Lightning and computer?

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
46 answers Last reply
More about lightning computer
  1. 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
  2. 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
    >
    >
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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...
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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).
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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?
  37. 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
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. 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. ...
  41. 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
  42. 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/004413.html
    http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/GB-HTML/HTML/UferGroundPsi~20030930.htm

    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/Tncr002.pdf

    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.)
  43. 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/004413.html
    >http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/GB-HTML/HTML/UferGroundPsi~20030930.htm
    >
    > 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/Tncr002.pdf
    >
    > 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.
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Computers Office Surge Protector Windows XP