Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (
More info?)
Cited was an APC product that does not even claim to protect
from the type of surge that typically caused electronics
damage. They claim to protect from a type of surge that does
not typically exist. This is then promoted by myth purveyors
as protection from all surges. That APC recommendation is
based on junk science reasoning. Real world protectors must
protect from the typically destructive transient - direct
lightning strike.
Somehow assumed is that protection is found mostly in MOVs.
Don't make such assumptions. Furthermore MOVs don't protect
by absorbing transients no matter how specifications from APC
are spun. Even MOVs inside that erroneously recommended APC
cannot
> stop a certain level of surge (just how much is mentionned
> in the product's specs sheet).
That APC spec sheet does not even make that claim. What do
MOVs do? They do not stop, block, or absorb. MOV
manufacturers do not make that claim. So how can MOVs work
adjacent to the appliance?
Appliances typically have sufficient internal protection
without using MOVs. Too many crack open a power supplies and
somehow know what's inside - how it works? This power supply
probably has no MOVs. So how does it meet this spec?
> Dielectric withstand, input to frame/ground: 1800VAC, 1sec.
> Dielectric withstand, input to output: 1800VAC, 1sec.
Did you 'see' those protection components inside the supply?
Of course not. One cannot open and just see the protector
component. Internal protection is an integral design.
Effective protection is for the direct lightning strike. If
protectors cannot even provide that protection, then what is
that protector doing? Enriching a manufacturer who encourages
myths; would have us believe an adjacent protector will stop,
block and absorb? Then when the protector fails, the
manufacturer claims protection only from transients that don't
typically do damage? What is this other surge that is created
by lightning - with numbers? Why do us electrical engineers
not know what this other transient is? More spin. It was
also called buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
Those plug-in protectors can even contribute to damage of
an adjacent, powered off computer. Have traced out and
repaired a small network by following lightning (IC by
Integrated Circuit) that transvered the network due to two
plug-in protectors. May everything functional by soldering in
new ICs. Where was the protection? Adjacent plug-in
protector made damage easier to that powered off network and
computers. Posted is based upon decades of experience
analyzing as an engineer; not by promoting myths. Which is
why I am appalled to read more myths that the APC:
> can stop a certain level of surge (just how much is
> mentionned in the product's specs sheet).
One would spend $15 or $50 per protected appliance for a
protector that does not even protect from a most destructive
surge - lightning? This when effective 'whole house'
protection costs about $1 per protected appliance. Rather
embarrassing that one would recommend that APC product that
does not even claim to protect from the typically destructive
transient.
Look even at that money. Effective protection from
lightning costs about $1 per protected appliance. The $15 or
$50 APC does not even claim to provide that protection? Why
spend ten of times more money on protection that does not even
work? When junk science (ie: its called a surge protector and
therefore must provide surge protection) replaces logic. Any
surge protector that is not providing effective protection
from all types of surges - especially direct lightning - only
enriches the manufacturer.
Why do we know that APC is ineffective? How to identify
ineffective protectors: 1) No 'less than 10 foot connection'
to earth ground, and 2) manufacturer avoid all discussion
about earthing. That APC violates both. A surge protector is
only as effective as its earth ground once we eliminate the
myths. There is no difference between surge protector and
lightning arrestor and TVSS and surge suppressor - except
where more myths are being promoted. Either we earth the
destructive transient or electronics is exposed to damage from
typically destructive transients. Eliminate the hype and
mirrors encouraged by APC and other myth world protector
manufacturers. Discover that APC recommendation is not
effective AND costs tens of times more money.
If you cannot tell us what an MOV does, then you don't know
what is and is not protection. What does an MOV do? And what
does APC suggest those MOVs are doing? And where is that
earth ground connection to the APC? Little secret. It all
but does not exist. What are those MOVs doing inside that APC
that makes it so effective?
EM wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> Do you think that silly adjacent protector is going to stop,
>> block, or absorb what miles of sky could not?
>
> Well we're talking about "surge" protectors (or voltage "clampers"), not
> lightning arrestors (like the gas units you'd find along the lead of a
> large antenna array).
>
>> And yet that is exactly what those who promote plug-in
>> protectors must claim.
>
> Actually, I think most of them say they'll protect against
> surges caused by lightning, not the lightning strike itself.
>
>> We routinely protect from direct lightning strikes even
>> before WWII. But where protection is effective, the plug-in
>> protector is not used.
>>
>> Anything that is effective inside that plug-in protector is
>> already inside the computer power supply.
>
> Speaking as someone who's cracked open many PSUs, I can assure
> you that this is not at all the case.
>
> (I assume by "protector" you're talking about MOV's.)
>
> Most of them do have some measure of EMI/RFI filtering, but actual
> 3-line surge protection?
>
>> Protection that assumes a destructive transient will be
>> earthed before entering the building. Just as Franklin
>> demonstrated in 1752. Protection is about shunting
>> (diverting, connecting) the surge to what it seeks before
>> the surge can find a destructive path via a computer - or
>> any other household appliance.
>
> Yes, and a surge protector, though hardly foolproof, DOES
> provide some protection against transient voltage surges that
> are often caused by lightning strikes.
>
> In short, I'd rather use one than not use one.
>
>> If a destructive transient is earthed, then protection
>> already inside every appliance will not be overwhelmed.
>>
>> Notice the concept. Effective protection is not about
>> blocking or absorbing surges as a plug-in protector must
>> (and cannot) do.
>
> Actually, it can stop a certain level of surge (just how much
> is mentionned inthe product's specs sheet).
>
> Again, I'm not talking about actual lightning here.
>
> Protection has always been about earthing before
>> the destructive transients can get near to a computer.
>
> Ideally.
>
>> The general concept is called 'whole house' protection.
>> Discussed previously including these:
>> "Opinions on Surge Protectors?" on 7 Jul 2003 in the
>> newsgroup alt.certification.a-plus at
>>
http://tinyurl.com/l3m9
>> "RJ-11 line protection?" on 30 Dec 2003 through 12 Jan 2004
>> in pdx.computing at
>>
http://tinyurl.com/2hl53
>>
>> He had a plug-in surge protector and still suffered network
>> and modem damage:
>
> I agree that computers, including laptops, need surge protection along
> its data lines as well.
>
> APC has a neat little protector (available in 3-wire "grounded"), that
> incorporates phone/modem line protection.
>
http://www.apcc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=173
>
>> "network card and modem not working" on 3 Sept 2003 in
>> newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsme.hardware
>>
http://tinyurl.com/5h82o
>>
>> IOW first learn what a surge protector really does.
>> Effective protector does not stop, block, or absorb surges.
>> Protection is about earthing. A surge protector is only as
>> effective as the protection it connects to. Earth ground is
>> the protection - not a protector.
>
> I agree, which is why I recommended the APC model mentionned above.
>
>> Earthing - something that an ineffective protector
>> manufacturer must avoid discussing to sell an often
>> grossly undersized and grossly overpriced protector. A
>> protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
>>
>> Protection is a building wide solution because the most
>> critical component is the single point earth ground. A surge
>> protector is only as effective as its earth ground.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram