Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Need for surge supressor with laptop

Last response: in Laptops & Notebooks
Share
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 20, 2004 10:45:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Does anyone know if a separate surge supressor is really needed when
using the ac adapter to charge/run a laptop. Would a surge just blow
out the adapter or could the computer be damaged? I'm trying to
minimize how much I carry with my laptop. Thanks.

More about : surge supressor laptop

Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 20, 2004 7:59:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Do you think that silly adjacent protector is going to stop,
block, or absorb what miles of sky could not? And yet that is
exactly what those who promote plug-in protectors must claim.

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. 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. 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. Protection has always been about earthing before
the destructive transients can get near to a computer. 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:
"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. 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.

Albert Lee wrote:
> Does anyone know if a separate surge supressor is really needed when
> using the ac adapter to charge/run a laptop. Would a surge just blow
> out the adapter or could the computer be damaged? I'm trying to
> minimize how much I carry with my laptop. Thanks.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 21, 2004 10:57:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

So we can assume the answer is a resounding "NO"! I agree that surge
supressors probably aren't worth much but every little bit helps. The
only sure way to protect against lightning is to completely disconnect
from the AC mains and from Telco lines. I think what most smart folk
in Florida do is to have good insurance and back up data on a regular
basis. With probably the most lightning strikes in the country,
Florida has the most lightning damage to household appliances.
Anyway, if traveling with a laptop, just disconnect from AC mains and
run from battery during a storm. Use the free wireless most hotels
have made available. That way during a storm you are not attached to
any source that could zap your computer.
GR

w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<41265830.5AF3E966@hotmail.com>...
> Do you think that silly adjacent protector is going to stop,
> block, or absorb what miles of sky could not? And yet that is
> exactly what those who promote plug-in protectors must claim.
>
> 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. 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. 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. Protection has always been about earthing before
> the destructive transients can get near to a computer. 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:
> "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. 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.
>
> Albert Lee wrote:
> > Does anyone know if a separate surge supressor is really needed when
> > using the ac adapter to charge/run a laptop. Would a surge just blow
> > out the adapter or could the computer be damaged? I'm trying to
> > minimize how much I carry with my laptop. Thanks.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 21, 2004 5:03:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

>Does anyone know if a separate surge supressor is really needed when
>using the ac adapter to charge/run a laptop. Would a surge just blow
>out the adapter or could the computer be damaged? I'm trying to
>minimize how much I carry with my laptop. Thanks.

99% of the damaged notebooks are through the network cable. LAN or
phone. You can get surge protectors for notebooks at Radio Shack like
I did. With wireless, surges are not a problem but then there is radio
lightning. ;-)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 21, 2004 5:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 20 Aug 2004 06:45:50 -0700, ahlee10@yahoo.com (Albert Lee) wrote:

>Does anyone know if a separate surge supressor is really needed when
>using the ac adapter to charge/run a laptop. Would a surge just blow
>out the adapter or could the computer be damaged? I'm trying to
>minimize how much I carry with my laptop. Thanks.


They make some really small ones. I'd use one; new laptops aren't
cheap and the insurance is.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 22, 2004 3:33:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

No to what? If surge protector were so ineffective, then FM
and TV stations atop the Empire State Building are replacing
their equipment 25 times every year. Obviously not. If surge
protectors were not effective, then your phone company would
disconnect their $multi-million switching computer from
overhead lines all over town with each thunderstorm. 911
Emergency operators would remove headsets. Grocery stores
would stop running cash registers.

Surge protectors are effective. But plug-in protectors
don't even claim to provide the necessary protection. So
again, NO to what? Surge protector are as effective as their
earth ground which is why they are so effective and why
plug-in protectors (UPS and power strip) are not effective.
Details and solutions provided in those previously cited
discussions.

";-p" wrote:
> So we can assume the answer is a resounding "NO"! I agree that surge
> supressors probably aren't worth much but every little bit helps. The
> only sure way to protect against lightning is to completely disconnect
> from the AC mains and from Telco lines. I think what most smart folk
> in Florida do is to have good insurance and back up data on a regular
> basis. With probably the most lightning strikes in the country,
> Florida has the most lightning damage to household appliances.
> Anyway, if traveling with a laptop, just disconnect from AC mains and
> run from battery during a storm. Use the free wireless most hotels
> have made available. That way during a storm you are not attached to
> any source that could zap your computer.
> GR
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 22, 2004 11:29:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

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.
>
> Albert Lee wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know if a separate surge supressor is really needed when
>>using the ac adapter to charge/run a laptop. Would a surge just blow
>>out the adapter or could the computer be damaged? I'm trying to
>>minimize how much I carry with my laptop. Thanks.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 22, 2004 4:50:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 22, 2004 4:56:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

So electricity enters a computer, damages some components,
then stops? That violates basic science as even taught in
primary school. First electricity must form a complete path.
That means both an incoming and outgoing path. If surge
entered on network cable, then where did it come out? No
outgoing path means no surge damage. One must think through a
problem before wildly speculating that surges enter on network
cables.

Let see. How does the surge get into the network? Where is
the path from cloud to earth and includes a LAN or phone line?
Defined is complete circuit from cloud to earth -
destructively through electronics. Phone lines already have
effective 'whole house' type protectors. So lightning ignores
this properly earth protector, enters building, then finds
earth ground through a laptop? Where is the logic in this
reasoning?

Lightning bypasses wires highest on utility poles to strike
lowest wires - cable and TV? Again, where is the logic?
Both cable and TV wires have effective protection before the
wire enters a building. But those wires highest on poles - AC
electric - make a direct connection into the laptop -
unimpeded. So lightning will ignore effectively earthed
protectors on phone or cable to get into laptop? Lightning
will not take the direct and unimpeded path through laptop to
earth ground via AC electric? These are damning questions.

Obviously the speculated reason as to how laptops are
damaged and what is the incoming path is wrong for multiple
reasons. Speculation that a modem is damaged - therefore the
surge must have entered on phone line, damaged modem, then
stopped - is just plain and simply speculation that
contradicts basic facts.

Computer assemblers even connect a wire that makes a direct
connection from wires highest on utility poles directly to IC
pins inside modem. Why is that direct and unimpeded path from
utility pole wires to modem not the incoming path for a
surge? Incoming on AC electric. Outgoing to earth ground on
phone line via the earthed phone line protector. Now we have
a complete circuit as required even by elementary school
science.

Damaged modem is most typically from transients permitted
inside the building on AC electric. Damage directly traceable
to a human who failed to earth before that incoming transient
could enter the building. Effective protection costs
typically $1 per protected appliance - and yet the human still
failed to install it? Yes - many humans even forget their
primary school science lessons. They wildly speculate that
destructive surges enter on phone and LAN cables without first
doing an analysis. Its called junk science reasoning. Junk
science reasoning that also promotes ineffective plug-in
protectors.

What is this radio lightning that is so different from
lightning? Demonstrated is that network components can be
most easily damaged by lightning incoming on AC electric. Now
we have something called radio lightning? What is that?

AndrewJ wrote:
> 99% of the damaged notebooks are through the network cable. LAN or
> phone. You can get surge protectors for notebooks at Radio Shack like
> I did. With wireless, surges are not a problem but then there is radio
> lightning. ;-)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 22, 2004 5:28:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

............................................................
> Damaged modem is most typically from transients permitted
>inside the building on AC electric. Damage directly traceable
>to a human who failed to earth before that incoming transient
>could enter the building............................

The last few lightning damaged PC's I've worked on had every thing
unplugged but the phone or LAN line. So yes, that's where the surge
entered. It's amazing how God protects dumb people. Not one of them
ever knows how dumb they are.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 23, 2004 12:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

w_tom wrote:
> So electricity enters a computer, damages some components,
> then stops? That violates basic science as even taught in
> primary school. First electricity must form a complete path.
> That means both an incoming and outgoing path. If surge
> entered on network cable, then where did it come out? No
> outgoing path means no surge damage. One must think through a
> problem before wildly speculating that surges enter on network
> cables.
>

It's a real shame they forgot to use any of the 8 lines in RJ45
(network) cable for ground. If they had, it would be possible to flow a
current through the wire and network card. Then you could do cool stuff
like rapidly varying the current to communicate bits of information.

Then again, that would create the possibility of damaging the computer
if there were an overload e.g. due to lighting strike. I suppose it's
better just to keep networks running the old-fashioned way, on magic.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
August 23, 2004 3:59:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

They did not forget to use ground wires. Communication via
ground wires is common mode signalling. Found in elder
techniques such as RS-232 and 4-20 ma signalling. To make
communications faster, differential mode signalling is used -
no ground.

timeOday wrote:
> It's a real shame they forgot to use any of the 8 lines in RJ45
> (network) cable for ground. If they had, it would be possible to flow a
> current through the wire and network card. Then you could do cool stuff
> like rapidly varying the current to communicate bits of information.
>
> Then again, that would create the possibility of damaging the computer
> if there were an overload e.g. due to lighting strike. I suppose it's
> better just to keep networks running the old-fashioned way, on magic.
!