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

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?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: brown-out
    ... That was proof sufficient of UPS ... Leythos again ignores something even ... then a UPS must have provided them with protection. ... damage only occurs to selected appliances based ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Lightning - funny how were not seeing him any more
    ... Leythos then procedes to post more insults so that we will ... He still claims that UPS did what even its manufacturer does ... 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. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: Lightning - funny how were not seeing him any more
    ... Somehow Leythos again just knows that "a UPS not providing ... any protection is complete BS." ... He once suffered damage. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: Lightning - funny how were not seeing him any more
    ... Now for a typical plug-in UPS. ... a problem made completely irrelevant by 'protection' already ... inside a minimally acceptable computer power supply. ... computer to some of the 'dirtiest' electricity. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: House Power Failures and Mac
    ... What happens is that power comes in, ... J J O'Shea describes a UPS that typically costs $500. ... because I wanted the protection that true UPS delivers and SPS does not. ... A UPS that does provide surge protection is the building wide ...
    (comp.sys.mac.apps)