Re: Computer turns on after a power outage (when power returns)

On Aug 29, 11:59 am, w_tom <w_t...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 29, 10:22 am, bud-- <budn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

As usual, Bud must post incessantly and now post insult because
profits are at risk.

Repeating:
"To quote w_ 'It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger."
The source of insults is w_, who must incessantly post because his
religious belief in earthing has been challenged. Just like talking to
Jehovah's Witness.

Meanwhile IEEE makes recommendations in
standards. Those standards say nothing about plug-in protectors for
protection. Multiple IEEE Standards only define one thing essential
for protection - earthing.

The IEEE Emerald book ("IEEE Recommended Practice for Powering and
Grounding Sensitive Electronic Equipment"), an IEEE standard,
recognizes plug-in suppressors as an effective protection device. This
is the most appropriate IEEE standard for protecting electronics.

And the IEEE guide, which was published by the IEEE, says plug-in
suppressors are effective.

A protector without
earthing may even earth a surge 8000 volts destructively through the
adjacent TV.

w__ is referring to an illustration in the IEEE guide (pdf page 42)
that has a surge coming in on a cable drop. There are 2 TVs, one is on
a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor protects TV1, connected
to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V.
With the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply
a *lie* that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to
the damage at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think,
is "to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is
required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example
a service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection.
The problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power
service is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in
earthing he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.


Diverting them to ground. That is what the protector with an
earthing wire does. That plug-in protector - where again is that
earthing wire? Why does Bud routinely avoid all discusson about
earthing?

The religious belief in earthing. The question is not earthing. The
only question is whether plug-in suppressors are effective.

I repeat what the IEEE guide says. Repeating again:
"The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires
(signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40)."

This is also a severe
problem with plug-in protectors that are built for maximum profits
rather than for protection:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

But with no valid technical arguments all w_ has is pathetic scare
tactics.

Hell,
that plug-in protector (that Bud calls complete protection) will not
even claim to protect from each type of surge in its manufacturer spec
sheets

I have often said service panel suppressors are a good idea. Read the
guides. Comments center on plug-in suppressors only because of the
nonsense w_ posts about them.

And repeating:
"w__'s preferred service panel suppressors (which are a good idea)
from SquareD do not "list each type of surge". Plug-in suppressors
have MOVs (protective elements) connected
from H-G, N-G, H-N. That covers all possible combinations and all
possible surges."
"Each type of surge" is nonsense.

Instead they have Bud to promote half
truths, myths, deception, and now insults.

The "old political trick" again - an insult from w_.

My "half truths, myths, deception" are from the IEEE and NIST guides.
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

w_ has never posted a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors
are NOT effective. All you get are his opinions based on his religious
belief in earthing.

w_ has never explained:
- Why do the only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide use plug-
in suppressors?
- Why does the NIST guide says plug-in suppressors are "the easiest
solution"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does the IEEE Emerald book include plug-in suppressors as an
effective surge rotection device.

Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is still a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--





.