>
> Well Said.
>
> There are many things that can kill your PC just as dead as a lightning
> strike, and not all power surges are caused by lightning. Don't fixate
> on one threat. Full offsite backups are the only real protection
> against lightning, or anything else.
>
> A small UPS addresses so many potential risks properly that even if it
> isn't the unachievable, theoretical perfect lightning protection you
> are much better off for having one.
>
> full house protection was mentioned in this thread (by me). I think it's
> a good thing but it does not eliminate the need for a small UPS on an
> important PC.
>
> If your house takes a direct hit there _will_ be damage, even with the
> ideal grounding system.

I can see it now, people following the chaps recommendations: Lets see
jimbob and his neighbor billybob want follow his direction so they
remember that he said to single point earth ground everything, so that
means we take this here #10 wire from that ground post and attach it to
the big shiny power bar in the electrical panel....zzzzzzzt, bang......
Hello, 911 Operator, what is your emergency....... :) 



--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 11:54:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

A UPS adjacent to that ten foot earth ground rod would
provide effective protection. Building wide UPSes typically
includes the 'whole house' protector. Protection not found
inside plug-in protectors. Somehow, these plug-in
manufacturers want you to believe that $100 item does what a
$5000 item does.

As any electrical engineer knows - wire impedance means
effective protector must make a short (ie 'less than 10 foot')
connection to the good earth ground. Real (building wide)
UPSes include such protection due to that short earthing
connection. The plug-in UPS does not even claim to provide
such protection.

Leythos wrote:
> My house was built in 1972, it has a very nice, long, copper rod about 9"
> from the wall of the house, driven into the earth, that rod connects to
> the power panel earth ground bar, and that connection also connects to
> incoming shields for Cable TV. As for the phones, they connect to a small
> UPS at the incoming point to the house, which then go through the UPS to
> the rest of the house.
>
> Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was you,
> but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person working with
> sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with 20+ computers in
> their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the hardware attached to
> it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while my neighbors were not
> protected.
>
> You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but you
> can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong about the
> merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality earth ground
> inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the same power system,
> same wiring methods, and many experience outages, dips, surges, even
> lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors that have lost devices
> during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a UPS lost devices, the
> ones that had a UPS during the same period, didn't lose any devices.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:15:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In message <dSL9e.7260$0V2.4440@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com> Leythos
<void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was you,
>but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person working with
>sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with 20+ computers in
>their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the hardware attached to
>it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while my neighbors were not
>protected.
>
>You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but you
>can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong about the
>merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality earth ground
>inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the same power system,
>same wiring methods, and many experience outages, dips, surges, even
>lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors that have lost devices
>during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a UPS lost devices, the
>ones that had a UPS during the same period, didn't lose any devices.
>
>Now, before you go spouting your same old diatribe, explain how my
>real-life experiences is false.

Simple: A quality consumer grade UPS won't stop a lightning strike.

However, a direct lightning strike isn't all that common for most of us,
especially if you live in an area with underground wiring and with trees
notably taller then your house (or anything else in the immediate area)
-- What is more likely is smaller dips and surges.

A high end consumer grade UPS will do an excellent job of absorbing
minor fluctuations, something a typical earth ground wouldn't even
pretend to do. Nor will an earth ground connector provide my server
room with an hour of uninterrupted power when the mains go out, suffer
brown outs, or spikes as power is restored.

It's not a matter of one or the other, you need both an earth ground as
well as effective surge protection on electronics, plus battery backup
if you want to continue functioning during an outage.


--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:44:23 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On 20 Apr 2005 21:27:09 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article <M3D9e.7036$0V2.5752@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
>Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:29:13 -0400, NobodyMan wrote:
>>>
>>>>get a small UPS that also filters you phone line and be happy. It needs
>>>>to be replaced every couple years.
>>>
>>> You don't need to replace the UPS every couple of years, just the
>>> battery inside it.
>>
>>Quite true, but the cost of a new unit is often cheaper than the cost of a
>>battery - at least here in Ohio I can get a 900va UPS, new, for $65, and
>>the battery costs about that amount to replace.
>>
>>--
>>spam999free@rrohio.com
>>remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>
>
>And if you _are_ getting surges then the protective circuitry in looses
>it's effectiveness.

If it's effectiveness is "loose" then simply tightening it down will
fix the circuitry. You probably already own the wrench or screwdriver
to do this, so it's a pretty cheap repair.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 1:44:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In message <2mlg61djt3vbhjqfuvnf3cfdi9cj7q50u0@4ax.com> NobodyMan
<none@none.net> wrote:

>On 20 Apr 2005 21:27:09 -0400, adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>And if you _are_ getting surges then the protective circuitry in looses
>>it's effectiveness.
>
>If it's effectiveness is "loose" then simply tightening it down will
>fix the circuitry. You probably already own the wrench or screwdriver
>to do this, so it's a pretty cheap repair.

Well said :) 


--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 3:50:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <2dqg6113344qrj2josbghiigd7nikj38ql@news.readfreenews.net>,
DevilsPGD <ihatespam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>In message <dSL9e.7260$0V2.4440@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com> Leythos
><void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was you,
>>but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person working with
>>sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with 20+ computers in
>>their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the hardware attached to
>>it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while my neighbors were not
>>protected.
>>
>>You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but you
>>can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong about the
>>merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality earth ground
>>inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the same power system,
>>same wiring methods, and many experience outages, dips, surges, even
>>lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors that have lost devices
>>during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a UPS lost devices, the
>>ones that had a UPS during the same period, didn't lose any devices.
>>
>>Now, before you go spouting your same old diatribe, explain how my
>>real-life experiences is false.
>
>Simple: A quality consumer grade UPS won't stop a lightning strike.
>

A direct lightning strike WILL cause damage unless the building has a
lightning rod system that costs many thousand dollars and even then
lightning doesn't do what you want it to do and fry some electronics.

A lightning strike is much much less probable than a total hard disk
crash. Buy a good UPS/surge protector and do good offsite backups and
put the money you've saved in the bank for a rainy day.

I'm a proponent of whole-building surge protection at the entry panel
and IG-wired recepticles for the computers, but that's not real world
unless I'm involved with new construction.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
April 22, 2005 3:56:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:42683D24.1B02AC24@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> A UPS adjacent to that ten foot earth ground rod would
> provide effective protection. Building wide UPSes typically
> includes the 'whole house' protector. Protection not found
> inside plug-in protectors. Somehow, these plug-in
> manufacturers want you to believe that $100 item does what a
> $5000 item does.
<snip>

Two things combined from all sorts of posts...

UNPLUGGING the PC from the wall in it's entirety WILL protect the PC from
damage should there be a spike. No if's and's or but's about it except in a
few rare exceptions... I may be mis-reading but I think it was you (the
person I'm replying to) who said that this is not the case. I'm probably
mis-reading something so don't take this personal please I just want to
clarify some few things and put them in basic English for all to understand.
Should the device be completely disconnected a strike from lightning will
not harm it (assuming this includes phone line disconnection) unless it
burns the house down or there's something called "ball lightning" which
should happen to pass through it directly. (It may very well do so as it's
going to "see" the held current in the monitor for instance and go to it as
it's the least resistance.)

*I double checked*

Comparing this:

"Ham radio operators would disconnect the antenna and suffer
damage. They would disconnect the antenna, put the lead
inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. Then they
connected the antenna to an earth ground. Not just any
ground. Earth ground. No more damage. Disconnection is not
an effective solution."

I'm sorry but a PC hasn't got an antenna running into a dedicated room via
wires that would carry electricity into the room. Well, not true... I
suppose should this be one of the rare WiFi Broadband solutions (not popular
yet) or a satellite connection there's some risk but both are surely
grounded according to code in every state that I'm aware of. Comparing the
technology of the 60's and 70's to today is hardly going to equate properly.
Bear with me here and don't for one minute think that I'm disagreeing with
you.... I'm saying that the odds are so slim that it's a simple step that
they, the OP, can and should take to add an additional layer of security...
Beyond that, if there's ball lightning tooling through their office then the
PC is the last of their concerns...

The OP, in this question, is 99.9% likely to not be in this situation. If
they were in this situation there's still some slim chance that you're 100%
correct in that lightning could follow said lines and then after reaching
the end of direct conductivity arc to the nearest device with stored
electricity. Even still, in today's world, disconnection of the devices
should in a million to one chance work properly considering that the
lightning *SHOULD* follow the laws (danged non-law obeying lightning) and
take the path of least resistance and head straight for the ground which
should, in all cases, be Earth ground to a properly seated copper rod. (I've
heard advocation for various alloys that conduct better than copper and once
read a white paper on such but copper will, for all intents and purposes,
give as much protection as anyone is going to need in anything but a
non-fault situation in which much stricter methods should be used.)

Now to carry on... In one of my posts I mentioned having had to have my
whole house protected. I have MOSTLY passive solar with a half dozen panels
to provide electricity and a home designed to gain the benefits from the Sun
for heat and electricity. Living in the extreme environment that I do
requires this for the most part as the Sun, believe it or not, is much more
reliable during the Winter than the electricity provided by the power
company. People do expect their $100 dollar devices to act as mine. I'm
sorry but w_tom is completely correct. It cost me nearly $11,000 total to
create a stable power system here and most of that was equipment. The
electrician who installed it did it as much for free as he could (beer and
food plus his normal hourly wage divided by what ever seemed good at the
moment) to add an additional panel and a very large box that does stuff
that, to be honest, I have no idea what it does. I know it's big... I know
it tells me my current voltage in from BOTH the batteries and from the power
lines. It tells me which one I'm using at that specific point in time if I
can remember the buttons to press. It tells me how much it's corrected
itself by. It has a SCSI port on it so I'm told I can actually hook it to a
number of devices. Even with this device I use a UPS... I'm JUST a
home-user... If it was mission critical my sytem would be laughed at.
(Err... Actually? I don't truly know about that... It might be ALMOST
acceptable as I've a minimal of 72 additional hours from a generator that
kicks on when the wattage from both devices meets a certain level OR, if on
battery AND the telco power's out, will kick on at 50% if the house is
drawing who knows how much... I really need to read manuals...)

I'm sorry but w_tom's correct. You CAN'T get that for $100... You can't get
it for $50 at Wal-Mart... It doesn't work that way... Are MOST user's
adequately protected for the 99 percentile? Yes... If they follow a few
basic steps... Don't shirk on power supplies and the like... ;)  Get 'em with
an insurance policy... No matter what though you can't be 100% certain even
with ground fault interupters, UPS, $200 surge protection, and sacrificing a
dead chicken while burning black candles. The options is ONLY to learn the
choices, decide how much protection you want, know that you'll NEVER be 100%
certain, find your budget, and design accordingly.

Remember... Get 'em with an insurance policy, keep the warranty, read it and
register it if it's required to use said warranty. That's the only way to
get even close to 100%...

<climbs off soapbox>

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:01:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

The effective protector never tries to absorb or block
destructive transients. After all, do you really believe 1"
devices inside a power strip or UPS will stop what miles of
sky could not? Unfortunately, that is plug-in protectors must
do to protect. Reality - they don't even claim to do that.
They just forget to discuss that typically destructive type of
transient.

Any effective protection connected to the power cord is
already inside that appliance. Lets take the computer as an
example. It must even withstand transients generated by a UPS
in battery backup mode. This UPS outputs a modified 120V
sine wave. That is two 200 volt very square waves with up to
a 270 volt spike between those square waves. This output may
be destructive to some small motors. But to an electronic
appliance such as computers? Well below what such electronic
appliances must withstand. Electronic appliances already have
internal protection that can withstand transients even from a
plug-in UPS in battery backup mode.

BTW, this dirty UPS output is why they are called computer
grade UPSes. They output dirtier power because electronics
are so much more resilient.

Anything that would be effective in a power strip or UPS
plug-in protector is already inside that power supply. Why
are those power strips and joules so pathetically low? They
are selling an image; not effective protection. Why properly
sized the protector when myths will credit with protection
that does not exist?

But again, that internal appliance protection assumes you
have earthed the destructive transient before it can enter the
building and overwhelm internal appliance protection.
Therefore we spend about $1 per protected appliance on the
'whole house' protector; instead of upwards of $100 for
ineffective plug-in devices.

Again, notice who provides numbers. Numbers mean the facts
can be taken elsewhere to be verified. I make this challenge
often. If that UPS claims to provide such protection, then
post the numbers. I am still waiting for anyone here to even
post joules or any other manufacturer specs. Of course those
manufacturer specifications will describe protection for each
type of transient. Oh-h-h? They only claim to protect from
one type of transient? The type that typically is not
destructive? But go ahead. Cite those UPS specs that claim
this protection. Show me.

Destructive transients are rare event. For lightning,
typically once every eight years (and varies based upon
geology, region, etc). We install effective protection from
lightning and other external transients because they do the
destruction AND because protection for every appliance is so
inexpensive - about $1 per protected appliance.

Effective 'whole house' protectors come with responsible
brand names such as Square D, Leviton, Furse, Intermatic,
Polyphaser, Cutler Hammer, Erico, GE, and Siemens.
Ineffective protector hyped on myth include names such as APC,
Tripplite, Panamax, and Monster Cable. Notice the later
examples avoid all discussion about earthing. Notice the
latter group sells protectors that have too few joules -
undersized. Notice that the effective protectors make the
short (less than 10 foot) connection to earth ground. They
are more effective and cost tens of times less money per
protected appliance.

However show me. Post those joules numbers and manufacturer
specs for each type of transient. Then try to explain why
those plug-in protectors (that don't even claim to provide
that protection) cost so much money. I wish I had their
profit margins.

The one component essential to every protection system -
single point earth ground. The protector is only as effective
as its earthing. Notice which protectors will not even
discuss earthing.

DevilsPGD wrote:
> Simple: A quality consumer grade UPS won't stop a lightning strike.
>
> However, a direct lightning strike isn't all that common for most of us,
> especially if you live in an area with underground wiring and with trees
> notably taller then your house (or anything else in the immediate area)
> -- What is more likely is smaller dips and surges.
>
> A high end consumer grade UPS will do an excellent job of absorbing
> minor fluctuations, something a typical earth ground wouldn't even
> pretend to do. Nor will an earth ground connector provide my server
> room with an hour of uninterrupted power when the mains go out, suffer
> brown outs, or spikes as power is restored.
>
> It's not a matter of one or the other, you need both an earth ground as
> well as effective surge protection on electronics, plus battery backup
> if you want to continue functioning during an outage.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

A PC typically does connect to the equivalent of antennas.
Wires atop utility poles connect directly to your PC just like
a radio antenna. Same is also true of buried power lines.
Protection of the PC is same as protection of those Ham's
equipment.

Yes if one disconnects everytime and all wires, then
increased protection is obtained. But you tell me how many
hours a day a human is available to do that. 8? Maybe less.
That assumes disconnecting repeatedly from a receptacle rated
for a limited number of connection cycling. That assumes the
human using the machine will know something is coming that
second and pull the plug - no Windows shutdown. Or your could
spend about $1 per appliance to make disconnecting
unnecessary.

The point is that with proper earthing and the 'whole house'
protector, then all that disconnecting is made completely
irrelevant. How did those Hams stop suffering damage? They
earthed. What does the 'whole house' protector provide for
you computer and smoke detector, and furnace? Earthing
without human intervention. Protection that is not dependent
on a human is clearly more reliable.

Galen wrote:
> Two things combined from all sorts of posts...
>
> UNPLUGGING the PC from the wall in it's entirety WILL protect the PC
> from damage should there be a spike. No if's and's or but's about it
> except in a few rare exceptions... I may be mis-reading but I think
> it was you (the person I'm replying to) who said that this is not
> the case. I'm probably mis-reading something so don't take this
> personal please I just want to clarify some few things and put them
> in basic English for all to understand. Should the device be
> completely disconnected a strike from lightning will not harm it
> (assuming this includes phone line disconnection) unless it
> burns the house down or there's something called "ball lightning"
> which should happen to pass through it directly. (It may very well
> do so as it's going to "see" the held current in the monitor for
> instance and go to it as it's the least resistance.)
>
> *I double checked*
>
> Comparing this:
>
> "Ham radio operators would disconnect the antenna and suffer
> damage. They would disconnect the antenna, put the lead
> inside a mason jar, and still suffer damage. Then they
> connected the antenna to an earth ground. Not just any
> ground. Earth ground. No more damage. Disconnection is not
> an effective solution."
>
> I'm sorry but a PC hasn't got an antenna running into a dedicated
> room via wires that would carry electricity into the room. Well,
> not true... I suppose should this be one of the rare WiFi Broadband
> solutions (not popular yet) or a satellite connection there's some
> risk but both are surely grounded according to code in every state
> that I'm aware of. Comparing the technology of the 60's and 70's
> to today is hardly going to equate properly. Bear with me here
> and don't for one minute think that I'm disagreeing with you....
> I'm saying that the odds are so slim that it's a simple step
> that they, the OP, can and should take to add an additional layer
> of security...
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:19:38 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

(Reflowed for readability)

In message <4268771A.F973445C@hotmail.com> w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> Simple: A quality consumer grade UPS won't stop a lightning strike.
>>
>> However, a direct lightning strike isn't all that common for most of us,
>> especially if you live in an area with underground wiring and with trees
>> notably taller then your house (or anything else in the immediate area)
>> -- What is more likely is smaller dips and surges.
>>
>> A high end consumer grade UPS will do an excellent job of absorbing
>> minor fluctuations, something a typical earth ground wouldn't even
>> pretend to do. Nor will an earth ground connector provide my server
>> room with an hour of uninterrupted power when the mains go out, suffer
>> brown outs, or spikes as power is restored.
>>
>> It's not a matter of one or the other, you need both an earth ground as
>> well as effective surge protection on electronics, plus battery backup
>> if you want to continue functioning during an outage.
>
> The effective protector never tries to absorb or block
>destructive transients. After all, do you really believe 1"
>devices inside a power strip or UPS will stop what miles of
>sky could not? Unfortunately, that is plug-in protectors must
>do to protect. Reality - they don't even claim to do that.
>They just forget to discuss that typically destructive type of
>transient.

Correct -- Funny, that's just what I said, they're not an effective
solution in the face of a destructive transient.

However, nor does an earth ground pretend to compensate during a
brownout -- I checked, they completely forgot to mention that an earth
ground doesn't provide brown-out support.

If I spill a cup of water on a $20 power bar, or into a device connected
to that power bar it's short protection will kill the power well before
the house's breaker will do the job.

> Again, notice who provides numbers. Numbers mean the facts
>can be taken elsewhere to be verified. I make this challenge
>often. If that UPS claims to provide such protection, then
>post the numbers. I am still waiting for anyone here to even
>post joules or any other manufacturer specs. Of course those
>manufacturer specifications will describe protection for each
>type of transient. Oh-h-h? They only claim to protect from
>one type of transient? The type that typically is not
>destructive? But go ahead. Cite those UPS specs that claim
>this protection. Show me.

You've just hit the nail on the head -- They don't publish the stats
because they don't claim to protect against that threat.

My UPSes don't claim protection against a lighting strike style of
transient. As a result there are no numbers to post.

However, show me one "whole house" protector which mentions it's VA
rating, or any stats showing the length of time a whole house protector
will supply a 120V stepped square wave when being fed a 75V sinewave.

Different devices, different design goals and different purposes -- They
function together, with a whole house protector handling destructive
spikes, and a UPS handling brown outs, blackouts, and smaller spikes.


--
No user-serviceable parts
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:07:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:54:12 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> A UPS adjacent to that ten foot earth ground rod would
> provide effective protection. Building wide UPSes typically includes
> the 'whole house' protector. Protection not found inside plug-in
> protectors. Somehow, these plug-in manufacturers want you to believe
> that $100 item does what a $5000 item does.
>
> As any electrical engineer knows - wire impedance means
> effective protector must make a short (ie 'less than 10 foot')
> connection to the good earth ground. Real (building wide) UPSes include
> such protection due to that short earthing connection. The plug-in UPS
> does not even claim to provide such protection.

And my cheap, $100 APC UPS, provides all the protection needed in my
properly wired house to protect my equipment connected to it. Short of a
direct strike, my systems are protected.

Oh, and impedance, for making a quality short, is based on the size of the
conductor - which means I can use a #6 for a longer distance than a #14.

How about doing the reply at the BOTTOM of the post so that it follows the
normal Usenet methods for posting/replying.


> Leythos wrote:
>> My house was built in 1972, it has a very nice, long, copper rod about
>> 9" from the wall of the house, driven into the earth, that rod connects
>> to the power panel earth ground bar, and that connection also connects
>> to incoming shields for Cable TV. As for the phones, they connect to a
>> small UPS at the incoming point to the house, which then go through the
>> UPS to the rest of the house.
>>
>> Now, I've seen your posts in other threads, at least I think it was
>> you, but I'm going to say, as an electrical engineer, as a person
>> working with sensitive electronic parts and circuits, as a person with
>> 20+ computers in their home, that a simple UPS does indeed protect the
>> hardware attached to it, I've seen it protect my systems/devices while
>> my neighbors were not protected.
>>
>> You can spout theory all you want, spout document after document, but
>> you can't disprove real-life experiences that indicate you are wrong
>> about the merits of a quality UPS in an environment with a quality
>> earth ground inside the home. Every home in our neighborhood has the
>> same power system, same wiring methods, and many experience outages,
>> dips, surges, even lightning issues. While I've talked with neighbors
>> that have lost devices during a storm, only the ones that didn't have a
>> UPS lost devices, the ones that had a UPS during the same period,
>> didn't lose any devices.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 5:07:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Impedance has little to do with the size of an AC electric
conductor. Anyone with an EE degree would have known that.
Impedance is determined by wire length, number of sharp bends,
wires splices, and other factors. Even though a 50' AC
electric wire is less than 0.2 ohms resistance, the same wire
would be about 120 ohms impedance to typically destructive
transients. Wire resistance between 6 AWG and 12 AWG is
major. Wire impedance between these two wires - trivial.
This is first year EE stuff.

Lets assumes Leythos $100 UPS will earth a trivial 100 amp
transient down that 50 foot wire (back to circuit breaker
box). Therefore the UPS is at less than 12,000 volts (100
amps times 120 ohms). Will that 100 amps travel down a 12,000
volt wire? Of course not. At 12,000 volts, the transient
will find other and destructive paths through adjacent
electronics. Again, this was old and well understood even in
the 1930s. I asked Leythos to describe how that UPS could
even provide protection because I suspect he did not even
understand why wire impedance dictates a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground.

Meanwhile, electronic appliances already have effective
internal protection. Protection that assumes a transient had
been earthed before entering the building. What does Leythos
forget to mention? That phone line already has a 'whole
house' protector installed by the telco. A protector so
inexpensive and so effective that the telco installs it for
free. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. A
protector that made him think the UPS had provided the
protection.

Some foolishly think that wall receptacle safety ground is
earth ground. How with upwards of 130 ohms impedance in that
wire? Wire impedance is just one of so many reasons
electrical why plug-in protector are not effective AND why the
'whole house' protector (that costs tens of times less money
per protected appliance) is so effective.

In the meantime, if his UPS was earthing transients, then
that ground wire bundled with other wires would induce
transients on those other wires and other household
appliances. What kind of protection is that? Induced
transients: one more reason why his UPS is not effective. The
earthing wire also must be routed separate from other wires.
Just another reason why 'whole house' protectors are so
effective.

Leythos says his home meets 1972 code. But does it meet
post 1990 code? A house only meeting 1972 code may not have
sufficient earthing. Again, even a 'whole house' protector is
only as effective as its earth ground. Not the safety ground
that Leythos confuses with earth ground - due to lack of
pragmatic experience tempered by the principles. Homes built
in 1972 may still require earthing enhancements (upgrades to
the 1990 code) so that a 'whole house' protector can be
effective. We do earthing because protection has always been
about protection even from direct lightning strikes.

Again appliances contain internal protection. But those
typically destructive transients such as lightning are the
primary purpose of protectors and earthing. Earth the
destructive transient so that internal appliance protection is
not overwhelmed. Damage even from direct lightning strikes
need not occur.

So what does that UPS claim to accomplish? What already
exists inside appliances makes that UPS protector
ineffective. But then an adjacent protector can even
contribute to damage of the appliance, especially if the
'whole house' protector and proper earthing is not installed.

Don't start with this bottom posting nonsense. I post to be
easier to read as called for by RFC1885. This post conforms
to those standards. I have no interest in authoritarian
imposing bottom posting dictatorship so that posts are harder
to follow. Just like in those IEEE papers that EEs routinely
read - the new information is on top. Any reference to
previous posts, citations, bibliographies, and footnotes at at
the bottom - if someone need them. Should you choose to post
harder to read, then so be it. Its your choice. Top posters
are flexible and pragmatic - and don't make these silly
intolerant complaint that bottom poster do. I also don't
criticized you for foolishly believing the myths promoted by
APC. But that changes when you promote the lies and myth
from APC and from a perversion of RFC1885 upon others. But
again, you are doing the complaining while I am citing the
standards. RFC1885.

That UPS has all but no earth ground. It did not provide
the protection you speculated. But then the telco provided
'whole house' protector - that would have provided the
protection. Why? Fundamental fact: the protector is only as
effective as its earth ground. 120 ohms impedance? That
protector had all but no earth ground. No earth ground means
no effective protection. Numbers provided above demonstrate
that fact.

You disagree? Put up impedance numbers for that 6 AWG and
12 AWG wire. How many posts later and you still provide no
numbers to even demonstrate 1st year EE knowledge. And still
no way around this fact: the protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - and connection to that ground. The all so
standard 'less than 10 foot' connection.

Leythos wrote:
> And my cheap, $100 APC UPS, provides all the protection needed in my
> properly wired house to protect my equipment connected to it. Short
> of a direct strike, my systems are protected.
>
> Oh, and impedance, for making a quality short, is based on the size
> of the conductor - which means I can use a #6 for a longer distance
> than a #14.
>
> How about doing the reply at the BOTTOM of the post so that it
> follows the normal Usenet methods for posting/replying.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:34:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <4268771A.F973445C@hotmail.com>, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The effective protector never tries to absorb or block
>destructive transients.

Wrong.

A surge protector, at the very minimum, has 3 MOV chips, one across
each leg part (hot, neutral, ground). These chips are rated as to the
total lifetime energy they can absorbe, measured in joules. That's
one close strike or lots of little surges.

A surge protector will have an indicator lamp that informs you when
the MOV chip is used up.

http://www.arcelect.com/lightnin.htm

The next step up in quality surge protection has a couple big
inductors to attentate the pulse.

None of this will stop anything like a driect hit.

Lightning is one of 100 ways your computer can die. Backup backup backup.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 3:22:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:54:06 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> That UPS has all but no earth ground. It did not provide
> the protection you speculated. But then the telco provided 'whole
> house' protector - that would have provided the protection. Why?
> Fundamental fact: the protector is only as effective as its earth
> ground. 120 ohms impedance? That protector had all but no earth
> ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. Numbers
> provided above demonstrate that fact.

Like it or not, my house has an earth ground just outside the main breaker
panel, it's that nice copper rod driven into the ground and then connected
to the nice earth ground bus in the panel - that means anything connected
to the third prong in the properly wired outlets has a connection to Earth
ground.

Now, you assert that my house is not meeting 1990 standards, and it may
well not meet them according to the NEC, but, as my REAL EXPERIENCE
indicates that the UPS's connected to my servers and workstations (and
other electronics) have save them from damage when those around me that
are not using them have damaged devices, how are you going to explain that?

This above is the part you should be addressing - while you claim that
they have no benefit, it appears, to many people, in the real world, that
they do. In my case, I have direct, first hand, experience that proves to
me that you are wrong when it comes to your incessant ranting about UPS's
not being able to protect devices.

Please explain how my USP's have NOT protected my devices yet they remain
undamaged while devices around me that don't have UPS's are damaged.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
April 22, 2005 5:53:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:426879D9.11EBE00D@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> A PC typically does connect to the equivalent of antennas.
> Wires atop utility poles connect directly to your PC just like
> a radio antenna. Same is also true of buried power lines.
> Protection of the PC is same as protection of those Ham's
> equipment.
>
> Yes if one disconnects everytime and all wires, then
> increased protection is obtained. But you tell me how many
> hours a day a human is available to do that. 8? Maybe less.
> That assumes disconnecting repeatedly from a receptacle rated
> for a limited number of connection cycling. That assumes the
> human using the machine will know something is coming that
> second and pull the plug - no Windows shutdown. Or your could
> spend about $1 per appliance to make disconnecting
> unnecessary.
>
> The point is that with proper earthing and the 'whole house'
> protector, then all that disconnecting is made completely
> irrelevant. How did those Hams stop suffering damage? They
> earthed. What does the 'whole house' protector provide for
> you computer and smoke detector, and furnace? Earthing
> without human intervention. Protection that is not dependent
> on a human is clearly more reliable.

Again I'm not disagreeing with the majority of what you said in it's
entirety. My contention is that disconnection is as good a protection as any
other (and actually better than the cheap department store solutions) though
as you implied a rather ludicrous method. Will it work? Yeah if they want to
unplug the modem, the monitor, the box, the printer, etc... It will afford
them the five nine percentile score when human error doesn't interfere. The
human error comes into play at the point when we think about how often they
will forget to unplug the equipment. The OP asked, clearly, about when they
left the office... (This strikes me as ironic because, to be frank, I'd be
far more concerned about the times when they were IN the office but, hey,
that's just me.)

My contention was that HAM radio couldn't really be compared because the
antenna used had a direct wire to the receiver which was often the shortest
path. Electrical devices at the end of this path were, well, for lack of
better terminology, toast... However, had the operators gone out to the
antenna and disconnected it out there (yes, the ground's a far better
solution that's not even worth debating) they'd have been able to keep their
equipment in the 5 nine percentile for lightning strike protection. You
stated that disconnection is not an effective solution and well, truthfully,
it is but it's one of the most absurd solutions on the planet.

Mission critical, places where human safety is concerned, or places where
data and data access are an important part of business require a better
solution that relying on a human to unplug the devices when they leave the
building. Lightning is limited only by the few laws of physics and isn't
subjected to the business hours and can, and probably will, strike during
business hours. Unplugging the devices when they leave the building will
prove an effective solution though it's an entirely silly idea.

You made another excellent point in one of your posts in that the devices
that are available for most people simply can't stop lightning and nothing
that's reputable will even try to stop it but rather to HOPEFULLY divert it
to ground.

It seems that most of us are saying a few things over and over and arguing
semantics more than anything else. Heck, I only posted as I was aware that
this was a subject that I'd kept an interest in and wanted to make a single
point. No one solution is viable. Truly a combination of devices (without
shirking on price) is required or at least recommended by me. Even with my
house system is use a UPS system and individual surge protection units. I've
always had the better safe than sorry mentality.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:00:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Yes, the antenna directly connected to HAM equipment is a
shortest path. But destructive transients will take any
shorter path; not just a shortest path. Transients are
current sources. IOW voltage will rise as necessary to
maintain current on a path to earth. That means the overhead
electrical wires (if not earthed before they get to a
computer) will still carry the trasnsient current on that
longer path.

Disconnecting works if the electronics are removed from that
path. Facilities that require even better protection make
sure sneak paths are also protected; also earthed. This radio
station demonstrated the concept by making the concrete floor
a large single point earth ground (and making that concrete
floor an ufer ground). IOW the earth beneath the equipment
was made equipotential so that even sneak paths (that might
exist whether connected or disconnected) would be eliminated
(his point is about Ufer grounding, but he has also created an
equipotential ground so that the 'sneak' paths are also
eliminated):
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

Same concept is discussed in IEEE papers.

Yes, disconnecting is effective IF the human knows in
advance when the transient will occur AND disconnects
accordingly. Why? The transient will then find other 'sneak'
paths to earth. However a better solution is to provide the
transient with a dedicated path to earth - so that, for
example, the transient need not arc across wires to obtain
earth. If the transient is not earthed, it can create up to
6,000 inside the building and still finding paths to earth.
Best earth that transient before it enters the building -
appliances connected or disconnected.

One final point. Many appliances never can be
disconnected. Smoke detector. Furnace and air conditioner
controls. GFCIs that protect humans from electrical shocks.
Dimmer switches. Burglar alarm system. Just more reasons why
disconnecting will never be a fully effective solution.

As that scott-inc.com example demonstrates, the solution
to protection starts when the footing are poured.
Unfortunately we still don't build as if the transistor
exists. So we must apply kludge solutions. We drive ground
rods into earth when the foundation's footing would be a
better solution. We don't always route utilities into the
building at a common service entrance. Then, somehow, we will
plug in solutions after the fact that will solve problems? We
will run around disconnecting in hopes the destructive
transient will only occur while we are disconnected?

Better to earth the transient before it can enter the
building. Ground rod is not a superior earth ground. But it
is the best we got and it is effective. That means installing
the 'whole house' protector and making sure that earthing
connection is as electrically short as possible. Protection
that will be there even when the people are in the office
using their electronics.

Earth the antenna - in this case AC electric wires above the
street - before an transient can enter the building. BTW,
this is also why commercial radio and TV broadcasters operate
during all T-storms without interruption and damage. Human
should spend more time earthing and less time disconnecting
for protection.

Galen wrote:
> Again I'm not disagreeing with the majority of what you said in it's
> entirety. My contention is that disconnection is as good a protection
> as any other (and actually better than the cheap department store
> solutions) though as you implied a rather ludicrous method. Will it
> work? Yeah if they want to unplug the modem, the monitor, the box, the
> printer, etc... It will afford them the five nine percentile score
> when human error doesn't interfere. The human error comes into play at
> the point when we think about how often they will forget to unplug the
> equipment. The OP asked, clearly, about when they left the office...
> (This strikes me as ironic because, to be frank, I'd be far more
> concerned about the times when they were IN the office but, hey,
> that's just me.)
>
> My contention was that HAM radio couldn't really be compared because
> the antenna used had a direct wire to the receiver which was often
> the shortest path. Electrical devices at the end of this path were,
> well, for lack of better terminology, toast... However, had the
> operators gone out to the antenna and disconnected it out there (yes,
> the ground's a far better solution that's not even worth debating)
> they'd have been able to keep their equipment in the 5 nine
> percentile for lightning strike protection. You stated that
> disconnection is not an effective solution and well, truthfully,
> it is but it's one of the most absurd solutions on the planet.
>
> Mission critical, places where human safety is concerned, or places
> where data and data access are an important part of business require
> a better solution that relying on a human to unplug the devices when
> they leave the building. Lightning is limited only by the few laws
> of physics and isn't subjected to the business hours and can, and
> probably will, strike during business hours. Unplugging the devices
> when they leave the building will prove an effective solution though
> it's an entirely silly idea.
>
> You made another excellent point in one of your posts in that the
> devices that are available for most people simply can't stop
> lightning and nothing that's reputable will even try to stop it but
> rather to HOPEFULLY divert it to ground.
>
> It seems that most of us are saying a few things over and over and
> arguing semantics more than anything else. Heck, I only posted as
> I was aware that this was a subject that I'd kept an interest in
> and wanted to make a single point. No one solution is viable. Truly
> a combination of devices (without shirking on price) is required or
> at least recommended by me. Even with my house system is use a UPS
> system and individual surge protection units. I've always had the
> better safe than sorry mentality.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:22:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Your house is earth grounded adjacent to the circuit breaker
box. Does every incoming utility wire make a 'less than 10
foot' connection to that earth ground? Or is the AC neutral
wire only earthed. The former is required for appliance
protection. The latter - only one wire earthed - is what most
homeowners have, which is why they suffer electronic damage.

That earth ground rod means nothing about earthing the
third prong on a wall receptacle (see a response to Al Dykes
quoting Telebyte's Reference Manual). Meanwhile numbers
demonstrating why a wall receptacle is not earth ground were
posted previously. That 'earthed' receptacle ground prong
leaves UPS and adjacent appliances at up to 12,000 volts.
Why? Wire is too long. Too much impedance. Sharp bends and
slices in that wire. Ground wire bundled with other wires to
even created induced transients. So many reasons why a plug-in
protector has no effective earth ground.

With an earth ground rod adjacent to the AC electric box,
then your 1972 house may meet post 1990 standards. Every
incoming utility wire must connect to that ground rod. Two AC
electric wires bypass that earthing to distribute destructive
transients everywhere inside the building. Do you think a
plug-in UPS will stop or absorb it? Even the UPS manufacturer
does not make that claim as made obvious in those UPS specs
not yet provided?

Meantime, my real experience tempered by both fundamental
theory (ie wire impedance) and design experience says, first,
the appliance internal protection saved those appliances.
Second, the phone line 'whole house' protector - and not the
UPS - provided protection. Third, some appliances could have
acted as a surge protector to protect that UPS.

I have even traced damage through a network of computers
where two plug-in protectors simply connected a direct
lightning strike into the network via adjacent computers, and
eventually (and destructively) to earth ground via modem and
phone line. Two adjacent appliances - a TV and VCR. One was
damaged. The other was not. Understandable once we looked at
how both were connected to earth.

Without analysis at the electronic component level, one
cannot say how something was damaged or why something was not
damaged. Others will even read a tabloid newspaper, see a
trend, and also know exactly what happened. Instead, the
devil is in the electronic details. Analysis as to why damage
does and does not happen must be that detailed. One cannot
just know from a list of what was damaged. Even in that
network, adjacent protectors at one computer caused modem
damage on another (networked) computer in another room.

Your experience means nothing without both fundamental
theory (which you disparage) and without knowledge at the
electronic component level (IC, inductor, resistor, etc).
Instead you just know because this was damaged and that was
not? Invalid reasoning made even worse numbers are ignored.
You ignore wire impedance; instead posting in terms of wire
resistance. This is exactly what a plug-in protector
manufacturer hopes the naive will do to promote their
undersized and overpriced product.

But show me. Where is that manufacturer spec that claims a
UPS protected anything? Where are the joules ratings for that
product? Where are any numbers that support your
speculations? Experience without basic electrical knowledge -
without the underlying theory - makes one his own worse enemy.

At best, you have first hand speculation. Protection exists
inside appliances. You did not even know about the protector
installed free by the telco. Somehow a wall receptacle
connected by 120 ohms wire impedance is still earthed? Using
your speculation, a UPS connected to the motherboard ground
would also be earthed. But then if the motherboard is already
earthed, why do we need a UPS for protection?

First, all appliances have internal protection. Some
devices have better protection than others. Plug-in
protectors profit on this. They put a grossly undersized
protector next to your appliance. A transient too small to
overwhelm internal appliance protection, instead, destroys the
grossly undersized protector. Then the famous proclamation.
"My protector sacrificed itself to protect the electronics".
Wrong. The protector did nothing. Why was the appliance
protected? Again, all appliances already have internal
protection. A transient too small to damage the appliance did
destroy the grossly undersized protector.

Second, some appliances make a better connection to earth
than others. Even the adjacent TV and VCR. Only the VCR was
damaged because it made a better earthing connection.
Transient found earth, destructively, via the VCR.

Why were those networked computers damaged while on power
strip protectors? A shorter path to earth ground was from
protector, through adjacent computer and eventually to earth
via phone line 'whole house' protector. Why was the TV not
damaged that had no plug-in protector? Define the destructive
paths to earth?

Third, it gets even more interesting. One house at the end
of a cul-de-sac had far more damage. Why? It was closer to a
buried long distance pipeline - geological differences. Some
buildings suffer more damage because they are connected to a
last transformer on the street. Again, why are some things
damaged and others intact? First, at the electronics and
geological levels, what are the preferred paths to earth
ground for a destructive transient? Without those specific
details, then one can only wildly speculate.

Fourth, look at manufacturer's specs for that UPS. It does
not even claim to provide protection. To work at the
appliance, a plug-in protector must stop, block, or absorb
transients. Why does the telephone switching computer work
through every thunderstorm and suffer no damage? Effective
protection means properly earthed 'whole house' type
protectors be located 50 meters (150 feet) away from
electronics. Then protection inside that switching computer
will not be overwhelmed.

I cannot say specifically what did or did not cause damage
to each appliance. Insufficient detail is provided such as
where all connections to earth ground exist, length of wires,
sharp bends and splices in each wire, what wire is bundled
with other wires, what wire is draped on other conductors such
as baseboard heat, where each house is located geologically,
how the cable TV wire (not even connected to the computer)
enters the building, and other contributing factors such as
rebar mesh in the concrete floor of some houses. But we know
from both experiences and proven concepts even before WWII; a
plug-in protector is not effective. Residential protection
begins with a 'less than 10 foot' connection to the same
(single point) earth ground - for every incoming utility.

How are your neighbor's utilities earthed? To the same
earth ground rod? Do utilities enter at different sides of
the building? The number of questions that need be answered
are hundreds before we can even begin to speculate why things
are and are not damaged.

What does a transient do when it gets to a UPS not in
battery backup mode? Goes right through the UPS. A UPS not
in battery backup mode connects computer directly to AC
mains. Where then is the protection? And again, where are
manufacturer's specs that define that protection for each type
of transient? Where are the joules number? More details
necessary to explain why some things are damaged whereas
others are not.

The analysis must include everything in a path from cloud to
earth, and then from that earthing point to electrical charges
some miles distant. That's right. In what direction did this
earthed transient leave the building?

Leythos wrote:
> Like it or not, my house has an earth ground just outside the main
> breaker panel, it's that nice copper rod driven into the ground and
> then connected to the nice earth ground bus in the panel - that
> means anything connected to the third prong in the properly wired
> outlets has a connection to Earth ground.
>
> Now, you assert that my house is not meeting 1990 standards, and it
> may well not meet them according to the NEC, but, as my REAL
> EXPERIENCE indicates that the UPS's connected to my servers and
> workstations (and other electronics) have save them from damage when
> those around me that are not using them have damaged devices, how
> are you going to explain that?
>
> This above is the part you should be addressing - while you claim
> that they have no benefit, it appears, to many people, in the real
> world, that they do. In my case, I have direct, first hand,
> experience that proves to me that you are wrong when it comes to
> your incessant ranting about UPS's not being able to protect devices.
>
> Please explain how my USP's have NOT protected my devices yet they
> remain undamaged while devices around me that don't have UPS's
> are damaged.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:31:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Power conditioning involves numerous problems: blackouts,
brownouts, harmonics, noise, and surges. The plug-in UPS is
for blackout and extreme brownout protection - for data
protection. For example, AC voltage can drop so low that
incandescent lights would be at 40% intensity. Still the
computer must work just fine. But should the brownout become
even more extreme, then the UPS kicks into battery backup
mode. This is another form of "power conditioning" not
addressed by any surge protector.

A building wide UPS located elsewhere would address other
power conditioning problems.

Harmonics are another problem which will not be discussed
here. But harmonics are another power conditioning problem
not solved by plug-in protectors. Each type power problem has
different solution often positioned at different locations.

DevilsPGD wrote:
> ...
> Correct -- Funny, that's just what I said, they're not an effective
> solution in the face of a destructive transient.
>
> However, nor does an earth ground pretend to compensate during a
> brownout -- I checked, they completely forgot to mention that an earth
> ground doesn't provide brown-out support.
>
> If I spill a cup of water on a $20 power bar, or into a device connected
> to that power bar it's short protection will kill the power well before
> the house's breaker will do the job.
>
>> Again, notice who provides numbers. Numbers mean the facts
>> can be taken elsewhere to be verified. I make this challenge
>> often. If that UPS claims to provide such protection, then
>> post the numbers. I am still waiting for anyone here to even
>> post joules or any other manufacturer specs. Of course those
>> manufacturer specifications will describe protection for each
>> type of transient. Oh-h-h? They only claim to protect from
>> one type of transient? The type that typically is not
>> destructive? But go ahead. Cite those UPS specs that claim
>> this protection. Show me.
>
> You've just hit the nail on the head -- They don't publish the stats
> because they don't claim to protect against that threat.
>
> My UPSes don't claim protection against a lighting strike style of
> transient. As a result there are no numbers to post.
>
> However, show me one "whole house" protector which mentions it's VA
> rating, or any stats showing the length of time a whole house protector
> will supply a 120V stepped square wave when being fed a 75V sinewave.
>
> Different devices, different design goals and different purposes -- They
> function together, with a whole house protector handling destructive
> spikes, and a UPS handling brown outs, blackouts, and smaller spikes.
>
> --
> No user-serviceable parts
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:12:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 19:22:21 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> At best, you have first hand speculation. Protection exists
> inside appliances. You did not even know about the protector installed
> free by the telco. Somehow a wall receptacle connected by 120 ohms wire
> impedance is still earthed? Using your speculation, a UPS connected to
> the motherboard ground would also be earthed. But then if the
> motherboard is already earthed, why do we need a UPS for protection?

I listened to your incessant rantings in another group about this same
subject and found that you can't understand anything except your own
rantings.

Since I have experience that indicates a quality UPS will save devices
protected by it, while at the exact same time devices not protected by a
UPS are damaged, I don't see any way to dispute it. I've seen many
instances, first hand, where a device connected to an outlet, using a 3
wire cord, is damaged, but, the USP connected to the same outlet, had not
damage to the devices protected by it.

Here's and example. I co-worker has their computer/monitor/printer
connected to the UPS and it's connected to outlet A1. The same outlet
connects (A2) connects to a radio. During a storm, where we could see a
strike near our building, the radio was damaged, but the USP protected
devices remained undamaged. I could list about 20 other instances over the
years where I've seen this.

Now, I suppose your going to discount my experiences again, as they don't
make your assertions exactly perfect in the real work. I'm not knocking a
properly protected home/business, I'm stating, in my personal experience,
that your statements that a UPS does not protect devices is, well, if you
excuse the expression, full of horse-pucky.

So, explain how devices that are on the same circuit, those connected to a
UPS are undamaged and those not connected to the UPS are damaged (same
wire/outlet - top/bottom sockets).

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:33:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

What do I repeatedly post? That 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground. Al Dykes quoted Telebyte without
first learning what Telebyte also demands. Telebyte also
recommends that 'less than 10 foot' connection.

So you tell me where that 'less than 10 foot' connection
exists on your plug-in UPS? No dedicated connection to earth
ground defines an ineffective protector. The protector that
you did not even know about probably provided protection that
you 'just know' was provided by a UPS. A UPS located too far
from earth ground and that did not even claim to provide that
protection. But somehow you know the UPS must have provided
the protection.

I discount anyone who claims to have an EE degree and then
does not even know the difference between resistance and
impedance. Concepts taught in the very first year - and yet
you did not even know the difference. No wonder you insist one
need not understand the underlying concepts. You don't even
have basic EE training. Why should anyone believe he who
cannot even provide the manufacturer's specs for that UPS?
How am I to believe someone who does not even know the UPS's
joules rating? How am I to believe one who just knows - and
cannot even provide one useful number. How am I to believe
someone who knows his UPS did what even the manufacturer does
not claim?

No, Leythos, I do not expect to use science and numbers to
change your opinions. You were brain washed by the
propaganda. Number mean nothing to you. You claimed to be an
EE and yet don't even have basic EE knowledge - confusing
resistance with impedance. Demonstrated to the lurker is
where plug-in protector recommendations come from. Urban
myths promoted using junk science reasoning. You only need
'feel' that UPS provided protection that a telco protector
(that you did not even know existed) provided. You never once
cite a single number with your repeated personal attacks. You
even avoid the request for that APC UPS specification.
Instead you respond with insults.

Posted were circuit descriptions for how different
appliances were and were not damaged. I simply asked for
further details to better explain your damage. You never even
post numbers let alone a single detail. To prove your
knowledge, you reply with insults. You demonstrate the kind
of people who recommend ineffective plug-in protectors. You
even lied about having an EE education. That explains why
those manufacturer specs (or any other engineering number) are
not provided.

No, this is not to convince you of anything. Your replies
are to demonstrate to lurkers why ineffective, undersized, and
grossly overpriced protector are promoted. You even lied
about having an EE degree.


Leythos wrote:
> I listened to your incessant rantings in another group about this same
> subject and found that you can't understand anything except your own
> rantings.
>
> Since I have experience that indicates a quality UPS will save devices
> protected by it, while at the exact same time devices not protected by
> a UPS are damaged, I don't see any way to dispute it. I've seen many
> instances, first hand, where a device connected to an outlet, using a
> 3 wire cord, is damaged, but, the USP connected to the same outlet,
> had not damage to the devices protected by it.
>
> Here's and example. I co-worker has their computer/monitor/printer
> connected to the UPS and it's connected to outlet A1. The same outlet
> connects (A2) connects to a radio. During a storm, where we could see
> a strike near our building, the radio was damaged, but the USP
> protected devices remained undamaged. I could list about 20 other
> instances over the years where I've seen this.
>
> Now, I suppose your going to discount my experiences again, as they
> don't make your assertions exactly perfect in the real work. I'm not
> knocking a properly protected home/business, I'm stating, in my
> personal experience, that your statements that a UPS does not protect
> devices is, well, if you excuse the expression, full of horse-pucky.
>
> So, explain how devices that are on the same circuit, those connected
> to a UPS are undamaged and those not connected to the UPS are damaged
> (same wire/outlet - top/bottom sockets).
April 23, 2005 5:45:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:4269820D.1FD89733@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Yes, the antenna directly connected to HAM equipment is a
> shortest path. But destructive transients will take any
> shorter path; not just a shortest path. Transients are
> current sources. IOW voltage will rise as necessary to
> maintain current on a path to earth. That means the overhead
> electrical wires (if not earthed before they get to a
> computer) will still carry the trasnsient current on that
> longer path.
<snipped the good stuff>

Thanks for the excellent 'oration' on this subject. You mention the ability
to use the foundation as a ground. I'm due to build an addition, this will
have deep footers though will actually rest on a pad. I'm atop a mountain
near the canadian boarder in the North East so the footers must go deep.
Could this be then used as my grounding? Would such provide adequate
protection for the ENTIRE residence after? I'd obviously consult a local
professional for this but a bit of knowledge before hand can't hurt. The
expense isn't really important as I can certainly justify any additional
expenses for this as the room's to be a dedicated computer room beyond what
I already term my lab (which is technically really just the basement though
nice and large.)

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
April 23, 2005 7:58:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Susan wrote:
> I was asked opinion about computer in office of organization. I suggested
> that since we often have lightning storms and even though there is a surge
> protector, the phone line should be unplugged and I would also unplug the
> computer from the surge protector before closing the office up.
>
> One lady told me that she never unplugs her computer and she never unplugged
> her stove or refrigerator but she always turned off the surge protector and
> left everything plugged in.
>
> Please give your opinion.
>
> Thanks,
> Susan
>
>
Unplugging is the safest option. even that may not work if the
lightening hit is closest enough. Simply the static charge is enough to
damage some components.

rick
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 9:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

And what protects the dishwasher. The electronic timer
switch for outside lights? The smoke detector? The furnace
controls? The clock radio? Those GFCIs in bathroom and
kitchen? How does she disconnect any of these?

The solution has been long proven and readily available for
about $1 per protected appliance. Manufacturer names were
provided in the first post. Protectors (and if necessary, the
earthing rods and wires) are even sold in Home Depot and
Lowes.

One of the most unreliable protection methods is
disconnecting. It depends on someone who is available, at
best, only 1 hour in 3. And then there are all those other
appliances that cannot be disconnected. With effective
protection, then disconnecting - an unreliable protection
method - need not be performed.

Will static charges from lightning cause damage. If yes,
then all those automobile car radios and cell phones are also
damaged. The direct strike is the destructive transient which
is why protected facilities don't disconnect and always use
'whole house' type protectors connected short to an earth
ground.

Rick wrote:
> Unplugging is the safest option. even that may not work if the
> lightening hit is closest enough. Simply the static charge is
> enough to damage some components.
>
> rick
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 11:56:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:42:35 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> This thread demonstrates how the technically naive will
> promote a simple observation as if proven fact, and will lie as
> necessary to deny their mistakes and ignorance. Another even
> selectively read a paper from Telebyte; completely ignoring what that
> company insists is essential for protection: a 10 foot connection to
> earth ground.

That was me you're talking about, and you've still not proven how I am
wrong, in fact, you've only diverted from answering from it, which seems
to make you a troll.

Do you really search google, or other Usenet interface, looking for talks
about static just to interject your drivel?

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 11:56:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Thank you for more insults and still not one number - such
as the manufacturer's specs that claim it does what you claim
it does. Again, the telco installed protector probably did
your protecting. A protector you did not even know exists.
Then you *assumed* protection must have been from something
more expensive; that does not even claim to provide that
protection.

But show me. Prove me wrong. Provide numbers from APC for
each type transient. Leythos cannot. So again he posts
insults. Insults are routine from those who recommend plug-in
protectors - without any numbers. The OP is warned about
those who recommend plug-in protectors. When confronted, they
never even knew what a protector is suppose to do. Somehow,
they just know from birth; and then post recommendations.

Leythos, say this carefully: "I don't need no stink'n
numbers". Its called 'honesty'.

Leythos wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:42:35 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>> This thread demonstrates how the technically naive will
>> promote a simple observation as if proven fact, and will lie
>> as necessary to deny their mistakes and ignorance. Another
>> even selectively read a paper from Telebyte; completely
>> ignoring what that company insists is essential for
>> protection: a 10 foot connection to earth ground.
>
> That was me you're talking about, and you've still not proven how I am
> wrong, in fact, you've only diverted from answering from it, which
> seems to make you a troll.
>
> Do you really search google, or other Usenet interface, looking for
> talks about static just to interject your drivel?
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 11:59:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:33:04 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> No, Leythos, I do not expect to use science and numbers to
> change your opinions. You were brain washed by the propaganda. Number
> mean nothing to you.

Wrong, numbers mean everything to me, and nothing apparently to you. You
appear to have fixated on technical data without regard to real-world
data. I related several experiences to you, based on my personal
experiences, not third party ones, where the devices were connected to the
SAME ELECTRICAL OUTLET and the ones on the UPS were undamaged while the
ones not on the UPS were damaged. You continue to dismiss that number/fact.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 11:59:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

If numbers mean something to you, well, for the fifth time:
provide APC UPS specification numbers for each type of
transient. Why do you make claims of APC UPS did protection
(actually performed by the telco provided protector), and then
refuse to even provide those numbers? How many joules in that
APC UPS? When you will even provide one number for your
claims? Where in any post have you once posted any numbers
for protection? Show me. Where are those numbers?

Propaganda: the first thing told is blindly believed.
Humans often do that - ie Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then
when real world facts arrive, that human denies, denies,
denies. Propagandists know this. Get someone to believe the
first thing they are told. That person will be brain
washed. Leythos provides no numbers because he never needed
numbers to 'believe' myths about his APC UPS. Leythos still
posts no specs for that APC UPS even after five direct
requests for those numbers. Why can he not provide the
numbers? That APC UPS does not even claim to provide the
protection that Leythos claims.

Provided in a very first post was a list of responsible
protector manufacturers and two retail sources (Home Depot and
Lowes) for effective protection. The OP is encouraged to
learn that an effective protector makes a short (ie 'less than
10 foot) connection to earth - as stated even in that Telebyte
Reference manual.

Leythos wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:33:04 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>> No, Leythos, I do not expect to use science and numbers to
>> change your opinions. You were brain washed by the propaganda.
>> Number mean nothing to you. You claimed to be an EE and yet
>> don't even have basic EE knowledge - confusing resistance with
>> impedance. Demonstrated to the lurker is where plug-in
>> protector recommendations come from. Urban myths promoted
>> using junk science reasoning. You only need 'feel' that UPS
>> provided protection that a telco protector (that you did not
>> even know existed) provided. You never once cite a single
>> number with your repeated personal attacks. You even avoid
>> the request for that APC UPS specification. Instead you
>> respond with insults.
>
> Wrong, numbers mean everything to me, and nothing apparently to
> you. You appear to have fixated on technical data without regard
> to real-world data. I related several experiences to you, based
> on my personal experiences, not third party ones, where the
> devices were connected to the SAME ELECTRICAL OUTLET and the
> ones on the UPS were undamaged while the ones not on the UPS
> were damaged. You continue to dismiss that number/fact.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:52:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:29:13 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> If numbers mean something to you, well, for the fifth time:
> provide APC UPS specification numbers for each type of transient. Why
> do you make claims of APC UPS did protection (actually performed by the
> telco provided protector), and then refuse to even provide those
> numbers? How many joules in that APC UPS? When you will even provide
> one number for your claims? Where in any post have you once posted any
> numbers for protection? Show me. Where are those numbers?

Why do you keep stating TELCO, I'm talking about computers connected to a
UPS on one socket in an outlet and a radio (calculator, etc...) connected
to the other socket at the same outlet. The UPS has a printer, computer,
monitor, sound, etc... connected to it). The radio was ruined, the UPS
protected devices were not damaged in any manner.

What do numbers from a vendor have to do with the above experience?

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:20:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Show us how disconnecting will protect the smoke detector,
dishwasher, clock radio, furnace controls, and burglar alarm
system. You said disconnecting is reliable protection. Show
me. Insults are an admission that you forget those cannot be
protected.

Disconnecting is dependent on a very unreliable human. But
then this too was posted previously and ignored. Richard used
selective reading to misrepresent what was posted. Somehow he
assumes humans are that reliable. That a human will
disconnect everything everyday for 2922 days so that a typical
transient does not cause damage on that last day. Show me a
human that reliable.

Provided is an effective solution for $1 per protected
appliance - complete with brand names and retail sources. A
solution always available - 24/7 - unlike humans. An effective
solution even when using the computer. How does disconnecting
protect a computer in use?

Show me how a human can be so reliable 24/7 to protect
computer, television, VCR, stereo, etc. Show me. Don't get
pissy and emotional; post more insults. Post facts. Show me
how disconnecting by a human will reliably protect all those
appliances. Show me how disconnecting will protect a computer
while in use.

Richard, your problem is with yourself. You don't like
what was posted AND you cannot dispute it. So you misrepresent
what was posted and then post insults. Will you also claim an
APC UPS provides protection that even its manufacturer does
not claim to provide?

Yes unplugging can increase the protection .... if the human
knows in advance when the destructive transient will occur AND
remember to disconnect AND does not use the computer. IOW
disconnecting is ineffective. Both points mean unplugging is
an unreliable solution. When I posted that, why did you
pretended I did not? Did your memory already take that hike?

Susan - effective protection that is well proven, costs
less, is always available, and has been proven even before
WWII is the 'whole house' protector and earthing as required
by National Electrical Code. Plug-in protectors and
disconnecting are unreliable and therefore ineffective
solutions. Posted four days ago were brand names of
responsible protector manufacturers and retail sources for
effective protection.

Richard Urban wrote:
> Now, do you deny that unplugging the PC is NOT going to protect
> it, short of a direct hit on the computer desk.
>
> Why start with your drivel - yet again! We are all so sick of
> hearing this!
> ...
>
w_tom wrote:
>> And what protects the dishwasher. The electronic timer
>> switch for outside lights? The smoke detector? The furnace
>> controls? The clock radio? Those GFCIs in bathroom and
>> kitchen? How does she disconnect any of these?
>>
>> The solution has been long proven and readily available for
>> about $1 per protected appliance. Manufacturer names were
>> provided in the first post. Protectors (and if necessary, the
>> earthing rods and wires) are even sold in Home Depot and
>> Lowes.
>>
>> One of the most unreliable protection methods is
>> disconnecting. It depends on someone who is available, at
>> best, only 1 hour in 3. And then there are all those other
>> appliances that cannot be disconnected. With effective
>> protection, then disconnecting - an unreliable protection
>> method - need not be performed. ...
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:37:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:52:18 +0000, Leythos wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:29:13 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>>
>> If numbers mean something to you, well, for the fifth time:
>> provide APC UPS specification numbers for each type of transient. Why
>> do you make claims of APC UPS did protection (actually performed by the
>> telco provided protector), and then refuse to even provide those
>> numbers? How many joules in that APC UPS? When you will even provide
>> one number for your claims? Where in any post have you once posted any
>> numbers for protection? Show me. Where are those numbers?
>
> Why do you keep stating TELCO, I'm talking about computers connected to
> a UPS on one socket in an outlet and a radio (calculator, etc...)
> connected to the other socket at the same outlet. The UPS has a printer,
> computer, monitor, sound, etc... connected to it). The radio was ruined,
> the UPS protected devices were not damaged in any manner.
>
> What do numbers from a vendor have to do with the above experience?

Still waiting on you to explain away how devices connected to a simple APC
UPS were protected while devices connected to the same outlet not on the
UPS were not protected.

What's really funny is watching you rant about how UPS's don't provide any
protection and then being in a building where our floor had no damage to
anything protected by a UPS, not the servers/workstations/networking
hardware, not the monitors/printers/etc... On the floor above and below us
there were numerous damaged devices that were not protected by any UPS
devices. Now, explain that one away too.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 11:18:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Ufer grounding uses rebar inside footing to make an
excellent ground. Some have also used wire mesh in the
concrete basement floor to make that Ufer ground even more
effective. Concrete being a good electrical conductor when
discussing this type of electricity. Further background
provided by:
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/towertalk/1997-April/...
http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/GB-HTML/HTML/Uf...

Also important is to define during architectural planning
how and where utilities enter. That means even well water
should enter at the common service area. Even underground
cables will carry destructive transients into a building:

http://www.erico.com/erico_public/pdf/fep/TechNotes/Tnc...

BTW, often a mountain top is not the most often struck.
Consider the complete circuit from cloud to earth borne
charges some five miles diagonally distant. The shortest
electrical path is three miles down to the mountain, and four
miles through earth to those charges. The electrically
shorter path through mountain is a location farther down the
mountainside where better conductive rock or soil is exposed.

Although cadwelding is most often recommended for Ufer
grounding, some have achieved good results using other bonding
methods. The rebar and concrete make a better conductive path
AND make earth beneath the building equipotential. This
discussed in another thread entitled "Lightning - funny how
we're not seeing him any more". Your intent is to provide
the direct strike with a non-destructive path into rock or
soil that does not pass through building appliances.
Lightning rods may also be desirable. Hope this is useful and
provided in time.

Galen wrote:
> Thanks for the excellent 'oration' on this subject. You mention the ability
> to use the foundation as a ground. I'm due to build an addition, this will
> have deep footers though will actually rest on a pad. I'm atop a mountain
> near the canadian boarder in the North East so the footers must go deep.
> Could this be then used as my grounding? Would such provide adequate
> protection for the ENTIRE residence after? I'd obviously consult a local
> professional for this but a bit of knowledge before hand can't hurt. The
> expense isn't really important as I can certainly justify any additional
> expenses for this as the room's to be a dedicated computer room beyond what
> I already term my lab (which is technically really just the basement though
> nice and large.)
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 12:25:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In article <4274BAF9.C82EA572@hotmail.com>, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ufer grounding uses rebar inside footing to make an
>excellent ground. Some have also used wire mesh in the
>concrete basement floor to make that Ufer ground even more
>effective. Concrete being a good electrical conductor when
>discussing this type of electricity. Further background
>provided by:
>http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
>http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm
>http://dayton.akorn.net/pipermail/towertalk/1997-April/...
>http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/GB-HTML/HTML/Uf...
>
> Also important is to define during architectural planning
>how and where utilities enter. That means even well water
>should enter at the common service area. Even underground
>cables will carry destructive transients into a building:
>
>http://www.erico.com/erico_public/pdf/fep/TechNotes/Tnc...
>
> BTW, often a mountain top is not the most often struck.
>Consider the complete circuit from cloud to earth borne
>charges some five miles diagonally distant. The shortest
>electrical path is three miles down to the mountain, and four
>miles through earth to those charges. The electrically
>shorter path through mountain is a location farther down the
>mountainside where better conductive rock or soil is exposed.
>
> Although cadwelding is most often recommended for Ufer
>grounding, some have achieved good results using other bonding
>methods. The rebar and concrete make a better conductive path
>AND make earth beneath the building equipotential. This
>discussed in another thread entitled "Lightning - funny how
>we're not seeing him any more". Your intent is to provide
>the direct strike with a non-destructive path into rock or
>soil that does not pass through building appliances.
>Lightning rods may also be desirable. Hope this is useful and
>provided in time.
>
>Galen wrote:
>> Thanks for the excellent 'oration' on this subject. You mention the ability
>> to use the foundation as a ground. I'm due to build an addition, this will
>> have deep footers though will actually rest on a pad. I'm atop a mountain
>> near the canadian boarder in the North East so the footers must go deep.
>> Could this be then used as my grounding? Would such provide adequate
>> protection for the ENTIRE residence after? I'd obviously consult a local
>> professional for this but a bit of knowledge before hand can't hurt. The
>> expense isn't really important as I can certainly justify any additional
>> expenses for this as the room's to be a dedicated computer room beyond what
>> I already term my lab (which is technically really just the basement though
>> nice and large.)


Interesting information here but, as always, your local building code
tells you what you are allowed to do.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
May 3, 2005 2:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:4274BAF9.C82EA572@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Hope this is useful and
> provided in time.

It certainly is both. In regards to lightning being a major concern of mine
it's not really that much of an influence here. My home is partially solar
powered and the line provided power is quite frequently out of service as I
live a long ways away from main roads and people. Mostly my concern was,
initially, the constant spikes and the giant surge that was running through
the house when the service switched from one to the other. The afore
mentioned gadgetry is the cure for this though if grounding more effectively
can be done during the construction phase (slated to begin in August so
plenty of time left) then it's certainly an option I should/will look into,
more so as the room is slated to be a designated computer room with a number
of computers in it. The main question was, and still is, if I were to use
this system of built-in rebar or mesh could the entire house then use that
as the ground as safely and effectively as had it been added in the initial
phase of the original construction?

As for the other post about building codes that's not too much of a problem
here. The town I live in, I think, must only adhere to the State or Federal
guidelines, permits aren't even needed, and there's no actual inspector or
anything or the like. (At least I've never actually gone to get a permit or
anything and I don't know anyone who has though I suspect that they'd frown
on it if we were to build too close to a lake, stream, or put our septic
systems too close but those are State regulations as far as I know.) I dare
say that people wouldn't bother with such things anyhow even if it was
something the town decided to do. More than likely they'd just keep doing
what they were doing and no one would bother checking and no one would
enforce it. Given the mentality of the people in the area I'm not sure that
they'd be quite willing to let them enforce it. They're a rather peaceful
bunch though not too many of them don't have a firearm within reach. <g>
(I'm actually amazed that the area has as little crime as it does with all
these weapons and drinking around, you'd at least expect more accidents. I
guess this is one area of the world where a firearm is still considered a
tool as opposed to a device to make robbery more simple or something to
impress your grade school classmates.)

I suppose that if someone were to build something too dangerous to live in
then the State might step in if they ever got wind of it. I live near, but
not really in, places that have names like Township E or Plantation 117 and
in those places the number of residents is usually in the single digits.
(Though there could be more and they're just not paying taxes nor reporting
where they live.) About the only law enforcement we see in this area are
Game Wardens and they're not really up on current building codes probably.
Heck, they're just as likely to let you go if you're out fishing without a
license or hunting out of season if it's to provide food for your family or
the like. In fact, it's my understanding, that if you're caught and in those
circumstances they're more likely to call on you to pick up fresh road-kill
moose and deer. So, in other words and without the digression, I'm pretty
sure that the local building codes will allow me to do this and if the
contractors know what they're doing I'll probably go ahead and do it though
I'm probably going to call my electrician in to take a peek and to make sure
that everything is squared away.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:46:08 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

There would be nothing in building codes that prohibit Ufer
grounds. Ufer grounding does not violate building codes. But
earthing for that new addition must connect back to the single
point ground - ie connect directly to the earth ground rod
outside the breaker box. Nothing electrical within that new
addition could connect directly to that Ufer ground. Ufer
ground must be part of a single point earthing system. And
any wire that connects from that Ufer system to the existing
single point ground must be short, no sharp bends, separated
from all other wires, etc.

IOW if the addition is adjacent to where utility service
arrives, then the Ufer ground would be useful. However if the
addition is at the other end of the building, then a Ufer
ground would have little practical value (in terms of
increased earthing conductivity) other than to make earth
beneath the addition equipotential.

The important point being that the Ufer ground makes a 'less
than 10 foot' connection to the adjacent and existing earthing
point (what the code called a Grounding Electrode). The Ufer
ground being only an enhancement of that single point ground
if the Ufer ground is within the vicinity of that existing
utility earth ground. Otherwise the Ufer ground only makes
earth beneath the new addition equipotential.

When using rebar also as an Ufer ground, then rebar must be
tightly connected. Good interconnection being the only thing
that makes a Ufer ground different from any other steel
reinforced footing. This is where many advocate cadwelding
those steel rods together. Cadwelding or electrically well
connected rods being the only difference.

I have seen where wire mesh is used in concrete floors to
keep settlement beneath the floor from causing cracks. This
wire mesh tied together is not anything different from code
requirements except that the mess would make a connection
(short) to the single point earth ground system. But it too
can contribute in making the floor equipotenial

BTW, wire that connects the Ufer ground to existing single
point ground must be large - as defined by code (typically #4
AWG or even larger. This so that corrosion does not degrade
that interconnecting grounding wire. Electrical code has
specific requirements for this grounding wire, especially when
that wire is buried. Interconnected ground using buried wire
only enhances that earthing system.

I believe one of those previous posts provided numbers for
better understanding the electrical nature of Ufer grounds.

Coordinate any expansion of the earthing system with your
electrician before August. He may have additional suggestions
based upon conditions unique to your venue.

BTW, the name Galen. Was that a knight in King Arthur's
court or a noteworthy 2nd Century physician?

Galen wrote:
> In news:4274BAF9.C82EA572@hotmail.com,
> w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Hope this is useful and provided in time.
>
> It certainly is both. In regards to lightning being a major concern of mine
> it's not really that much of an influence here. My home is partially solar
> powered and the line provided power is quite frequently out of service as I
> live a long ways away from main roads and people. Mostly my concern was,
> initially, the constant spikes and the giant surge that was running through
> the house when the service switched from one to the other. The afore
> mentioned gadgetry is the cure for this though if grounding more effectively
> can be done during the construction phase (slated to begin in August so
> plenty of time left) then it's certainly an option I should/will look into,
> more so as the room is slated to be a designated computer room with a number
> of computers in it. The main question was, and still is, if I were to use
> this system of built-in rebar or mesh could the entire house then use that
> as the ground as safely and effectively as had it been added in the initial
> phase of the original construction?
>
> As for the other post about building codes that's not too much of a problem
> here. The town I live in, I think, must only adhere to the State or Federal
> guidelines, permits aren't even needed, and there's no actual inspector or
> anything or the like. (At least I've never actually gone to get a permit or
> anything and I don't know anyone who has though I suspect that they'd frown
> on it if we were to build too close to a lake, stream, or put our septic
> systems too close but those are State regulations as far as I know.) I dare
> say that people wouldn't bother with such things anyhow even if it was
> something the town decided to do. More than likely they'd just keep doing
> what they were doing and no one would bother checking and no one would
> enforce it. Given the mentality of the people in the area I'm not sure that
> they'd be quite willing to let them enforce it. They're a rather peaceful
> bunch though not too many of them don't have a firearm within reach. <g>
> (I'm actually amazed that the area has as little crime as it does with all
> these weapons and drinking around, you'd at least expect more accidents. I
> guess this is one area of the world where a firearm is still considered a
> tool as opposed to a device to make robbery more simple or something to
> impress your grade school classmates.)
>
> I suppose that if someone were to build something too dangerous to live in
> then the State might step in if they ever got wind of it. I live near, but
> not really in, places that have names like Township E or Plantation 117 and
> in those places the number of residents is usually in the single digits.
> (Though there could be more and they're just not paying taxes nor reporting
> where they live.) About the only law enforcement we see in this area are
> Game Wardens and they're not really up on current building codes probably.
> Heck, they're just as likely to let you go if you're out fishing without a
> license or hunting out of season if it's to provide food for your family or
> the like. In fact, it's my understanding, that if you're caught and in those
> circumstances they're more likely to call on you to pick up fresh road-kill
> moose and deer. So, in other words and without the digression, I'm pretty
> sure that the local building codes will allow me to do this and if the
> contractors know what they're doing I'll probably go ahead and do it though
> I'm probably going to call my electrician in to take a peek and to make sure
> that everything is squared away.
May 4, 2005 7:16:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

In news:427899E0.ADDF28AF@hotmail.com,
w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> BTW, the name Galen. Was that a knight in King Arthur's
> court or a noteworthy 2nd Century physician?

Galen, the Grecian father of medicine, in some spheres most highly regarded
for surgery on the eye and for the idea that the human body could be healed
through outside sources (meaning, specifically, medicine) which was
considered quite advanced thinking at that time. I don't know of a Knight
from Author's Court by the name of Galen but I'm not really up on that sort
of stuff anyhow...

Fortunately the power entry point in the house was to be a problem and I'd
not yet figured out how to solve that yet. I think that this, as an option,
is probably what I'll end up doing as it's not even going to add (from what
I've seen) a great deal of expense to the cost and, to be honest, I'm not
worried about the additional expense anyhow. If it's justified, and it seems
to be, then the additional monies are well spent on something like this.

As an aside it's quite common for both rebar and mesh to be used here. With
the frost heaves being as large and dramatic as they are every spring the
use of mesh is pretty much a standard at this point. Or course so aren't old
bed frames, random scraps of metal, and the like. <g> However the intention
was to use a single layer of mesh and rebar above it. We're setting it down
under the frost line though it won't be a very large basement really it will
also hold additional storage cells for the solar power. I am thinking that I
could also put a WiFi enabled NAS down there as well but that's putting the
cart ahead of the proverbial horse.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
!