Lightning - funny how we're not seeing him any more

G

Guest

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

Seems that after presenting the Lightning guru with factual situations
where a APC UPS did protect connected equipment while devices that were
connected to the same electrical outlet (not on the UPS) were damaged,
that he's got nothing to say now....

Don't get me wrong, I would never object to full-house protection, but his
assertions that UPS's provide no protection to connected devices is just
plain BS. I've personally seen devices protected during a storm while
others not on a UPS were damaged.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

DON'T POKE THE BEAR!!! :-()

r.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:9Qhbe.1023$fh.491@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Seems that after presenting the Lightning guru with factual situations
> where a APC UPS did protect connected equipment while devices that were
> connected to the same electrical outlet (not on the UPS) were damaged,
> that he's got nothing to say now....
>
> Don't get me wrong, I would never object to full-house protection, but his
> assertions that UPS's provide no protection to connected devices is just
> plain BS. I've personally seen devices protected during a storm while
> others not on a UPS were damaged.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>
 
G

Guest

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

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:10:53 -0400, PA20Pilot wrote:
>
> Hi Leythos,
>
> You trying to say you know more about the topic than he did?

I am NOT trying to say I have more technical information on the topic that
he does, nor am I trying to say that he's entirely wrong. As I tried to
make clear, his ranting about a UPS not providing any protection is
complete BS. Anyone, and there should be quite a few, that has both a UPS
and another device plugged into the same electrical outlet, that can see
(first hand, not through the story mill) where the non-protected device
was damaged and the protected devices were not damaged, can tell you he's
wrong.

We install computer systems ALL over the country in all sorts of
locations. I've never had a device on a UPS damaged, not once, and that
would be thousands of devices, yet, at the same time, I've seen many
non-protected devices damaged in those same installations.

That chap started the same rant in another group I read, same story about
how UPS's don't do anyone any good - I suspect he is just a troll or
someone that has no real-world experience under his belt.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

Leythos wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:10:53 -0400, PA20Pilot wrote:
>
>>Hi Leythos,
>>
>>You trying to say you know more about the topic than he did?
>
>
> I am NOT trying to say I have more technical information on the topic that
> he does, nor am I trying to say that he's entirely wrong. As I tried to
> make clear, his ranting about a UPS not providing any protection is
> complete BS. Anyone, and there should be quite a few, that has both a UPS
> and another device plugged into the same electrical outlet, that can see
> (first hand, not through the story mill) where the non-protected device
> was damaged and the protected devices were not damaged, can tell you he's
> wrong.
>
> We install computer systems ALL over the country in all sorts of
> locations. I've never had a device on a UPS damaged, not once, and that
> would be thousands of devices, yet, at the same time, I've seen many
> non-protected devices damaged in those same installations.
>

I have also found that UPS systems can prevent a lot of hardware
failures even if the power does not go out. On a previous computer in
our office we had constant disk drive failures where one or more of the
boards had to be replaced.
Putting in a power isolator reduced the failures, but we had to put in a
full-time UPS to completely eliminate the problems. After it was
installed our downtime went from a day or more a month to zero. No
whole house ground would have fixed the problem.
Our office is located near a number of industrial businesses and the use
of their equipment was affecting our power just enough to damage the
electronics in the drives but not be noticeable.


> That chap started the same rant in another group I read, same story about
> how UPS's don't do anyone any good - I suspect he is just a troll or
> someone that has no real-world experience under his belt.
>
 
G

Guest

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

Somehow Leythos again just knows that "a UPS not providing
any protection is complete BS." His proof? Two letters:
BS. He also lied about having an EE degree in the discussion
entitled "Lightning and computer?" that started 20 April
2005. He claimed an EE degree but did not even know the
difference between resistance and impedance - a concept taught
to 1st year EE students. One glaring word: credibility.

So we asked Leythos how he knows that UPS provided such
protection. Where is the numerical spec from that APC UPS that
even claims protection? After maybe 10 requests; he provided
zero numbers. Somehow he just knows - just like his EE
degree.

That UPS provides protection from blackouts and brownouts -
as it numerical specs claim. But Leythos knows better. He
plugs equipment all over the country. Therefore he knows that
UPSes provide that hardware protection; and need not know
why. His proof? He posts words such as BS and ranting.
Insults are sufficient to prove he superiority. Numbers are
for others who waste time learning technology before
recommending solutions.

No earth ground (such as with that plug-in UPS) means no
effective protection. Even the UPS manufacturer does not
claim to provide that protection. A fact that Leythos
outrightly denies? A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. His reply. More insults - and pretend no one
asked for those numbers. He has a mythical EE degree.

He once suffered damage. Therefore he is an expert. It's
called "junk science". Junk scientist will never provide
numbers. Some may even claim to have an EE degree. Why do we
know? He replies with personal insults - and no numbers. He
has no technical knowledge. He even tried to claim the UPS
protected equipment on his phone line. Somehow he just knows
and we have no right to understand why.

Leythos wrote:
> I am NOT trying to say I have more technical information on the topic
> that he does, nor am I trying to say that he's entirely wrong. As
> I tried to make clear, his ranting about a UPS not providing any
> protection is complete BS. Anyone, and there should be quite a few,
> that has both a UPS and another device plugged into the same
> electrical outlet, that can see (first hand, not through the story
> mill) where the non-protected device was damaged and the protected
> devices were not damaged, can tell you he's wrong.
>
> We install computer systems ALL over the country in all sorts of
> locations. I've never had a device on a UPS damaged, not once, and
> that would be thousands of devices, yet, at the same time, I've
> seen many non-protected devices damaged in those same installations.
>
> That chap started the same rant in another group I read, same story
> about how UPS's don't do anyone any good - I suspect he is just a
> troll or someone that has no real-world experience under his belt.
 
G

Guest

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

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:05:18 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> So we asked Leythos how he knows that UPS provided such
> protection. Where is the numerical spec from that APC UPS that even
> claims protection? After maybe 10 requests; he provided zero numbers.
> Somehow he just knows - just like his EE degree.

Look Tom, I didn't read into your message properly and incorrectly
responded about impedance and resistance as I only take about half of
anything you say seriously anyway.

What you continue to FAIL TO ADDRESS is that simple example I provided:

Two devices connected to the same electrical outlet, one a UPS with
sensitive devices connected to it, the other a radio. During a storm with
lightning the radio was damaged (as was other devices not on any form of
UPS), but the devices on the UPS were undamaged.

There's not rocket science to it, it's not even personal, it's a
real-world experience (actually many experiences like it in residential
and commercial and industrial locations) that indicate a UPS provides for
surge protection of devices connected to it.

Now, before you rant off again, explain how devices connected to the same
electrical outlet, not on a UPS are damaged and those connected to the UPS
on the same outlet remained undamaged?

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

Leythos wrote:

> Now, before you rant off again, explain how devices connected to the same
> electrical outlet, not on a UPS are damaged and those connected to the UPS
> on the same outlet remained undamaged?

Easily explained - while consuming less bandwidth than w_tom will :)

Lightning *always* takes the 'easiest' path to ground. You have observed
cases where a UPS presented a 'harder' path, so the surge went through
the 'unprotected' equipment.

w_tom is right - if you have a perfect grounding system, you have no
need for additional protection. And you are right - in the real world of
imperfect grounding systems, a UPS will often cause the surge to take
another path, but not always, and if everything is on a UPS...

Triffid
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:10:24 -0400, Triffid wrote:
>
>
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> Now, before you rant off again, explain how devices connected to the same
>> electrical outlet, not on a UPS are damaged and those connected to the UPS
>> on the same outlet remained undamaged?
>
> Easily explained - while consuming less bandwidth than w_tom will :)
>
> Lightning *always* takes the 'easiest' path to ground. You have observed
> cases where a UPS presented a 'harder' path, so the surge went through
> the 'unprotected' equipment.

You could also suggest that the UPS Protected the equipment as there were
many instances in the same office were only the UPS protected devices
remained undamaged.

> w_tom is right - if you have a perfect grounding system, you have no
> need for additional protection. And you are right - in the real world of
> imperfect grounding systems, a UPS will often cause the surge to take
> another path, but not always, and if everything is on a UPS...

I've never said his technical information about whole-house grounding was
wrong, in fact, in one reply I agreed with it. What I completely disagree
with, with physical examples to the contrary, is his assertion that a UPS
(and he can look up the specs at APC any time he wants) does NOT protect
anything.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

Leythos even claimed a 'whole house' protector contributed
to damage. Now he says otherwise. Which is it? The 'whole
house' protector does provide protection or it contributed to
electronics damage?

Leythos should read with care. The UPS claims to protect
from types of transients that are typically not destructive.
UPS does claim to protect from something. But anything
effective inside that UPS is already accomplished inside the
adjacent appliance. Somehow, Leythos dumbs this down and
distorts reality into "a UPS does NOT protect anything." That
distortion is only posted by Leythos.

If Leythos understood that APC UPS spec - and posted it -
then he could not twist reality into distortions. Ahhh ...
but that means he must first learn the numbers. Numbers are
what junk scientists fear to touch. It's just easier to
misrepresent what others have repeatedly posted.

Leythos wrote:
> ...
> I've never said his technical information about whole-house grounding
> was wrong, in fact, in one reply I agreed with it. What I completely
> disagree with, with physical examples to the contrary, is his
> assertion that a UPS (and he can look up the specs at APC any time he
> wants) does NOT protect anything.
 
G

Guest

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

Leythos logic will prove that a TV was protected but an
adjacent VCR was damaged.

Two devices connected to the same electric receptacle; a VCR
and a TV. During a storm with lightning the VCR was damaged,
but the adjacent device - a TV - was not damaged. Paraphrased
right out of the Leythos post quoted below. How could this
be? Why did a TV survive without the UPS? Same event that
Leythos posted for a damaged radio and a computer on UPS.
Replace 'radio' with VCR. Replace 'computer' with TV. Exact
same conclusion. Only one thing is missing. The UPS.
Clearly this is proof that a "missing UPS" protected the TV -
using Leythos logic.

Same logic that said a UPS protected the computer also
proves that a "missing UPS" protected the TV.

Leythos has no idea why some items are damaged and others
not. Leythos saw a UPS and therefore *knows* the UPS must have
provided protection. UPS must have provided protection even
though its manufacturer does not even make that claim.

This same Leythos tried to claim an EE degree ... until he
accidentally admitted no comprehension of impedance and
resistance. He did not even know what a 1st year EE student
learns. However he still knows all about protection because
of his one assumption: a plug-in UPS could have protected
that computer. Therefore the UPS must have protect that
computer. Leythos logic.

Using same Leythos logic, a "missing UPS" also protected a
TV. A miracle device. Spend no money for a "missing UPS" to
get superior protection. I saved so much money using Leythos
logic. I wonder why they never taught us Leythos logic in
engineering school?

One fact that Leythos never learned: protector (such as that
UPS) is only as effective as its earth ground. But that means
reading manufacturer specs and numbers. That means learning
EE concepts rather than speculating.

Leythos did learn something. He posted something technical,
and got caught lying. The reason why he just knew? He
claimed he had an EE degree. Better to simply claim a UPS
protected that computer and never say why. The naive will
always believe that logic. Better to just claim mental
superiority by insulting others. But how will he explain the
"missing UPS" that protected a TV? Leythos will post more
insults.

Unfortunately for some, insults do prove a point. My
question for the lurker. Do you seek posts that provide
technical facts and the numbers - or do you believe one who
insults to prove his point (and lies about an EE degree).
Which makes more sense. Insult from Leythos. Or the mockery
of Leythos logic demonstrated by protection from a "missing
UPS".

The tale of a "missing UPS" protector asks you, the
lurker, about his credibility. He claims a UPS does even what
its own manufacturer will not claim. But then he has an EE
degree <g>.

Leythos is a poster boy for those who recommend ineffective
plug-in protectors. These electronics salesmen will say
anything to make that sale. Even claim an EE degree.

Leythos wrote:
> Look Tom, I didn't read into your message properly and incorrectly
> responded about impedance and resistance as I only take about half of
> anything you say seriously anyway.
>
> What you continue to FAIL TO ADDRESS is that simple example I provided:
>
> Two devices connected to the same electrical outlet, one a UPS with
> sensitive devices connected to it, the other a radio. During a storm
> with lightning the radio was damaged (as was other devices not on
> any form of UPS), but the devices on the UPS were undamaged.
>
> There's not rocket science to it, it's not even personal, it's a
> real-world experience (actually many experiences like it in residential
> and commercial and industrial locations) that indicate a UPS provides
> for surge protection of devices connected to it.
>
> Now, before you rant off again, explain how devices connected to the
> same electrical outlet, not on a UPS are damaged and those connected
> to the UPS on the same outlet remained undamaged?
 
G

Guest

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

w_tom wrote:
> Leythos even claimed a 'whole house' protector contributed
> to damage. Now he says otherwise. Which is it? The 'whole
> house' protector does provide protection or it contributed to
> electronics damage?
>
> Leythos should read with care. The UPS claims to protect
> from types of transients that are typically not destructive.
> UPS does claim to protect from something. But anything
> effective inside that UPS is already accomplished inside the
> adjacent appliance.


If I understand your statements above you are saying that a device
attached to a UPS will protect itself from damage as well as an attached
UPS. Is my understanding correct? If it is, you are dead wrong.
I know from experience that a UPS can prevent damage to devices attached
to it. In our case the failures on hard drive electronics went from at
least once a month to zero after we placed the drives on a UPS. In our
area there are a number of industrial concerns. The use of some of
their equipment affected the power to our building enough to stress the
drive electronics, but only enough to maybe cause the florescent lights
to flicker.


Somehow, Leythos dumbs this down and
> distorts reality into "a UPS does NOT protect anything." That
> distortion is only posted by Leythos.
>
> If Leythos understood that APC UPS spec - and posted it -
> then he could not twist reality into distortions. Ahhh ...
> but that means he must first learn the numbers. Numbers are
> what junk scientists fear to touch. It's just easier to
> misrepresent what others have repeatedly posted.
>
> Leythos wrote:
>
>>...
>>I've never said his technical information about whole-house grounding
>>was wrong, in fact, in one reply I agreed with it. What I completely
>>disagree with, with physical examples to the contrary, is his
>>assertion that a UPS (and he can look up the specs at APC any time he
>>wants) does NOT protect anything.
 
G

Guest

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:34:24 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>
> Leythos even claimed a 'whole house' protector contributed
> to damage. Now he says otherwise. Which is it? The 'whole house'
> protector does provide protection or it contributed to electronics
> damage?

Tom, now I'm sure you're just a troll. I've never claimed, not in any
post, that "whole house" protection was a bad idea, never claimed that it
could cause problems, never disputed your information on Whole House
protection. The only issue I have with your ranting is that you constantly
claim that a UPS does not provide surge protection.

[snip more drivel]
> If Leythos understood that APC UPS spec - and posted it -
> then he could not twist reality into distortions. Ahhh ... but that
> means he must first learn the numbers. Numbers are what junk scientists
> fear to touch. It's just easier to misrepresent what others have
> repeatedly posted.

I don't fear anything, least of all a troll, but you can't EVER seem to
address the fact that I have (in addition to others) experienced where a
UPS has protected devices on the same outlet that non-ups devices were
damaged. How come you never want to address this? What are you afraid of?

So, please explain how the UPS that protected the devices during a
storm/surge were not really protected while the unprotected devices were
damaged. Come on, I'm sure you'll snip that part too.




--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:13:21 -0400, w_tom wrote:
[snipped drivel again]
> Using same Leythos logic, a "missing UPS" also protected a
> TV. A miracle device. Spend no money for a "missing UPS" to
> get superior protection. I saved so much money using Leythos
> logic. I wonder why they never taught us Leythos logic in
> engineering school?
>
> One fact that Leythos never learned: protector (such as that
> UPS) is only as effective as its earth ground. But that means
> reading manufacturer specs and numbers. That means learning
> EE concepts rather than speculating.
[snipped drivel again]

I see you're still not addressing the question I posted to you, completely
ignoring the scenario that I put before you about the UPS's and real-world
examples. What are you afraid of - the numbers?

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:33:06 +0000, Michael W. Ryder wrote:
>
[snipped w_tom's drivel]
>
> I don't know if you are referring to me as the "lurker" or not, but I
> have yet to see any thing in your posts that I would trust by itself.
> Trusting in only one form of protection is like protecting your house
> with a guard dog. Yes, it might work a lot of the time, but there are
> times when locks or alarms are also prudent. My own experiences (over
> 40 years with electronics starting with tubes and mechanical relays) is
> that a UPS has its place. It is not the only form of protection, but
> neither is a whole house ground, or an isolator. Our company had both of
> those installed by electricians (some of who worked with the major Strip
> hotels) and these devices only alleviated part of the power "ripple" we
> were seeing. A UPS was also necessary to clean up the power enough that
> the fragile electronics (discrete transistors) on the $25,000+ disk
> drives were not damaged.
>
>
>> This is the question a lurker must ask. Will you believe
>> the electronic salesman who lied about an EE degree and who fears to
>> even post those UPS specs? Or the EE who was doing this stuff before
>> Leythos even existed? The engineer who even designed some of thise
>> stuff, who first learned why things fail by replacing transistors, and
>> who built electronic protection circuits says Leythos is lying. That
>> is the extent of my personal insult vocabulary. Leythos lies. When
>> caught in a lie, he then used personal insults to accuse the other.
>> This post not to change Leythos mind. That is impossible. This post
>> again to warn the lurker about outright liars such a Leythos - who even
>> lied about having an EE degree and who will not even apologize for that
>> lie.
>>
>>
> And yet, I have Never seen any proof offered by you as to your
> qualifications. Usually when I make a choice I listen to all sides of
> the question, regardless of the qualifications of the proponents, and
> then make my choice.

Unfortunately he's not going to really identify himself, trolls don't do
that. What he can't, and won't address, is that a quality UPS, properly
installed in a home or business, WILL protect the equipment connected to
it. I've seen it happen (which he won't address), and many others have
seen it happen.

I was doing work at a shipping facility in Oregon in the late 90's. We had
all sorts of storms (electrical) in the area, use to see lightning hit the
large cranes from time to time, once in a while we would get a hit on a
conveyor or building lightning rods (it's really a spectacular sight to
see a strike). The facility, before my team arrived to modernize the
control systems, experienced many device failures each year, and it was
always after/during a storm, never on a bright sunny day. One of the first
things we did was install APC UPS units at each computer/PLC system and
for all networking hardware. It's been about 8 years now and we've not had
one report in all that time of another failure of UPS protected during a
storm - imagine that.

what Tom can't understand is that with all of his day, and it looks good,
is that a simple UPS also provides protection to down-stream devices. To
me, it would seem obvious that he's one of those paper-only technical
types with no real experience in the field, or just a almost clever Usenet
Troll.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

I referred to lurkers: people who read and don't
participate. What was posted in reply to Leythos is only for
their benefit.

Now for a typical plug-in UPS. It claims protection from
two of five types of power problems - blackouts and extreme
brownouts. Neither will damage properly constructed
electronic hardware. As noted, other electrical problems are
better solved elsewhere and by other devices. For example, a
modest brownout where incandescent bulbs dim to 50% intensity:
a problem made completely irrelevant by 'protection' already
inside a minimally acceptable computer power supply. Even
Intel specs make this obvious. A computer that does not power
up everything even when lights are only at 50% intensity
violates even Intel power supply requirements.

For transient protection: single point earth ground. A
solution located elsewhere. Anything additional is effective
only if a transient is connected less than 10 feet to that
earth ground. Furthermore, a power cord 'isolator' does not
exist. The green safety ground wire makes such isolation
impossible.

As for ripple, well, a protector is not for such trivial
voltages. On 120 volt service, the protect does zilch until
that 'ripple' increases to 300+ volts. 300+ volts is far above
'ripple' voltages. Ripple being variations of single digit or
tens of volts. But then, this 'ripple' must be eliminated in
any minimally acceptable power supply. An expression
carefully worded because many 'clone' computers don't have
minimally acceptable power supplies. A problem created by
many computer assemblers who don't even have basic electrical
knowledge.

Of course, the numbers posted above should even be provided
in specs for those products and in corresponding standards.
Above concepts are so basic as to be common knowledge among
those with basic technical experience. Those numbers, such as
let-through voltage and normal operating voltage limits, are
even printed on the devices. A messenger need not have any
credibility because those are numbers required to be printed
on the corresponding appliance or protector.

So what does a UPS 'clean'? What does it do? The plug-in
UPS connects computer directly to AC mains when not in power
supply mode. In battery backup mode, plug-in UPS exposes
computer to some of the 'dirtiest' electricity. For example,
a UPS in battery backup mode creates a "modified sine wave"
120 volt AC that is ... two 200 volt square waves with up to a
270 volt spike between those square waves. Is that a sine
wave? Yes. A modified sine wave.

So where is this 'clean' electricity? That 'dirty' battery
backup electricity is still more than clean enough for
computers.

Again, the plug-in UPS outputs a 'clean' sine wave when not
in battery backup mode. Why? It connects computer directly
to AC mains. You can see this on any oscilloscope. Again,
you are expected not to take my word for it. You are expected
to confirm this yourself. Numbers were provided so that you
can even see this yourself.

Other more expensive UPSes do additional functions. A line
interactive UPS would cost $500+. A serious UPS (that even
provides transient protection) is a building wide system
installed back at the breaker box (with a less than 10 foot
connection to earth ground). If you have $25,000 of disk
drives, then you probably has a building wide UPS that
includes many times more functions than found in a plug-in
protector. For example, that building wide UPS may even
address harmonic problems. No plug-in UPS even mentions such
solutions. Your solution would not be a $100 'computer
grade' UPS. Computer grade? It can output a modified sine
wave that may harm electric motors but is sufficient to power
computers. Why? Because computers are more resilient.

Sidebar: we were trying to remember the vacuum tubes used in
virtually all AM radios. We remembered 35W4 and 50C5. Do you
remember the other three vacuum tube part numbers for the RF
amp, IF amp, and detector?

"Michael W. Ryder" wrote:
> I don't know if you are referring to me as the "lurker" or not, but I
> have yet to see any thing in your posts that I would trust by itself.
> Trusting in only one form of protection is like protecting your house
> with a guard dog. Yes, it might work a lot of the time, but there are
> times when locks or alarms are also prudent. My own experiences (over
> 40 years with electronics starting with tubes and mechanical relays) is
> that a UPS has its place. It is not the only form of protection, but
> neither is a whole house ground, or an isolator.
> Our company had both of those installed by electricians (some of who
> worked with the major Strip hotels) and these devices only alleviated
> part of the power "ripple" we were seeing. A UPS was also necessary to
> clean up the power enough that the fragile electronics (discrete
> transistors) on the $25,000+ disk drives were not damaged.
>
> > This is the question a lurker must ask. Will you believe
> > the electronic salesman who lied about an EE degree and who
> > fears to even post those UPS specs? Or the EE who was doing
> > this stuff before Leythos even existed? The engineer who even
> > designed some of thise stuff, who first learned why things
> > fail by replacing transistors, and who built electronic
> > protection circuits says Leythos is lying. That is the extent
> > of my personal insult vocabulary. Leythos lies. When caught
> > in a lie, he then used personal insults to accuse the other.
> > This post not to change Leythos mind. That is impossible.
> > This post again to warn the lurker about outright liars such a
> > Leythos - who even lied about having an EE degree and who will
> > not even apologize for that lie.
> >
>
> And yet, I have Never seen any proof offered by you as to your
> qualifications. Usually when I make a choice I listen to all sides of
> the question, regardless of the qualifications of the proponents, and
> then make my choice.
 
G

Guest

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:46:49 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:13:21 -0400, w_tom wrote:
>[snipped drivel again]
>> Using same Leythos logic, a "missing UPS" also protected a
>> TV. A miracle device. Spend no money for a "missing UPS" to
>> get superior protection. I saved so much money using Leythos
>> logic. I wonder why they never taught us Leythos logic in
>> engineering school?
>>
>> One fact that Leythos never learned: protector (such as that
>> UPS) is only as effective as its earth ground. But that means
>> reading manufacturer specs and numbers. That means learning
>> EE concepts rather than speculating.
>[snipped drivel again]
>
>I see you're still not addressing the question I posted to you, completely
>ignoring the scenario that I put before you about the UPS's and real-world
>examples. What are you afraid of - the numbers?

This is a very enjoyable argument, but as a disinterested third party,
I have to say that w_tom is definitely blowing away Leythos. He is
posting sound facts, while Leythos is posting anectdotal facts.

Keep it up! I love good entertainment!
 
G

Guest

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

........Leythos is posting anecdotal facts.

Facts? I think I'd need to see affidavits from those on the floors above
and below his that had problems when his equipment didn't. Hell, most
everyone has seen lightning blow stuff out of houses, not everything,
and that can't be easily explained either. Why did the garage door quit
and the TV didn't but the message machine did and the VCR didn't but the
microwave did but the electric blanket didn't but the alarm system did
but the etc.....

.......Keep it up! I love good entertainment!

Me too!

---==X={}=X==---


Jim Self
AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
Technical Counselor
 
G

Guest

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

Often what appears to be strange or capricious events are
explained when hidden or overlooked electrical paths are
discovered.

To have damage, a complete circuit was exist through
electronics. Once a transient passes through everything in an
electrical path, only then does something in that path fail.
The transient does not just crash on the beach like an ocean
wave. First the transient passes through everything in a
circuit that starts at the cloud and ends up at earthborne
charges miles distant. The building simply becomes a part of
that long electrical circuit from cloud, through building,
into earth, and then over to those earthborne charges. To
suffer damage, a transistor must be between incoming and
outgoing paths.

Things often considered non-electrical conductors can become
electrical conductor during transients. EVen concrete is an
excellent conductor. If a stereo speaker cable contacts the
baseboard heat, that can become an outgoing and destructive
path through a stereo. Incoming on AC electric. Outgoing
through that stereo wire. Yes, wire insulation connects
stereo wire to baseboard heat.

A building is chock full of conductive paths; some that we
initially don't consider conductive. So many paths that some
people instead assume lightning is capricious.

Cited previously was a TV and VCR sharing same electrical
receptacle. TV was not damaged. VCR was. Contributing to
this damage was that the VCR provided a better outgoing path
to earth. VCR conducted a destructive transient to earth;
thereby acting as a very expensive surge protector to the TV.
To better appreciate why some things are damaged and other are
not, one must first learn of every conductive path inside the
building. Again, lightning is not so capricious once we
analyze damage at the electronic component level; learn of
'sneaky' external connections.

A radio station was constructed to eliminate many of those
conductive 'sneak' paths by making the building's floor
equipotential. The floor was made into one big single point
ground beneath equipment so that interior electronics remained
at a constant voltage. No voltage difference (therefore no
separate incoming and outgoing paths) means no destructive
transients:
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

Equipotential being one way to eliminate transients through
appliances. But this author also provided his radio station
with best earthing - an Ufer ground. IOW he also made the
entire building into a most conductive earth ground. He
provided protection by two methods: using good conductivity
and making the building equipotential.

We can never make a connection to earth ground sufficient.
So we also make the building equipotential using a single
point earth ground technique. But a truly equipotential
building is not possible. So we make the connection to earth
the most conductive as possible - ie Ufer ground.

The best protection means installing an earthing system when
earth is first dug and footings are poured. If Ufer grounds
cannot be installed, another alternative is the halo ground -
a buried wire surrounding the building. However if neither is
feasible (because the plans were not done at the architects
level), we still bring all utilities into the building as a
same location AND provide utilities with good earthing. Even
one 10 foot earthing rod will be a major earthing
improvement. An electric utility demonstrates the principles
with their 'bad, ugly, and good' examples:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

Another manufacturer demonstrates the principles in a
communication facility on Adobe page 14 at:

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

Protection involves two basic objectives.

First is to earth a destructive transient before it can
enter the building using a most conductive earth ground.
Earth before a transient can find the so many 'sneak' paths
through appliances. This is accomplished with 'whole house'
protectors (AC electric and phone) or direct hardwire
connections (cable TV and satellite dish), made as short as
possible, to earth ground that is as large or conductive as is
reasonable.

Second is to make the voltage differences between appliances
or between an appliance's 'incoming verses outgoing' wires to
be equipotential. This is accomplished by making that earth
ground a single point ground, addressing the protection in
terms of a building wide and geological evaluation, and again,
bringing everything that could carry a transient into a
building at the common service entrance.

We learn from damage by finding paths into and out of the
electronics that found earth ground using circuits initially
not known to be electrical conductors.

Discover why damage occurs by first learning incoming and
outgoing electrical paths. A most common path that damages
computer modems is incoming on AC electric and outgoing to
earth ground via the telco installed 'whole house' protector.
Notice a transient did not come down the phone line, damage
the modem, then stop. Destructive transients don't crash on
the beach like ocean waves. First a transient establishes a
complete electrical path to earth ground. Then something
fails in that path. Often damaged is a PNP transistor that
drives the modem's off-hook relay. The complete path includes
a direct electrical connection from relay's coil to relay's
wiper. Another example of a path that we normally consider
non-conductive. From relay's data sheets, the breakdown
voltage between that coil and wiper defines another part of
the conductive electrical path.

Lightning seeks earth ground. To discover why some
transistors are damaged and others are not, first find
surprise (sneak) paths to earth ground. To avoid future
damage, modify the incoming path with non-destructive and more
conductive paths to earth (ie. use a well earthed 'whole
house' protector). Never think of transients as capricious.
Transistors are damaged for specific reasons. Learn from
'dead bodies' (the best evidence) why damage occurred; what
was the destructive earthing path. Two principles to superior
protection being a most conductive path to earth and making
the structure equipotential. Protection is not provided by
stopping, blocking, absorbing, or filtering destructive
transients. And yet that is what a plug-in (power strip or
UPS) protector manufacturer hopes you will assume.

Damage is about destructive paths to earth ground via
transistors. Protection has always been about earthing
transients.

PA20Pilot wrote:
> .......Leythos is posting anecdotal facts.
>
> Facts? I think I'd need to see affidavits from those on the floors above
> and below his that had problems when his equipment didn't. Hell, most
> everyone has seen lightning blow stuff out of houses, not everything,
> and that can't be easily explained either. Why did the garage door quit
> and the TV didn't but the message machine did and the VCR didn't but the
> microwave did but the electric blanket didn't but the alarm system did
> but the etc.....
>
> ......Keep it up! I love good entertainment!
>
> Me too!
 
G

Guest

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:43:09 -0400, NobodyMan wrote:
>
> This is a very enjoyable argument, but as a disinterested third party, I
> have to say that w_tom is definitely blowing away Leythos. He is
> posting sound facts, while Leythos is posting anectdotal facts.

I didn't really see it as an argument, I asked him to explain how the UPS
devices remained undamaged while the non-UPS devices were damaged when
both where connected to the same outlet.

It's not about being blow-away or anecdotal, it's just about a simple
observation that I've seen first hand. Since there is no logical
explanation for "something else" protecting the devices it seemed
reasonable to determine that the UPS did indeed protect the devices.

If one is to suggest, as tom does, that a UPS provides no surge
protection, then the devices should not have been undamaged.

I've still not seen an explanation of why devices connected to a UPS
remained undamaged and those not connected (to the same electrical outlet
as the UPS supply) were damaged - and from the looks of it, Tom's not
going to answer it, just keep ignoring it.

I've always come out and admitted when I was wrong, as I know I can be
wrong, but, unless he can clearly explain what I've seen several times
with my own eyes, I'm going to keep believing in the ability of a properly
connected UPS to provide at least some protection against surges.

Now, for any lurkers benefit, I do not disagree that whole-house
protection is good, in fact, I think it's a great thing. I completely
disagree with the assumption that UPS's don't protect devices from surges.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

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

Hi again,

........First a transient establishes a complete electrical path to earth
ground. Then something fails in that path.

Interesting, hadn't thought about it that way before.

It's easy to see how the cases of equipment is grounded by the
recepticals, but how can the hot legs be grounded too? My neighbor has
one of the Pepsi sized cans installed in his breaker box that's supposed
to fail if struck, is that the answer? I've noticed the power company
runs ground wires down their poles around here just about every third
pole. They take grounding serious.

---==X={}=X==---


Jim Self
AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
Technical Counselor
 
G

Guest

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

Hi Leythos,

Civility, wonderful!

......I completely disagree with the assumption that UPS's don't protect
devices from surges.

Maybe they do, but according to Tom, not by design, at least they're not
advertised as such.

---==X={}=X==---


Jim Self
AVIATION ANIMATION, the internet's largest depository.
http://avanimation.avsupport.com

Your only internet source for spiral staircase plans.
http://jself.com/stair/Stair.htm

Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
Technical Counselor
 
G

Guest

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

w_tom wrote:
> I referred to lurkers: people who read and don't
> participate. What was posted in reply to Leythos is only for
> their benefit.
>
> Now for a typical plug-in UPS. It claims protection from
> two of five types of power problems - blackouts and extreme
> brownouts. Neither will damage properly constructed
> electronic hardware. As noted, other electrical problems are
> better solved elsewhere and by other devices. For example, a
> modest brownout where incandescent bulbs dim to 50% intensity:
> a problem made completely irrelevant by 'protection' already
> inside a minimally acceptable computer power supply. Even
> Intel specs make this obvious. A computer that does not power
> up everything even when lights are only at 50% intensity
> violates even Intel power supply requirements.
>

Just because Intel (or Microsoft) makes some proclamation that from this
day forth all things will be done this way, does not mean that they are.
That is why additional add on protection is needed.


> For transient protection: single point earth ground. A
> solution located elsewhere. Anything additional is effective
> only if a transient is connected less than 10 feet to that
> earth ground. Furthermore, a power cord 'isolator' does not
> exist. The green safety ground wire makes such isolation
> impossible.
>

Grounds are only as effective as the surroundings. They probably work
much better in Florida than here in Las Vegas. Even though our building
has the necessary ground stakes, etc. does not mean they work as well as
the same in a wetter climate. The isolator I was talking about is much
like a very large choke to cut down the "noise" in the power signal.


> As for ripple, well, a protector is not for such trivial
> voltages. On 120 volt service, the protect does zilch until
> that 'ripple' increases to 300+ volts. 300+ volts is far above
> 'ripple' voltages. Ripple being variations of single digit or
> tens of volts. But then, this 'ripple' must be eliminated in
> any minimally acceptable power supply. An expression
> carefully worded because many 'clone' computers don't have
> minimally acceptable power supplies. A problem created by
> many computer assemblers who don't even have basic electrical
> knowledge.
>
> Of course, the numbers posted above should even be provided
> in specs for those products and in corresponding standards.
> Above concepts are so basic as to be common knowledge among
> those with basic technical experience. Those numbers, such as
> let-through voltage and normal operating voltage limits, are
> even printed on the devices. A messenger need not have any
> credibility because those are numbers required to be printed
> on the corresponding appliance or protector.
>
> So what does a UPS 'clean'? What does it do? The plug-in
> UPS connects computer directly to AC mains when not in power
> supply mode. In battery backup mode, plug-in UPS exposes
> computer to some of the 'dirtiest' electricity. For example,
> a UPS in battery backup mode creates a "modified sine wave"
> 120 volt AC that is ... two 200 volt square waves with up to a
> 270 volt spike between those square waves. Is that a sine
> wave? Yes. A modified sine wave.
>
> So where is this 'clean' electricity? That 'dirty' battery
> backup electricity is still more than clean enough for
> computers.
>
> Again, the plug-in UPS outputs a 'clean' sine wave when not
> in battery backup mode. Why? It connects computer directly
> to AC mains. You can see this on any oscilloscope. Again,
> you are expected not to take my word for it. You are expected
> to confirm this yourself. Numbers were provided so that you
> can even see this yourself.
>
> Other more expensive UPSes do additional functions. A line
> interactive UPS would cost $500+. A serious UPS (that even
> provides transient protection) is a building wide system
> installed back at the breaker box (with a less than 10 foot
> connection to earth ground). If you have $25,000 of disk
> drives, then you probably has a building wide UPS that
> includes many times more functions than found in a plug-in
> protector. For example, that building wide UPS may even
> address harmonic problems. No plug-in UPS even mentions such
> solutions. Your solution would not be a $100 'computer
> grade' UPS. Computer grade? It can output a modified sine
> wave that may harm electric motors but is sufficient to power
> computers. Why? Because computers are more resilient.
>

The UPS our company went to was a full time 4KVA system. Once it was
installed we never had another equipment failure. So obviously the UPS
did its job. One that grounds, etc. were not able to do. I'm not
saying that our solution was for everyone, but am pointing out that
relying on just one solution is not an answer either.


> Sidebar: we were trying to remember the vacuum tubes used in
> virtually all AM radios. We remembered 35W4 and 50C5. Do you
> remember the other three vacuum tube part numbers for the RF
> amp, IF amp, and detector?
>
> "Michael W. Ryder" wrote:
>
>>I don't know if you are referring to me as the "lurker" or not, but I
>>have yet to see any thing in your posts that I would trust by itself.
>>Trusting in only one form of protection is like protecting your house
>>with a guard dog. Yes, it might work a lot of the time, but there are
>>times when locks or alarms are also prudent. My own experiences (over
>>40 years with electronics starting with tubes and mechanical relays) is
>>that a UPS has its place. It is not the only form of protection, but
>>neither is a whole house ground, or an isolator.
>>Our company had both of those installed by electricians (some of who
>>worked with the major Strip hotels) and these devices only alleviated
>>part of the power "ripple" we were seeing. A UPS was also necessary to
>>clean up the power enough that the fragile electronics (discrete
>>transistors) on the $25,000+ disk drives were not damaged.
>>
>>
>>> This is the question a lurker must ask. Will you believe
>>>the electronic salesman who lied about an EE degree and who
>>>fears to even post those UPS specs? Or the EE who was doing
>>>this stuff before Leythos even existed? The engineer who even
>>>designed some of thise stuff, who first learned why things
>>>fail by replacing transistors, and who built electronic
>>>protection circuits says Leythos is lying. That is the extent
>>>of my personal insult vocabulary. Leythos lies. When caught
>>>in a lie, he then used personal insults to accuse the other.
>>>This post not to change Leythos mind. That is impossible.
>>>This post again to warn the lurker about outright liars such a
>>>Leythos - who even lied about having an EE degree and who will
>>>not even apologize for that lie.
>>>
>>
>>And yet, I have Never seen any proof offered by you as to your
>>qualifications. Usually when I make a choice I listen to all sides of
>>the question, regardless of the qualifications of the proponents, and
>>then make my choice.
 
G

Guest

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

You tell me what that plug-in protector is protecting from.
You tell me what the manufacturer claims to protect from.
Your assumption that any plug-in protector is additional
protection is based upon what?

Earth ground is the protection from typically destructive
transients. The protector is only a connection to
protection. Where is the other earth ground that a plug-in
protector connects to? Without some dedicated earth ground,
then a plug-in protector provides nothing additional.

Do not assume a protector is protection. Some circuits need
no protector to be protected. A wire connects to protection
(ie cable TV). The protector simply replaces that wire when a
direct wire connection (ie to AC hot wire) cannot be
installed.

A 4KVA UPS is completely different from a plug-in UPS. The
plug-in UPS only claims blackout and brownout protection. The
4KVA building unit costs more than a few $100 because it has
other power functions. What do the specification numbers
say? For example, does it list THD? Just another
embarrassing number that some plug-in UPS manufacturer will
'forget' to mention. Another function probably listed on that
4KVA UPS.

To assume that 4KVA UPS is at all similar to the APC UPS is
like saying a shark and a trout are same.

A UPS must be properly grounded. I don't understand what
you mean by "One that grounds, etc. were not able to do." But
a building UPS would include 'whole house' protection; would
have superior earthing.

Even a single ground stake provides major earthing
improvement. Earthing and how earthing is connected being the
protection. A 4KVA building UPS would have superior earthing
due to its location and other requirements. Earthing defines
the protection. The plug-in UPS has all but no earth ground.
Just another reason why a building UPS also does what a 'whole
house' protectors does; provides superior transient protection
even to computers with unacceptable power supplies.

The 4KVA building UPS would 'fix' problems created by
'defective by design' power supplies that are missing
essential functions. These are not just functions defined by
Intel. Industry standard functions that existed long before
Intel wrote their spec. Specs that other companies such as
AMD, IBM, Motorola, Conexant, TI, EPRI PEAC Corp., Compaq,
Central Hudson Power, Toshiba, TXU Electric, National
Semiconductor, Sony, Public Service of New Mexico, Gateway,
HP, Duke Power, and Dell demand. Disparaging Intel only
because they too make demands often not found in clone power
supplies is myopic. Those 'defective by design' power
supplies so often found in clone computers tend to violate
numerous standards. Then others fix that problem with
additional equipment.

When the computer suffers hardware failure, too often others
blame power rather than a bean counter who assembled that
computer. Then the naive 'feel' additional protection is
necessary.

When hardware fails, one good starting point is the power
supply. If AC mains power problems are damaging disk drives,
then a power supply missing essential functions is a most
likely suspect. Disk drive should never be damaged by
anything that passes through a minimally acceptable power
supply.

Meanwhile, do you remember the number for those other three
vacuum tubes used in 1950s AM radios?

"Michael W. Ryder" wrote:
> Just because Intel (or Microsoft) makes some proclamation that from this
> day forth all things will be done this way, does not mean that they are.
> That is why additional add on protection is needed.
> ...
>
> Grounds are only as effective as the surroundings. They probably work
> much better in Florida than here in Las Vegas. Even though our building
> has the necessary ground stakes, etc. does not mean they work as well as
> the same in a wetter climate. The isolator I was talking about is much
> like a very large choke to cut down the "noise" in the power signal.
> ...
>
> The UPS our company went to was a full time 4KVA system. Once it was
> installed we never had another equipment failure. So obviously the UPS
> did its job. One that grounds, etc. were not able to do. I'm not
> saying that our solution was for everyone, but am pointing out that
> relying on just one solution is not an answer either.
>
>> Sidebar: we were trying to remember the vacuum tubes used in
>> virtually all AM radios. We remembered 35W4 and 50C5. Do you
>> remember the other three vacuum tube part numbers for the RF
>> amp, IF amp, and detector?
 
G

Guest

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

Equipment case is safety grounded. This is not electrically
same as earth ground. For safety grounding, wire resistance
is relevant. 50 feet of 12 AWG wire will be less than 0.2
ohms resistance. That same 12 AWG wire could be 130 ohms
impedance to transients. Wire length and other conditions
such as sharp wire bends being a critical parameter when
discussing transient protection.

A wall receptacle is typically too far to earth even a
trivial 100 amp transient. The critical number is 'less than
10 feet'. Even 6 foot of power cord on a protector
compromises the protector - power strip or UPS. We install a
'whole house' protector to make a 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth ground. The protector is not protection.
Protector is simply a connection from utility wire to
protection - earth ground.

A protector that 'fails if struck' is not acceptable. That
'Pepsi can' protector is probably same as properly sized
protectors sold in Home Depot and Lowes. Both effective and
ineffective protectors were listed in that other discussion
entitled "Lightning and computer?" on 20 April 2005 (in a
first reply to Susan). Further information on what is and is
not effective earthing was detailed in same discussion (that
begins "Impedance has little to do with the size...") on 21
April 2005. A response after Leythos claimed he has an EE
degree but did not understand resistance and impedance.

Again, if any protector fails during a transient, then the
protector was grossly undersized - insufficient joules. Look
at joules number for a plug-in UPS. Also undersized.
Effective protectors degrade - do not fail. Manufacturers
charts joules verses number of transients in data sheets. The
electrical conditions that cause total failure? Not even on
those charts because such failure is not a normal nor
acceptable event. Joules: what ineffective protectors have
too few of and therefore fail catastrophically. A properly
sized protector has sufficient joules to earth the direct
strike and remain functional.

The power company ground wire is your primary protection.
An inspection of that primary protector is demonstrated in:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Your building earth ground and associated connections (ie
the protector) are secondary protection.

Much reading and technical information was posted in that
other discussion. A long list of manufacturer app notes,
industry professional
experiences, utility recommendations, NIST figure, and other
underlying concepts (probably a full days worth of reading)
was posted in reply to H. W. Stockman in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus on 30 Mar 2005 entitled "UPS
unit needed for the P4C800E-Deluxe" at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA

PA20Pilot wrote:
> .......First a transient establishes a complete electrical path to earth
> ground. Then something fails in that path.
>
> Interesting, hadn't thought about it that way before.
>
> It's easy to see how the cases of equipment is grounded by the
> recepticals, but how can the hot legs be grounded too? My neighbor
> has one of the Pepsi sized cans installed in his breaker box that's
> supposed to fail if struck, is that the answer? I've noticed the
> power company runs ground wires down their poles around here just
> about every third pole. They take grounding serious.