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

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
35 answers Last reply
More about lightning funny more
  1. 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
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Hi Leythos,

    You trying to say you know more about the topic than he did?


    ---==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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
    >
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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!
  17. 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
  18. 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!
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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?
  24. 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.
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    'UPS connected' devices were protected just like the
    "missing UPS" devices were protected. What protected Leythos'
    smoke detector, bathroom and kitchen GFCIs, clock radio, and
    dishwasher. Clearly Leythos forgot to mention he also
    installed "missing UPS" protectors. How else can Leythos
    explain those other undamaged electronics not connected to a
    UPS?

    This was explained previously in that discussion entitled
    "Lightning and computer?". Back then, I was replying to
    someone who claimed to have an EE degree. Now that we know
    Leythos lied about the EE degree, well then of course he
    doesn't understand why some things were damaged and others
    were not. Of course he never understood the answer. The
    technical education he claimed did not exist.

    In the meantime, a "missing UPS" protected the TV while an
    adjacent VCR was damaged. That example also answered Leythos
    question a second time. A more technical answer was posted
    in "Lightning and computer?". But that means Leythos must
    learn some basic electrical concepts. Clearly, Leythos wants
    to argue rather than learn.

    Leythos again misrepresents what was posted only to keep
    arguing. He again posts:
    > ... as tom does, that a UPS provides no surge protection, ...

    When Leythos misrepresented what I posted above on 28 April
    2005, the reply (that Leythos still does not comprehend) was:
    > 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."

    Again Leythos. Remember those numerical specification you
    could not provide after how many requests? Fifteen? The UPS
    does claim protection from transients. Provide the numbers.
    It does not claim to protect from the type of transient that
    typically damages electronics. Again, I am only reposting
    what you intentionally distort to keep arguing.

    So for the sixteenth time, Leythos: post the manufacturer's
    spec for that protection you claim is provided by an APC UPS.
    You cannot? Why? Numbers are what junk scientists fear.
    But prove me wrong. Show me. Show me this manufacturer spec
    that even claims to protect from each type of transient. Show
    me where the manufacture even claims to do as you claim - in
    that same post where you also claim an EE degree. Show me the
    numbers - rather than repeatedly misrepresent what I have
    posted and misrepresent what a UPS manufacturer claims.

    Leythos - where are your numbers? Or do you just know these
    things.

    Leythos wrote:
    > 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.
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Mon, 02 May 2005 06:25:11 -0400, w_tom wrote:
    [snip]
    > Leythos - where are your numbers? Or do you just know these
    > things.

    How can I show you any more NUMBERS than many devices connected to UPS's
    that were protected and many devices that were connected to the same
    electrical outlets that were not protected at the same time?

    Here is a typical UPS that we would install in a facility for workstations:
    http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BR1000

    Here is another:
    http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SU700J

    Here is a typical Server UPS:
    http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SU2200RMXLNET

    Now, you have the links to typical UPS units that we would/have installed,
    you have my explanation of devices being protected while others failed
    that were not on the UPS.

    Explain it away if you can.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Mon, 02 May 2005 05:54:29 -0400, w_tom wrote:
    >
    > 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.

    Does this mean that your saying that a UPS (which the APC Smart-UPS XL)
    line (that covers the 4KVA range, really does provide protection and that
    you were wrong or misstated yourself?

    So, it seems that you're suggesting that if I purchase a UPS, that it
    doesn't protect me, but if I purchase a better UPS (since you had no idea
    which ones we use, and is still a UPS) that you're changing your story
    now?

    If you look on most UPS sites, there are clear ranges of features, for you
    to make a blanket assumption that a 4KVA UPS is not similar to a APC UPS
    is ludicrous, as we buy a lot of 2+KVA UPS's that PLUG-IN to wall outlets
    from APC vendors.

    It seems to me you're a little wishy-washy on this, either keep your story
    that UPS's don't protect us or change your statement to reflect that a
    select class of UPS's don't protect us while also mentioning that some XXX
    UPS's do protect devices.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    w_tom wrote:
    > 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.
    >

    The 4KVA unit I am talking about is a plug in UPS. It plugs into a wall
    socket (granted it uses a locking plug) and the equipment plugs into it.


    > To assume that 4KVA UPS is at all similar to the APC UPS is
    > like saying a shark and a trout are same.
    >
    Which APC unit are you talking about? They make a very large number of
    different ones.


    > 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.
    >

    The unit I am talking about is not a building UPS, but only used for the
    computer and the drives attached to it. ALL of our wiring was new and
    up to or above the latest codes. The computer room was on a separate
    wire from the power company and was tested multiple times for faults.
    Until we installed the UPS to "clean" up the power we were having hard
    drive failures at least once a month. We had the factory reps for the
    company check out the drives and could find no problems other than the
    transients in the power.


    > 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.
    >

    Again, the UPS was plugged into the wall and the power circuit was
    properly "grounded". The problem is that a ground can NOT remove
    "noise" from a signal.


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

    What were numbers for transient on AC mains? Transient peak
    voltage and transient width. Were those transients observed
    on output of the disk drive's power supply - or did the
    company rep check?

    If transients are "noise", then the APC UPS (as Leythos
    defines) also would not eliminate that noise. Such noise is
    suppose to be eliminated by the disk drive's power supply.
    That would be noise; not surges.

    What is the manufacturer (or type) of this 4KVA UPS?

    "Michael W. Ryder" wrote:
    > ...
    > The 4KVA unit I am talking about is a plug in UPS. It plugs into a wall
    > socket (granted it uses a locking plug) and the equipment plugs into it.
    > ...
    >
    > Which APC unit are you talking about? They make a very large number of
    > different ones.
    > ...
    >
    > The unit I am talking about is not a building UPS, but only used for the
    > computer and the drives attached to it. ALL of our wiring was new and
    > up to or above the latest codes. The computer room was on a separate
    > wire from the power company and was tested multiple times for faults.
    > Until we installed the UPS to "clean" up the power we were having hard
    > drive failures at least once a month. We had the factory reps for the
    > company check out the drives and could find no problems other than the
    > transients in the power.
    > ...
    >
    > Again, the UPS was plugged into the wall and the power circuit was
    > properly "grounded". The problem is that a ground can NOT remove
    > "noise" from a signal.
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Had Leythos understood what was posted, then weeks ago he
    knew there are many different types of UPSes. Serious UPSes
    do provide effective transient protection. They specifically
    state such protection in their numerical specs. But a $100
    UPS is nothing more than stripped down UPS to only protect
    data from blackouts and brownouts; only for a very limited
    time.

    Does a plug-in UPS do same as the UPS inside telephone
    switching stations? Apparently so from what Leythos has
    posted. But then he never needed any specification to know
    better.

    Leythos wrote:
    > Does this mean that your saying that a UPS (which the APC Smart-UPS XL)
    > line (that covers the 4KVA range, really does provide protection and that
    > you were wrong or misstated yourself?
    >
    > So, it seems that you're suggesting that if I purchase a UPS, that it
    > doesn't protect me, but if I purchase a better UPS (since you had no idea
    > which ones we use, and is still a UPS) that you're changing your story
    > now?
    >
    > If you look on most UPS sites, there are clear ranges of features, for you
    > to make a blanket assumption that a 4KVA UPS is not similar to a APC UPS
    > is ludicrous, as we buy a lot of 2+KVA UPS's that PLUG-IN to wall outlets
    > from APC vendors.
    >
    > It seems to me you're a little wishy-washy on this, either keep your story
    > that UPS's don't protect us or change your statement to reflect that a
    > select class of UPS's don't protect us while also mentioning that some XXX
    > UPS's do protect devices.
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Leythos finally provides the manufacturer numbers (as
    requested almost 20 times). The surge protector is:
    > Surge Protection and Filtering
    > Surge energy rating 420 Joules
    > Filtering Full time multi-pole noise filtering : 5% IEEE surge
    > let-through : zero clamping response time : meets UL 1449
    > Dataline protection RJ-45 Modem/Fax protection (two wire
    > single line) , RJ45 10/100 Base-T Ethernet protection

    So the UPS surge protector is same circuit in power strip
    protectors - a paltry 420 joules. Let's assume that all
    joules are installed on AC mains - give it the best possible
    protection circuit. That means UPS provides as little as 140
    joules and never more than 280 joules of protection. Using
    MOV manufacturer charts to compare this protection to a
    minimally sized 'whole house' protector for a classic 30
    usecond, 1000 amp transient. Above 420 joule protector would
    be sufficient for 2 transients. The minimally sized 'whole
    house' protector (that costs two to five times less money) is
    rated for about 200 or 300 of these same transients. For
    larger transients, the UPS would catastrophically fail on the
    first transient whereas the 'whole house' protector would
    remain functional. That is the difference between a grossly
    undersized protector and a minimally sufficient ('whole
    house') protector. The latter actually provides protection.
    The former only speculates protection.

    As repeatedly stated and now demonstrated by numbers, the
    protection inside that plug-in UPS is undersized - too few
    joules. Same protector circuit provided by $0.10 component
    inside power strip protectors.

    Filtering is for AC noise elimination as required by FCC.
    If similar to other UPSes that were disassembled, the
    filtering is only on control electronics; not connected to
    load (computer). IOW no filtering is applied to the load
    (computer) as is routine in so many other plug-in UPSes. AC
    mains connects directly to load when not in battery backup
    mode. No filtering to the computer as others could so easily
    assume based upon how the spec is deceptively worded.

    Zero Clamping response time? I assume they claim 0
    nanoseconds response time which what previous APC specs stated
    and which is what that same circuit does inside power strip
    protectors. Again, the UPS has same protector circuit found
    in power strip protectors using same $0.10 components.

    UL1449 does not mean the surge protector works. UL1449
    (which is obsolete - must be UL1449 2nd edition) only says the
    UPS will not harm humans. Protector circuit can completely
    disintegrate on first transient. That protector circuit still
    qualifies for UL1449 approval as long as the catastrophic
    failure does not threaten human life.

    What dataline protection? Where is one number that claims
    such protection? For example, is capacitance low enough for
    DSL lines? Again this APC spec intentionally shorts us of
    useful information so that the consumer will 'assume' things
    such as effective surge protection. What are they trying to
    hide?

    More numbers they don't provide for good reason. Where is
    the THD number? A high THD means the UPS output could damage
    small electric motors because the output has spikes and
    harmonics. Best when selling a 'computer grade' UPS, do not
    provide much information. Computers already have internal
    protection that makes those harmonics and spikes irrelevant.

    APC once provided better specs for UPSes.
    > Normal mode clamping response time 0 ns, instantaneous
    > Normal mode surge voltage let through <5% of test peak
    > voltage when subjected to IEEE 587 Cat. A 6kVA test

    IOW they admit to protection from only one type of transient
    - normal mode. So that you don't ask embarrassing questions,
    latest specs forget to even mention various transient modes.
    Better to not discuss what is not really provided. A plug-in
    UPS does not even claim to protect from the other typically
    destructive type of transients. Now they ignore many types of
    transients exist - including a destructive type that APC never
    claimed to protect from. Numbers provided by Leythos still
    don't claim to protect from typically destructive types of
    transients.

    The numbers demonstrate what kind of protection is
    provided. First, undersized - too few joules. Second, it
    connects the load directly to AC mains. Where is the
    isolation or filtering? No such isolation exists. Third,
    whereas APC once claimed protection from normal mode
    transients (those that require no earth ground), they now
    avoid any mention of the different types of transients. This
    so that the consumer will 'feel' it protects from all types of
    transients.

    APC does not even provide THD numbers for Outputs. Numbers
    they forget to provide are most damning. If we saw high THD
    numbers, then it would be obvious there is no filtering to the
    load (computer). APC does not even state type of protection
    on telephone and data lines. Protection that could actually
    degrade DSL service. Better to not say anything - provide no
    numbers. Again, more embarrassing numbers they would rather
    forget to provide.

    Leythos recommended this UPS for surge protection that even
    its manufacturer does not claim to provide. With or without
    that UPS, his computer would have probably survived just
    fine. The "missing UPS" would have protected just as good as
    his existing UPS since computers already have effective
    internal protection. The computer would have protected
    itself.

    Why the term 'computer grade'? Because other appliances can
    even be damaged by a UPS output in battery backup mode.
    Output that can damage other appliances will not overwhelm
    internal computer protection. That is how resilient computers
    can be. IOW his computer connected directly to AC mains via a
    UPS protected itself. Instead, Leythos credits the UPS. The
    UPS manufacturer tells us much about the transient protection
    provided. Protection that pragmatically does not exist.
    Still, Leythos know more than the manufacturer<g>.

    First demand the numbers. That APC UPS provides data
    protection from blackouts and brownouts. It does not claim
    protection from the typically destructive transients. It
    claims to protect like a power strip protector with the same
    'too few' joules. And it provides misleading statements (ie
    filtering) so that one (ie Leythos) will actually believe the
    filter exists and therefore provides protection.

    The UPS as a protector is only as effective as its earth
    ground. That UPS has no effective earthing. Therefore its
    own specs confirm the obvious. That UPS provides ineffective
    protection that is also grossly undersized - too few joules.
    Just a short description of what that UPS does not provide is
    in direct contradiction to what Leythos claims. These are
    damning numbers - especially those too few joules. Leythos
    recommended protection that is mostly mythical.

    Leythos wrote:
    > How can I show you any more NUMBERS than many devices connected to UPS's
    > that were protected and many devices that were connected to the same
    > electrical outlets that were not protected at the same time?
    >
    > Here is a typical UPS that we would install in a facility for workstations:
    > http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=BR1000
    >
    > Here is another:
    > http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SU700J
    >
    > Here is a typical Server UPS:
    > http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=SU2200RMXLNET
    >
    > Now, you have the links to typical UPS units that we would/have installed,
    > you have my explanation of devices being protected while others failed
    > that were not on the UPS.
    >
    > Explain it away if you can.
    >
    > --
    > spam999free@rrohio.com
    > remove 999 in order to email me
  32. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:09:49 -0400, w_tom wrote:
    >
    > Had Leythos understood what was posted, then weeks ago he
    > knew there are many different types of UPSes. Serious UPSes do provide
    > effective transient protection. They specifically state such protection
    > in their numerical specs. But a $100 UPS is nothing more than stripped
    > down UPS to only protect data from blackouts and brownouts; only for a
    > very limited time.

    Nice to see you changing your story to match the real-world now. Since
    there was never a mention of a UPS model, and since you said that UPS's
    don't protect from transients, you appear to be changing your story now.

    > Does a plug-in UPS do same as the UPS inside telephone
    > switching stations? Apparently so from what Leythos has posted. But
    > then he never needed any specification to know better.

    I've never suggested anything about a telco loc, only what I've seen first
    hand when using APC UPS units at the desktop and in our server farms.

    I see you have to post diversionary comments now that you've been shown to
    be wrong about UPS's not providing transient protection.


    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  33. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:22:55 -0400, w_tom wrote:
    >
    > Leythos recommended this UPS for surge protection that even
    > its manufacturer does not claim to provide. With or without that UPS,
    > his computer would have probably survived just fine. The "missing UPS"
    > would have protected just as good as his existing UPS since computers
    > already have effective internal protection. The computer would have
    > protected itself.

    I never suggested that the vendors information stated anything, only that
    I've seen it protect devices while others not connected to the UPS were
    damaged. Can I explain it, no, don't even care too. I've seen it enough
    times that I'm going to trust my judgment in purchasing a quality UPS
    device for protection.

    > Why the term 'computer grade'? Because other appliances can
    > even be damaged by a UPS output in battery backup mode. Output that can
    > damage other appliances will not overwhelm internal computer protection.
    > That is how resilient computers can be. IOW his computer connected
    > directly to AC mains via a UPS protected itself. Instead, Leythos
    > credits the UPS. The UPS manufacturer tells us much about the transient
    > protection provided. Protection that pragmatically does not exist.
    > Still, Leythos know more than the manufacturer<g>.

    Again, you use diversionary measures to keep from understanding what I've
    stated - I've seen, time and time again, where a UPS has saved devices
    from damage while other devices have been damaged that were not connected
    to a UPS.

    It seems clear that you are speculating that a UPS will not protect
    devices as you are completely stuck on numbers and not real-world
    experiences. It would be interesting to see you in a server/system farm
    where there are only plug-in UPS devices protecting them and never having
    a fault/failure related to electrical issues or transients. Come back
    after you visit the reality of the real world.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
  34. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    w_tom wrote:
    > What were numbers for transient on AC mains? Transient peak
    > voltage and transient width. Were those transients observed
    > on output of the disk drive's power supply - or did the
    > company rep check?
    >

    I was not directly involved in the measuring of the power problems as I
    had my work to do. I do know that the power was Much dirtier than that
    in other parts of town due to the number of Truck repair firms, etc. in
    the area. Yes, the power was metered going into the disk drives and at
    its output. We often had recorders running for weeks on the lines.


    > If transients are "noise", then the APC UPS (as Leythos
    > defines) also would not eliminate that noise. Such noise is
    > suppose to be eliminated by the disk drive's power supply.
    > That would be noise; not surges.
    >
    > What is the manufacturer (or type) of this 4KVA UPS?
    >

    The UPS we purchased was from Exide. We have since replaced it with a
    APC Smart UPS XL after the Exide finally died. Plus the APC unit is
    much smaller and lighter.


    > "Michael W. Ryder" wrote:
    >
    >>...
    >>The 4KVA unit I am talking about is a plug in UPS. It plugs into a wall
    >>socket (granted it uses a locking plug) and the equipment plugs into it.
    >>...
    >>
    >>Which APC unit are you talking about? They make a very large number of
    >>different ones.
    >>...
    >>
    >>The unit I am talking about is not a building UPS, but only used for the
    >>computer and the drives attached to it. ALL of our wiring was new and
    >>up to or above the latest codes. The computer room was on a separate
    >>wire from the power company and was tested multiple times for faults.
    >>Until we installed the UPS to "clean" up the power we were having hard
    >>drive failures at least once a month. We had the factory reps for the
    >>company check out the drives and could find no problems other than the
    >>transients in the power.
    >>...
    >>
    >>Again, the UPS was plugged into the wall and the power circuit was
    >>properly "grounded". The problem is that a ground can NOT remove
    >>"noise" from a signal.
  35. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    On Tue, 03 May 2005 19:19:12 +0000, Michael W. Ryder wrote:
    >
    > w_tom wrote:
    >> What were numbers for transient on AC mains? Transient peak
    >> voltage and transient width. Were those transients observed on output
    >> of the disk drive's power supply - or did the company rep check?
    >>
    >>
    > I was not directly involved in the measuring of the power problems as I
    > had my work to do. I do know that the power was Much dirtier than that
    > in other parts of town due to the number of Truck repair firms, etc. in
    > the area. Yes, the power was metered going into the disk drives and at
    > its output. We often had recorders running for weeks on the lines.

    We experienced the same issues in many industrial locations around the USA
    and Argentina. In all cases you could watch recorders/scopes connected to
    the lines and see the problems, you could watch system problems increase
    during electrical storms, track their history in maintenance actions,
    etc...

    Installation of UPS units at the desktop level, server level, and at the
    control systems eliminated much downtime and also eliminated all of the
    faults that indicated a major power spike (blown power supply units along
    with damaged boards, etc...). Heck, we even installed small UPS units
    inside scale systems in order to eliminate batching problems on remote
    lines.

    Tom can spout his numbers all he wants, and I have never disputed them,
    but he's never going to convenience me that a UPS does not protect
    equipment from transients or surges, and you get the added benefit of
    power loss/surge regulation/protection too.

    --
    spam999free@rrohio.com
    remove 999 in order to email me
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware Microsoft Devices Windows XP