Re: Backups - Suse

This is a discussion on Re: Backups - Suse ; On Jun 2, 6:43 pm, Bud-- wrote: > And why is there never a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors > are NOT effective? There must be thousands of them. Where is ANY > supporting link w_? Bud's ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: Backups

  1. Re: Backups

    On Jun 2, 6:43 pm, Bud-- wrote:
    > And why is there never a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors
    > are NOT effective? There must be thousands of them. Where is ANY
    > supporting link w_?


    Bud's own citation Page 42 Figure 8 demonstrates the problem with
    overhhyped, excessively profitable plug-in protectors that don't even
    claim to protect from typically destructive surges.

    A protector too far from earth ground and too close to the appliance
    has shunted (connected, diverted, clamped, bonded) 8000 volts
    destructively through that adjacent TV. No earth ground means no
    effective proteciton. That fundamental point is even in all of Bud's
    own citations.

    Telcos with a switching computer connected to overhead wires
    everywhere in town does not use plug-in protectors. Telco needs
    protection that works. Every wire entering their CO makes a short
    connection to earth ground AND is distant (up to 50 meters) from the
    computer. That 'up to 50 meter' separation between transistors and
    protector is additional protection.

    Telco's do not want 8000 volts shunted (clamped) through their
    computer. So telcos use the same 'whole house' protection technique
    that homeowners can purchase in Lowes, Home Depot, or any electrical
    supply house. A protector that does what telcos also require - a
    short, dedicated connection to earth. A protector is only as
    effectcive as its earth ground. Curious. Even IEEE Standards demand
    earthing for protection. Bud hopes nobody understands IEEE
    'religion'. Even telcos do not want what Bud recommends - it is just
    not effective. Using plain old reality, earthing a protector was how
    protection was installed even in the early 20th Century so that
    telephone operators need not remove headsets and stop taking calls.
    The technology is that old, that reliable, that well proven, AND is
    not what Bud recommends. But then Bud promoted for plug-in protector
    manufacturers.


  2. Re: Backups

    w_tom wrote:
    > On Jun 2, 6:43 pm, Bud-- wrote:
    >> And why is there never a link to a source that says plug-in suppressors
    >> are NOT effective? There must be thousands of them. Where is ANY
    >> supporting link w_?

    >


    A repetition of the same drivel.

    And still no links that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective. Just
    attempts make sources say the opposite of what they really say. Why are
    the only 2 examples of surge suppression in the IEEE guide plug-in
    suppressors?

    If plug-in suppressors didn't work the would be thousands of links that
    say that. w_ can't find one. Where are the links w_?


    Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
    Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
    Still distorts and attempts to discredit opposing sources.
    Still attempts to discredit opponents.
    w_ is just a purveyor of junk science.


    --
    bud--

  3. Re: Backups

    On Jun 5, 2:51 am, Bud-- wrote:
    > And more drivel.
    > ...
    >
    > Ho-hum - repeating:
    > To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
    > challenged technically, then attack the messenger."
    > ...
    >
    > The required religious belief in earthing.
    > Repeating:
    > The IEEE guide makes clear that plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING,
    > not earthing. The IEEE guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.


    Good reason why Ben Franklin's lightning rod diverted (clamped)
    lightning so that surges did not conduct destructively through wooden
    church steeples. Earth ground. Good reason why industry
    professionals in telephone switching centers, commercial broadcasting
    stations, US military facilities, and 911 emergency response centers
    earth 'whole house' type protectors. Surges seek earth ground. Good
    reason why Will Honea learned from experience; earthing essential for
    protection. Good reason why 1910 ham radio operators would suffer
    electronics damage even with their antenna lead inside a mason jar;
    damage stopped when antenna lead was earthed. Same good reason why TV
    and FM radio electronics atop the Empire State Building are struck 25
    times annually without damage. Even 1930s GE and Westinghouse papers
    defined that protection: earthing.

    No earth ground means no effective protection. So why does Bud's
    guide Page 42 Figure 8 show a protector too far from earth ground and
    too close to the TV? Why is 8000 volts destructively through the TV
    acceptable? Bud misrepresents that guideline. Protectors misplaced -
    without earthing - can even damage appliances. IEEE Standards - Red
    Book, Green Book, etc - also made that same statement. Page 42 Figure
    8 demonstrates a protection *clamping* a surge destructively through
    a TV.

    Bud's own NIST guide says protectors work by grounding? As defined
    by IEEE, protectors shunt (clamp, connect, bond, divert) a surge to
    earth ground. Bud does not challenge this. He continues to post a
    half truth. Protectors clamp. Yes, and what do they clamp to?
    Destructively (8000 volts) through a 'too close' TV? Or safely to
    earth when the protector is a 'whole house' type - with that dedicated
    earthing wire?

    All of Bud's citations were used to expose his half truths. Page 42
    Figure 8 shows a protector too far from earth ground *clamping* 8000
    volts destructively through a TV. Page 8 of 24 (paper page 6) even
    says a protector must
    > ... simply divert it to ground, where it can do no harm."

    Bud ignores facts from his own citations to recommend ineffective
    plug-in protectors.

    He has no facts. So he posts insults: 'drivel', "old political
    trick", and "religious belief". His own citations even contradict his
    claims. So he posts insults.

    Responsible manufactures such as Leviton, Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer,
    Square D, Siemens, and GE sell effective 'whole house' protectors.
    Solutions that may cost less than $50 in Lowes and Home Depot.
    Solutions that costs about $1 per protected appliance. Installed so
    that protection already inside every appliance is not overwhelmed.

    Each protector made effective by a dedicated earthing wire.
    Earthing connection should be 'less than 10 feet', no sharp bends, not
    inside metallic conduit, separate from other non-earthing wires (to
    elimiinate induced transients), and joins all other earthing wires at
    the same earthing electrode. The single point earth ground. Simple
    enhancements mean effective surge protection. Effective protector
    because of that electrically short connection to a single point earth
    ground. Earthing that meets and exceeds post 1990 National Electrical
    Code requirements.

    Plug-in protectors will not discuss what is necessary for effective
    protection.

    Above is only 'secondary' protection. Responsible homeowners also
    inspect their 'primary' protection 'system':
    http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

    But again, surge protection is about earthing - as Franklin
    demonstrated in 1752. As Westinghouse and GE science papers
    demonstrated atop the Empire State Building. How protection is
    installed in every town where damage from lightning must never
    happen. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground which is
    why those responsible manufacturers sell 'whole house' protectors with
    an absolutely essential earthing wire.

    And then those 'scary pictures' when plug-in protectors are grossly
    undersized.

    Even the backup system needs one, properly earthed, 'whole house'
    protector.



  4. Re: Backups

    w_tom wrote:


    Absolutely nothing new.

    For reliable information on plug-in suppressors read the IEEE and/or
    NIST guides. Links have been provided.

    Or read w_'s links to that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work. But
    there are none. No one agrees with w_ís truly stupid idea.
    And still not explained - why are the only 2 examples of surge
    suppression in the IEEE guide plug-in suppressors?


    Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
    Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
    Distorts opposing sources, like hanford and IEEE guide.
    Attempts to discredit opponents.
    w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

    --
    bud--

  5. Re: Backups

    On Jun 6, 2:29 am, Bud-- wrote:
    > For reliable information on plug-in suppressors read the IEEE and/or
    > NIST guides. Links have been provided.
    >
    > Or read w_'s links to that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.


    Bud's own IEEE and NIST citations demonstrate how plug-in protectors
    can even contribute to damage of adjacent electronics. Demonstrates
    why earthing is essential. Bud continues to deny this.

    Now Bud distorts what was posted. Nothing posted said surge
    suprresors do NOT work. Bud is again spinning myths he has
    misrepresented IEEE and NIST guides. What do those guides define as
    necessary for protection? Earthing.

    Bud promotes protectors that have no earthing connection. Now lies
    to avoid this reality. No earth ground means no effective protection.


  6. Re: Backups

    w_tom wrote:
    > On Jun 6, 2:29 am, Bud-- wrote:
    >> For reliable information on plug-in suppressors read the IEEE and/or
    >> NIST guides. Links have been provided.
    >>
    >> Or read w_'s links to that say plug-in suppressors do NOT work.

    >
    > Bud's own IEEE and NIST citations demonstrate how plug-in protectors
    > can even contribute to damage of adjacent electronics. Demonstrates
    > why earthing is essential. Bud continues to deny this.


    And the lie repeated yet again.

    >
    > Now Bud distorts what was posted. Nothing posted said surge
    > suprresors do NOT work.


    You say twice below that plug-in suppressors don't work because they are
    not adequately earthed.

    Bud is again spinning myths he has
    > misrepresented IEEE and NIST guides.


    Still not explained - why are the only 2 examples of surge suppression
    in the IEEE guide plug-in suppressors? How come you never answer the
    question?
    Why does the NIST guide say plug-in suppressors are "the easiest solution".

    What do those guides define as
    > necessary for protection? Earthing.
    >
    > Bud promotes protectors that have no earthing connection. Now lies
    > to avoid this reality. No earth ground means no effective protection.
    >


    Still no links from w_ that support his crackpot ideas. What a surprise.

    --
    bud--


+ Reply to Thread