Life expectancy

[milleron]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
is earthed correctly?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:28:21 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Plug in protectors claim to protect from one type of surge.
>Do some punching. As one arm swings out, the other
>withdrawals. That 1-2 punching is an example of a surge that
>typically does not do damage. Now instead punch with both
>left and right arms simultaneously. That is the common mode
>surge that typically damages electronics.
>
> Lightning seeks earth ground. It comes down any and all
>'arms', passes through punching bag, and exits out other side
>of punching bag. The plug-in protector does not stop, block,
>or absorb such destructive surges. IOW it does not sit
>between surge and the electronics - even though they hope you
>will assume that. And effective protector connects earlier
>where wires enter the building so that the 'surge down all
>wires simultaneously' all find the same earth ground.
>
> Lightning in 1752 found earth ground destructively via a
>church steeple. Franklin simply gave lightning a better path
>to earth. Lightning is the 'all arms moving forward at the
>same time" type of surge. You don't stop, block, or filter
>what miles of sky could not even stop. You 'shunt' lightning
>to earth ground. That is also what the 'whole house'
>protector does. It provides lightning with a short path to
>earth ground.
>
> You are surprised how small the Cutler Hammer unit is. It
>need not be large because it does not stop, block, or absorb
>the energy. Wire is also not massive because it too carry
>massive electrical energy and does not try to stop or block
>it. A surge protector is nothing more than a wire. A wire
>that conducts only during the rare and short transient. It
>can be small because the transient is only in microseconds.
>
> In a parallel example, try to push a common nail into wood.
>You cannot. It takes the force of a backhoe to drive that
>nail. However, we hit that nail with only a 20 oz hammer.
>Does the human arm have same energy as the backhoe? Of course
>not. People often confuse energy with power. The hammer has
>low energy but high power. Lightning has low energy but high
>power. The protector need not be monstrous because 1) it does
>not stop or absorb the energy, and 2) the energy is not as
>massive as urban myths portray. Too many only 'feel' that a
>lightning strike is high energy.
>
> The electrical circuit is best demonstrated by an NIST
>figure used in an example from:
> http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
>They demonstrate why a fax machine was damaged. Notice that
>the phone line was not 'earthed' less than 10 feet to the same
>single point ground as AC electric. Telephone line protector
>is inside the box labeled NID.
>
> The 'whole house' protector is located where 'Arrestor' is
>labeled. Notice that the destructive surge goes through
>Arrestor, then to earth ground. Since it need not pass
>through fax machine to get earth ground, then an AC electric
>surge does not damage fax machine.
>
> All electronic appliances contain effective protection.
>Anything that is going to work on the end of a power cord
>(those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors) is already
>inside electronics - as even required by industry standards.
>But we worry that internal electronics protection might be
>overwhelmed. So we install a 'whole house' protector on every
>incoming utility wire - to same earth ground.
>
> Demonstrated in various posts is the AC electric 'whole
>house' protector (such as the Cutler Hammer), the telco
>provided protector, and a ground block for cable wire (no
>protector required). All are only as effective as that earth
>ground.
>
> Now about earthing. Engineered discussed this in two
>discussions in the newsgroup misc.rural entitled:
> Storm and Lightning damage in the country 28 Jul 2002
> Lightning Nightmares!! 10 Aug 2002
> http://tinyurl.com/ghgv and http://tinyurl.com/ghgm
>
> Depending on the problem with transients, the earth ground
>may need be enhanced. Important is the neighborhood history.
>Also important is the geology. Does the ground tend to
>attract more CG lightning? For example, mid-west storms may
>be spectacular, but most of the lightning remains sky to sky.
>WV is a region with high numbers of CG (cloud to ground)
>strikes per thunderstorm.
>
> Those discussions also mention equipotential which is why
>Ufer grounds and halo grounds make the protector even more
>effective.
>
> Also is earth conductive or is it sand. I believe that
>previous discussion also tells a story of a house struck
>multiple times - and lightning rods did not work. Why?
>Lightning rods were earthed poorly in non-conductive sand.
>Bottom line - a surge protector is only as effective as its
>earth ground. In most locations, a single ground rod may
>provide massive increase in protection. A house that does not
>at least meet post 1990 National Electrical Code earthing
>requirements does not have the necessary earth ground.
>
> Also in that misc.rural discussion would be how wire must be
>routed. For example, no sharp bends and no splices. A ground
>wire bundled with other wires may only induce more surges on
>that other wire (which is but another reason why plug-in
>protectors have no effective earth ground).
>
> There is much to read. Come back with questions. The
>simple earthing of surges is surprisingly not intuitively
>obvious. In discussing this, I was amazed how many don't even
>know what a Ben Franklin air terminal (lightning rod) does -
>AND yet would recommend surge protectors. Many even argue
>pointed verse blunt lighting rods - when earth ground defines
>the effectiveness of that rod. A surge protector is only as
>effective as its earth ground.
snip
Ron

 

[Paul]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <mcvgu0dior622r32ck274dablqgpkqfqba@4ax.com>,
millerdot90@osu.edu wrote:

> My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
> national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
> correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
> inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
> 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
> if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
> is earthed correctly?

Try searching on "National Electrical Code", grounding, lightning
as search terms. I found an article here:

http://bg.ecmweb.com/ar/electric_combating_lightning_florida/

"He measured the ground resistance of the system using a
fall-of-potential meter, gathering a reading of 105 ohms.
Though it was high, it wasn't unusual in that part of Florida,
despite the area's high water table."

"The NEC allows for a maximum resistance of 25 ohms at the
grounding electrode (250.56)."

Just what I found in a five minute search. As that article
notes, ground depends on local geology, so practice could be
different between regions of the country. (More rods, different
depth, etc.)

When I searched on "fall-of-potential meter", it turned out
someone made the term up, as there were few hits on that
exact phrase. This article describes the method used:

http://ceenews.com/mag/electric_quick_primer_grounding/

"The most reliable post-installation testing procedure involves
the Fall-of-Potential (three point) method. Utilizing a digital
ground resistance meter, two auxiliary electrodes are driven into
the soil at predetermined distances as per testing specifications
in a straight line from the ground rod under test. The meter
supplies a constant current between the ground rod under test
and the most remote electrode."

Sounds pretty hokey to me. That article at least contains terms
that you could use to query a contractor.

Paul

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

A ten foot rod with a less than ten foot connection to each
utility provides a major protection improvement. To get
additional but lesser improvements, the grounding system gets
exponentially larger and expensive. High reliability systems
can spend $thousands just to get a minor increase in earthing.

The ten foot rod is often more than sufficient. However
earth geology itself can be a major determining factor. For
example, clay can be an excellent earthing material. Sand can
be horrendous. And as the 'house with lightning rods' failure
story demonstrated, if something else in the house makes a
connection to more conductive (deeper) geology, then the
single point earthing can be compromised. To understand
earthing, understand your geology.

If the house has a water well, this can make a complication
that is firstmost solved by routing the water and power lines
in at the same single point service entrance. Will the surge
use your single point ground or will it cross the house to get
to water well? Later could result in household appliance
damage AND a damaged well pump.

Other factors may make surges problematic such as being at
the end of a street and therefore at the end of an AC electric
distribution line. Is that a vein of copper, graphite, or
iron nearby? Those too could compromise an earthing system
that is on the wrong side of the house - farthest from that
most conductive earth.

As noted, if we built new homes as if the transistor
existed, then rebar to reinforce footings are connected to
become the earthing system. An Ufer ground that surrounds the
building both makes a most superior ground AND makes earth
beneath that building equipotential. We would do this to
every building if we really were serious about surge
protection. Costs so little. Does so much.

To improve their earthing system, some bury a bare copper
ground wire around the building. This halo ground both makes
earthing more conductive AND again makes earth beneath the
building equipotential:
http://www.cinergy.com/surge/ttip08.htm

Another example of everything that could be done in a cell
phone tower site is the figure on page 14 of:
http://www.leminstruments.com/pdf/LEGP.pdf or
the section entitled "Measuring Ground Resistance at Cellular
Sites,Microwave and Radio Towers" in:

http://leminstruments.com/grounding_tutorial/html/index.shtml

Lem Instruments makes equipment to measure earthing - for
those who are serious. You need not get so extreme because
you don't need the reliability of a power company or a
telephone switching station.

Above are ideas. Implement any of these ideas if easy.
Outside of anomalies such as a vein of buried iron or unusual
number of strikes in your neighborhood, then a single 10 foot
ground rod (or rods) is often more than enough earthing to
eliminate problems from most direct strikes.

Should you feel more is needed, then expand a single point
ground with more 10 foot ground rods. NEC notes how far apart
those rods must be. Best to interconnect those rods with
buried ground wires - again per code requirement for wire size
and depth. Interconnecting wire supplements - makes that
network of ground rods even better. Better to make those
below surface rod connections inside a 4 or 6" plastic pipe
with a cover so that the below ground rod connection can be
uncovered and inspected.

All this is the secondary protection system. You should
also inspect your primary protection system:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Yes there is much you can do. But again, what is the
neighborhood history?

Don't remember if those previous posts included application
notes from erico.com. Their figure and application note 002
makes another point. Surges are carried into the building
even on buried cables. Even buried cables must make a
connection to single point earth ground before entering the
building.

One thing I have seen is some electricians cut the ground
rod in half. Too short. That rod must be at least 8 feet
down (because the first couple of feet really is not good
earthing) AND must remain firm in ground. If you can shake a
ground rod, then it is not electrically connected to earth.

Yes it is an art - as to what is good enough. Complicating
is that earthing measurements are only in resistance. Surges
are really more concern with impedance - due to higher
frequencies. So yes, a lower resistance can mean a better
impedance - most of the time. The art. But as I said, most
have more than sufficient earthing with one earth ground rod
in good conductive soil and a very short connection to every
incoming utility.

Inspectors don't verify any of this. Inspector are concerned
with human safety. You also want transistor safety. Both use
many of the same components. But both have slightly different
needs - as that discussion in misc.rural should demonstrate.

Milleron wrote:
> My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
> national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
> correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
> inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
> 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
> if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
> is earthed correctly?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <41E86DCF.964F9664@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
> Power loss will not damage hardware. 'Power loss causes
> damage' is often suggested without underlying technical fact.
> Why? Underlying facts were never learned.

I don't believe I said ANYTHING about HARDWARE DAMAGE. I said the
following:

> > In most homes the typical problem is cause by loss of power
> > for any length of time - this causes the computer to reset in the middle
> > of anything it was/is doing. This is more likely to happen than a spike
> > or sag in line power. A UPS, even a cheap 750VA unit, will protect your
> > computer from power outages, sags and some increases in line voltage
> > that happen within the amount of time that the unit can respond.

Notice that I said "typical PROBLEM is caused by loss of power" - this
has nothing to do with hardware, more the corruption of data on
hardware, etc...

If you loose power for 1 second, 50 times in a row, the inductive
reaction cause by that cycle could blow the internal fuse on the power
supply, same for a TV or VCR or other electronic hardware that might be
sensitive.

This was a common problem in Mexico City for years, a simple UPS (more
of a battery backup) would prevent brown-out issues and power loss
issues.

There is a lot more to this thread than just failing to kill a surge,
which is highly less likely to happen to people than a power outage or
power outages.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <mcvgu0dior622r32ck274dablqgpkqfqba@4ax.com>, millerdot90
@SPAMlessosu.edu says...
> My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
> national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
> correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
> inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
> 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
> if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
> is earthed correctly?

Hire a Electrical Engineer with a P.E. in your area to test it.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:23:43 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What you describe as describe as "all SPSes include at least
>as much separate surge protection on the mains supply line as
>a decent standalone surge protector would provide;" is really
>near zero protection for numerous reasons. Both the plug-in
>UPS and power strip protector have the same protector
>circuit. And both are typically so grossly undersized to be
>ineffective. Always start with the numbers. In this case
>joules.

Unless you live in an area with frequent major thunderstorms, your
surge protector will mainly be blocking the much smaller surges and
spikes on the power line caused by local appliances starting and
stopping. If you have a lighting strike near enough to damage
unprotected equipment in your house, you may anyway want to replace
your surge protectors (or surge-protector containing SPSes), for some
of the reasons you imply - you can do that quite frequently for the
cost of one good enough not to need replacing!

>
> In another post and in those previously cited posts are
>examples of how joules define protection. Notice that so many
>plug-in protectors AND their plug-in UPS counterparts may be
>rated at 345 joules. As joules increase, the life expectancy
>of that protector increases exponentially. IOW if the plug-in
>protector is good for two same size surges, then the 1000
>joule 'whole house' protector is good for something on the
>order of 300 of those same size surges.

See above.
>
> Then it continues farther. The plug-in protector has no
>earth ground. Therefore the manufacturer avoids the entire
>topic altogether. This is how one identified ineffective (and
>grossly overpriced - yes grossly overpriced) plug-in
>protectors. 1) No dedicated wire connection to earth ground
>AND 2) manufacturer avoids all discussion about earthing.

I live in England - all power circuits installed in the last 40 or 50
years here are wired with a separate earth ground, and all half-way
decent UK surge protectors will shunt common-mode surges to this
ground. I must admit that I had forgotten that this (wired grounds to
every power point) "aint necessarily so" in the rest of the world.

>
> Further details will be provided in response to Milleron.
>But the plug-in protectors are on the order of 10 and 50 times
>more expensive per protected appliance. So yes, what you are
>calling cheap protectors are really overpriced and expensive
>protectors that also are not effective.
>
> BTW, UPSes switch in milliseconds. (One must be careful to
>buy power supplies with numerical specs that read: Hold up
>time, full load: 16ms. typical). Surges do their damage and
>are done in microseconds. 300 consecutive surges could pass
>through a UPS before the UPS even considered switching to
>battery power. Plug-in UPSes have one function - data
>protection. They do not provide the hardware protection so
>often implied.

I think that it was perfectly clear from my earlier response that I
did not believe that _the_ _SPS_ _component_ of a cheap "UPS" provided
any surge or spike protection.

>
> You want a UPS that also provides hardware protection? That
>is typically the building wide UPS that also makes this all so
>important 'less than 10 foot' connection to earth ground.
>Plug-in UPSes are for data protection; not for hardware
>protection.

I stand by my original statement, though with the proviso that plug-in
surge protectors, to be reasonably effective, must have a separate
wired ground connection (which can be, and in the UK usually will be,
a connection to a properly wired ground circuit in the house wiring),
and must shunt common mode spikes to it. If your
system/application/business is so critical that you want a guarantee
of 24/7 operation through any reasonably conceivable electrical storm,
then the sort of approach to power protection that you advocate makes
perfect sense, but most people are not in that position. As I think
you or someone else says elsewhere, hardware can be replaced at finite
(and often quite low) cost - lost data may be irreplaceable, and
can't always be backed up to the minute. Relatively cheap UPSes
provide a very high level of data protection gainst brownouts and
power outages and (by virtue of their separate surge protection
circuitry) a significant, though incomplete, level of hardware
protection from the effects of "normally" dirty power. I would be very
concerned if someone read your posts and concluded that, if (s)he
can't afford to spend $1,000+ on whole-house power protection, (s)he
should not bother with anything less.

>
>"Peter R. Fletcher" wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:50:06 -0500, nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote:
>>>......
>>> wiring exposure to just the power lines. A real (>$1K purchase
>>> price) UPS would reduce the risk of an AC power event from
>>> getting you, and would help protect the PSU from getting
>>> damaged. Cheap UPSes offer no protection at all, as they are
>>> actually SPS (standby power supplies) - they are a "straight wire"
>>> to power spikes, and the unit only cuts over to batteries if
>>> the AC power dies for enough milliseconds.
>>
>> I think that you are being unduly negative about cheap "UPSes". You
>> are absolutely correct that they are not true UPSes, since:
>> a) they normally connect the mains power (effectively) straight
>> through to the controlled devices, thus offering no _intrinsic_
>> protection from spikes; and
>> b) they have to switch to inverter mode when the power fails, which
>> takes finite time.
>> However:
>> a) almost all SPSes include at least as much separate surge protection
>> on the mains supply line as a decent standalone surge protector would
>> provide; and
>> b) All except the cheapest, no-name, ones switch fast enough so that a
>> normal computer system power supply does not "notice" the transient
>> power loss (though network switches, hubs, and the like may "glitch").
>> For most home and SOHO users, an SPS will provide cost-effective
>> protection against most of the data loss problems which might
>> otherwise be caused by brownouts and/or power outages, while their
>> built in (but unrelated) surge protection circuitry is a _lot_ better
>> than nothing as insurance against damage from power line spikes.
>>
>> Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
>> Peter R. Fletcher


Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <bjshu0pb2vlbk3rsjhd3ru1aletdgjmbc7@4ax.com>, Peter R.
Fletcher <pfletch(at)fletchers(hyphen)uk.com> says...
> I live in England - all power circuits installed in the last 40 or 50
> years here are wired with a separate earth ground, and all half-way
> decent UK surge protectors will shunt common-mode surges to this
> ground. I must admit that I had forgotten that this (wired grounds to
> every power point) "aint necessarily so" in the rest of the world.

My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.

I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
don't protect their electronics.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

No no tell us how you make sure ground loops don't occur in a large multi
floor building with literally hundreds of power consuming devices at a real
reasonable cost.

"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41E86889.786A8710@hotmail.com...
> Ground loops is why surge protection must be the single
> point ground. Problems created by ground loop (the damaged
> fax machine) is demonstrated by the NIST figure and previously
> cited discussion in:
> http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
>
> Which would you believe? Lies promoted by half truths on
> retail store shelves? Or fact demonstrated by telephone and
> 911 emergency operators who never need remove headsets during
> every lightning storm. Effective protection is demonstrated by
> telephone switching computers that connect to overhead wires
> everywhere in town. Its not called faith. Its called facts.
> 1) Demonstrated by theory and 2) proven by example virtually
> everywhere in the civilized world.
>
> Posted was well understood and repeatedly proven even before
> WWII. One classic myths is that surge protectors operate too
> slow. Even the GDTs that routinely provided surge protection
> before WWII and that were much slower were also fast enough
> for surge protection. These are facts know to those who
> understood how surge protectors work. 'Surge protector works
> too slow' is but another myth. Obviously a myth because it is
> routinely promoted without numbers. One must believe such
> myths only on faith.
>
> notritenoteri wrote:
> > Are you selling lightening protection? You have so much faith. Tell
> > us about ground loops.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

If I were you I'd be worrying more about the state of the power company's
feed. If you live in a fairly new development say less tha 10 years old its
likley to be in pretty good shape. WHere you might have an issue with
grounding and the general state of the power grid is on an old
neighbourhood. What no one has mentioned is that grounding rods etc
eventually corrode.
BAck up your data. In my opinion you're worrying about the wrong stuff. I've
had a PC at home since the Apple II and never had power surge or brown out
problems. I've been wiped out by data loss though because I don't practice
what I preach and I was in the Data centre business.
"Milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:mcvgu0dior622r32ck274dablqgpkqfqba@4ax.com...
> My house was built this year, so its earthing should be up to 1990
> national building codes. But how can I be sure the builder did it
> correctly? I don't think this is anything that the local building
> inspector can test. I doubt he could tell the difference between a
> 10-inch grounding rod and one that was driven 20 feet into the ground,
> if he even inspects this feature at all. How can I tell if my house
> is earthed correctly?
>
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:28:21 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Plug in protectors claim to protect from one type of surge.
> >Do some punching. As one arm swings out, the other
> >withdrawals. That 1-2 punching is an example of a surge that
> >typically does not do damage. Now instead punch with both
> >left and right arms simultaneously. That is the common mode
> >surge that typically damages electronics.
> >
> > Lightning seeks earth ground. It comes down any and all
> >'arms', passes through punching bag, and exits out other side
> >of punching bag. The plug-in protector does not stop, block,
> >or absorb such destructive surges. IOW it does not sit
> >between surge and the electronics - even though they hope you
> >will assume that. And effective protector connects earlier
> >where wires enter the building so that the 'surge down all
> >wires simultaneously' all find the same earth ground.
> >
> > Lightning in 1752 found earth ground destructively via a
> >church steeple. Franklin simply gave lightning a better path
> >to earth. Lightning is the 'all arms moving forward at the
> >same time" type of surge. You don't stop, block, or filter
> >what miles of sky could not even stop. You 'shunt' lightning
> >to earth ground. That is also what the 'whole house'
> >protector does. It provides lightning with a short path to
> >earth ground.
> >
> > You are surprised how small the Cutler Hammer unit is. It
> >need not be large because it does not stop, block, or absorb
> >the energy. Wire is also not massive because it too carry
> >massive electrical energy and does not try to stop or block
> >it. A surge protector is nothing more than a wire. A wire
> >that conducts only during the rare and short transient. It
> >can be small because the transient is only in microseconds.
> >
> > In a parallel example, try to push a common nail into wood.
> >You cannot. It takes the force of a backhoe to drive that
> >nail. However, we hit that nail with only a 20 oz hammer.
> >Does the human arm have same energy as the backhoe? Of course
> >not. People often confuse energy with power. The hammer has
> >low energy but high power. Lightning has low energy but high
> >power. The protector need not be monstrous because 1) it does
> >not stop or absorb the energy, and 2) the energy is not as
> >massive as urban myths portray. Too many only 'feel' that a
> >lightning strike is high energy.
> >
> > The electrical circuit is best demonstrated by an NIST
> >figure used in an example from:
> > http://www.epri-peac.com/tutorials/sol01tut.html
> >They demonstrate why a fax machine was damaged. Notice that
> >the phone line was not 'earthed' less than 10 feet to the same
> >single point ground as AC electric. Telephone line protector
> >is inside the box labeled NID.
> >
> > The 'whole house' protector is located where 'Arrestor' is
> >labeled. Notice that the destructive surge goes through
> >Arrestor, then to earth ground. Since it need not pass
> >through fax machine to get earth ground, then an AC electric
> >surge does not damage fax machine.
> >
> > All electronic appliances contain effective protection.
> >Anything that is going to work on the end of a power cord
> >(those grossly overpriced plug-in protectors) is already
> >inside electronics - as even required by industry standards.
> >But we worry that internal electronics protection might be
> >overwhelmed. So we install a 'whole house' protector on every
> >incoming utility wire - to same earth ground.
> >
> > Demonstrated in various posts is the AC electric 'whole
> >house' protector (such as the Cutler Hammer), the telco
> >provided protector, and a ground block for cable wire (no
> >protector required). All are only as effective as that earth
> >ground.
> >
> > Now about earthing. Engineered discussed this in two
> >discussions in the newsgroup misc.rural entitled:
> > Storm and Lightning damage in the country 28 Jul 2002
> > Lightning Nightmares!! 10 Aug 2002
> > http://tinyurl.com/ghgv and http://tinyurl.com/ghgm
> >
> > Depending on the problem with transients, the earth ground
> >may need be enhanced. Important is the neighborhood history.
> >Also important is the geology. Does the ground tend to
> >attract more CG lightning? For example, mid-west storms may
> >be spectacular, but most of the lightning remains sky to sky.
> >WV is a region with high numbers of CG (cloud to ground)
> >strikes per thunderstorm.
> >
> > Those discussions also mention equipotential which is why
> >Ufer grounds and halo grounds make the protector even more
> >effective.
> >
> > Also is earth conductive or is it sand. I believe that
> >previous discussion also tells a story of a house struck
> >multiple times - and lightning rods did not work. Why?
> >Lightning rods were earthed poorly in non-conductive sand.
> >Bottom line - a surge protector is only as effective as its
> >earth ground. In most locations, a single ground rod may
> >provide massive increase in protection. A house that does not
> >at least meet post 1990 National Electrical Code earthing
> >requirements does not have the necessary earth ground.
> >
> > Also in that misc.rural discussion would be how wire must be
> >routed. For example, no sharp bends and no splices. A ground
> >wire bundled with other wires may only induce more surges on
> >that other wire (which is but another reason why plug-in
> >protectors have no effective earth ground).
> >
> > There is much to read. Come back with questions. The
> >simple earthing of surges is surprisingly not intuitively
> >obvious. In discussing this, I was amazed how many don't even
> >know what a Ben Franklin air terminal (lightning rod) does -
> >AND yet would recommend surge protectors. Many even argue
> >pointed verse blunt lighting rods - when earth ground defines
> >the effectiveness of that rod. A surge protector is only as
> >effective as its earth ground.
> snip
> Ron

 

[milleron]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:54:14 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
> Other factors may make surges problematic such as being at
>the end of a street and therefore at the end of an AC electric
>distribution line. Is that a vein of copper, graphite, or
>iron nearby? Those too could compromise an earthing system
>that is on the wrong side of the house - farthest from that
>most conductive earth.

Interesting point about being the last house on the street. Several
years ago, we had a nasty summer electrical storm in central Ohio that
knocked out power to many homes and neighborhoods. We had no
lightning real close to my house, but we lost power. We have
underground wiring with transformers every so often. I'm sure it's
exactly like overhead wires. At any rate the crew that came out
pointed out that our transformer was the LAST one in a long chain.
They thought the strike was distant and surged all the way to that
point. It ruined our transformer (took 30 hours to replace it), but
there was no damage at all in any of the houses that drew power from
that particular transformer. What happened in this scenario? If the
surge went to earth at that point, what killed the transformer without
hurting any of the transformers farther up the line?

snip
Ron

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Lets assume a protector adjacent to a computer will earth a
100 amp transient via that wall receptacle. Due to wire
impedance, that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire (back to circuit
breaker box) may be about 130 ohms impedance (not resistance -
impedance). 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Will
that 100 amp transient find earth ground via 13,000 volts of
wire? Of course not. Those 100 amps will find other
(destructive) paths to earth ground such as through a mouse
wire touching the baseboard heat and via the computer's
modem. Notice how a modem is damaged.

Furthermore, if that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire is earthing a
100 amp transient, then that ground wire induces transients on
all adjacent wires. Now we have surges on other equipment
thanks to that plug-in protector. Where is the protection?
How does that 130 ohm impedance of wire create an earth ground
AND not create induced transients?

Wall receptacle does not provide an earth ground. Just
another reason why the plug-in protector manufacturer fears to
even discuss earthing. That wall receptacle (and plug-in
protector) has all but no earth ground. And as we know even
from pre-WWII GE and Westinghouse science papers - no earth
ground means no effective protection.

Wall receptacles provide 'safety' or 'equipment' ground.
They are not 'earth ground' due to too much wire impedance.
Wire impedance is a basic electrical concept that plug-in
protector manufacturers hope you will not learn - to sell
their ineffective, undersized, and overpriced product to the
naive.

Why must a 'whole house' protector make a 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth ground? Why must earthing wire have
no sharp bends and no splices and not be inside metallic
conduit? Why must the earthing wire remain separated from
other wires? Same reasons that a wall receptacle is not earth
ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So
plug-in manufacturers avoid the entire topic hoping others
will promote myths. Leythos has promoted that myth: "Every
outlet in the house has a earth ground ..."

What does a ground fault indicator on that UPS report? It
reports a defective safety ground. It cannot report a good
safety ground. It can only report when the safety ground is
defective. Furthermore, that UPS ground indicator says
nothing - zero - about earth ground. But they hope others
will confuse the word 'ground' with 'earth' to promote
protector myths.

Leythos wrote:
> My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
> rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
> outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
> prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.
>
> I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
> don't protect their electronics.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

To understand a surge, one must first draw a complete
electric circuit. Charges from a cloud may fall 4 kilometers
to the east. Now a cloud must connect those cloud borne
charges to earth borne charges. What, electrically, is the
shortest path? 5 kilometers diagonally? Of course not. The
shortest electrical path is 3 kilometers directly down to AC
electric utility wires. Then 2 kilometers east through
underground (or overhead) utility wires to the end of the
block. Then through transformer (or household appliances)
into earth. Then another 2 kilometers east through earth to
those earth borne charges. Now we have a complete circuit.
Anything that has both an incoming and outgoing path in that
circuit may be damaged. Homes are the end of a utility
distribution system may become an incoming and outgoing path
in that circuit.

Other transformers may have been an incoming path. But with
no outgoing electrical path, those other transformers would
suffer no damage. Some then assume lightning is capricious.
Reality: those humans failed to first remember their
elementary school science. Both incoming and outgoing path
must exist to have electricity flow. Electricity of a
destructive surge would only pass through the last
transformer.

Milleron wrote:
> Interesting point about being the last house on the street. Several
> years ago, we had a nasty summer electrical storm in central Ohio that
> knocked out power to many homes and neighborhoods. We had no
> lightning real close to my house, but we lost power. We have
> underground wiring with transformers every so often. I'm sure it's
> exactly like overhead wires. At any rate the crew that came out
> pointed out that our transformer was the LAST one in a long chain.
> They thought the strike was distant and surged all the way to that
> point. It ruined our transformer (took 30 hours to replace it), but
> there was no damage at all in any of the houses that drew power from
> that particular transformer. What happened in this scenario? If the
> surge went to earth at that point, what killed the transformer without
> hurting any of the transformers farther up the line?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

This whole discussion is turning into a big show-boat of technical
knowledge. Somebody went to college I went to college too two degrees worth
and I managed a university data centre for 17 years I've spent most of my
career in the IT industry mostly in telecom and facilities management. I
don't know ah heck all, really. Anecdotal evidence, racial memories or
whatever you want to call it suggest lightening and surges aren't a problem
at least in my part of the world. What I do know is that in North America in
Canada where I live which believe it or not has lightening storms even in
January, lightening is a minor inconvenience with the standards that are in
place. Interruption of service is an issue but a real UPS with the proper
maintenance (both money issues not problems) will solve that.
The big deal is loss of data. Whoever started this thread is worrying about
the wrong thing in my opinion but hey that's what salesmen count on.


"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41EA272F.786FC2A4@hotmail.com...
> Lets assume a protector adjacent to a computer will earth a
> 100 amp transient via that wall receptacle. Due to wire
> impedance, that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire (back to circuit
> breaker box) may be about 130 ohms impedance (not resistance -
> impedance). 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Will
> that 100 amp transient find earth ground via 13,000 volts of
> wire? Of course not. Those 100 amps will find other
> (destructive) paths to earth ground such as through a mouse
> wire touching the baseboard heat and via the computer's
> modem. Notice how a modem is damaged.
>
> Furthermore, if that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire is earthing a
> 100 amp transient, then that ground wire induces transients on
> all adjacent wires. Now we have surges on other equipment
> thanks to that plug-in protector. Where is the protection?
> How does that 130 ohm impedance of wire create an earth ground
> AND not create induced transients?
>
> Wall receptacle does not provide an earth ground. Just
> another reason why the plug-in protector manufacturer fears to
> even discuss earthing. That wall receptacle (and plug-in
> protector) has all but no earth ground. And as we know even
> from pre-WWII GE and Westinghouse science papers - no earth
> ground means no effective protection.
>
> Wall receptacles provide 'safety' or 'equipment' ground.
> They are not 'earth ground' due to too much wire impedance.
> Wire impedance is a basic electrical concept that plug-in
> protector manufacturers hope you will not learn - to sell
> their ineffective, undersized, and overpriced product to the
> naive.
>
> Why must a 'whole house' protector make a 'less than 10
> foot' connection to earth ground? Why must earthing wire have
> no sharp bends and no splices and not be inside metallic
> conduit? Why must the earthing wire remain separated from
> other wires? Same reasons that a wall receptacle is not earth
> ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So
> plug-in manufacturers avoid the entire topic hoping others
> will promote myths. Leythos has promoted that myth: "Every
> outlet in the house has a earth ground ..."
>
> What does a ground fault indicator on that UPS report? It
> reports a defective safety ground. It cannot report a good
> safety ground. It can only report when the safety ground is
> defective. Furthermore, that UPS ground indicator says
> nothing - zero - about earth ground. But they hope others
> will confuse the word 'ground' with 'earth' to promote
> protector myths.
>
> Leythos wrote:
> > My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
> > rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
> > outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
> > prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.
> >
> > I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
> > don't protect their electronics.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

How did the 100 amps get to the wall receptacle? Assuming that it came
from outside, then, by exactly the same 'logic' that you are using, it
should have been grounded through "other paths to earth ground" long
before it got there. If lightning is going to strike your computer
room, or even (probably) your house, under which circumstances your
example might be more realistic, there is probably little you can do
to save your hardware. If you calculate _instantaneous_ charge flow at
a wall socket at the peak of a big, lightning-induced, transient, you
may come up with tens or hundreds of amps as an answer, but it isn't
really helpful or meaningful to use normal concepts of current flow in
thinking about very short (microseconds) transients.

In any event, no protective device will block 100% of a transient
(true UPSes possible excepted, since they should totally disconnect
the mains from the supplied device). The object of in-line surge
suppressors is to provide a sufficiently low impedance path to ground
for the peak of the transient that the power that gets through via the
(typically much higher impedance) path through the protected equipment
is not sufficient to do damage. It's like home security - the object
there is not to make your house thief-proof, which is next to
impossible, but to make it sufficiently challenging for the potential
thief that (s)he will look elsewhere.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:34:55 -0500, w_tom <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Lets assume a protector adjacent to a computer will earth a
>100 amp transient via that wall receptacle. Due to wire
>impedance, that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire (back to circuit
>breaker box) may be about 130 ohms impedance (not resistance -
>impedance). 100 amps times 130 ohms is 13,000 volts. Will
>that 100 amp transient find earth ground via 13,000 volts of
>wire? Of course not. Those 100 amps will find other
>(destructive) paths to earth ground such as through a mouse
>wire touching the baseboard heat and via the computer's
>modem. Notice how a modem is damaged.
>
> Furthermore, if that 50 foot of 12 AWG wire is earthing a
>100 amp transient, then that ground wire induces transients on
>all adjacent wires. Now we have surges on other equipment
>thanks to that plug-in protector. Where is the protection?
>How does that 130 ohm impedance of wire create an earth ground
>AND not create induced transients?
>
> Wall receptacle does not provide an earth ground. Just
>another reason why the plug-in protector manufacturer fears to
>even discuss earthing. That wall receptacle (and plug-in
>protector) has all but no earth ground. And as we know even
>from pre-WWII GE and Westinghouse science papers - no earth
>ground means no effective protection.
>
> Wall receptacles provide 'safety' or 'equipment' ground.
>They are not 'earth ground' due to too much wire impedance.
>Wire impedance is a basic electrical concept that plug-in
>protector manufacturers hope you will not learn - to sell
>their ineffective, undersized, and overpriced product to the
>naive.
>
> Why must a 'whole house' protector make a 'less than 10
>foot' connection to earth ground? Why must earthing wire have
>no sharp bends and no splices and not be inside metallic
>conduit? Why must the earthing wire remain separated from
>other wires? Same reasons that a wall receptacle is not earth
>ground. No earth ground means no effective protection. So
>plug-in manufacturers avoid the entire topic hoping others
>will promote myths. Leythos has promoted that myth: "Every
>outlet in the house has a earth ground ..."
>
> What does a ground fault indicator on that UPS report? It
>reports a defective safety ground. It cannot report a good
>safety ground. It can only report when the safety ground is
>defective. Furthermore, that UPS ground indicator says
>nothing - zero - about earth ground. But they hope others
>will confuse the word 'ground' with 'earth' to promote
>protector myths.
>
>Leythos wrote:
>> My house, built in the early 70's, here in the USA, has a large ground
>> rod just outside the house, within about 4' of the breaker panel. Every
>> outlet in the house has a earth ground in addition to the neutral (three
>> prong receptacles). Each of my UPS's has ground fault indicator.
>>
>> I'll keep using the APC UPS's I have, I've seen what happens when people
>> don't protect their electronics.


Please respond to the Newsgroup, so that others may benefit from the exchange.
Peter R. Fletcher

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <SfuGd.834$P_3.5146@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
caldasfire@hades.com says...
> This whole discussion is turning into a big show-boat of technical
> knowledge. Somebody went to college I went to college too two degrees worth
> and I managed a university data centre for 17 years I've spent most of my
> career in the IT industry mostly in telecom and facilities management. I
> don't know ah heck all, really. Anecdotal evidence, racial memories or
> whatever you want to call it suggest lightening and surges aren't a problem
> at least in my part of the world. What I do know is that in North America in
> Canada where I live which believe it or not has lightening storms even in
> January, lightening is a minor inconvenience with the standards that are in
> place. Interruption of service is an issue but a real UPS with the proper
> maintenance (both money issues not problems) will solve that.
> The big deal is loss of data. [snip]

I agree with the above, and I was pretty sure that I said the same thing
- power loss is what we experience the most, and uncontrolled power loss
does impact the life expectancy of the hardware systems.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

How does 100 amps get to a wall receptacle? Destructive
transients are current sources. That means voltage will
increase, as necessary, to maintain that 100 amps. If 100 amps
into the protector and adjacent computer requires thousands of
volts, then thousands of volts will be provided. However if
something else closer makes the earth ground connection, then
voltage need not increase to maintain 100 amps. Instead that
closer computer, or TV, or modem becomes the destroyed
appliance. If permitted inside a building, that surge will
find some destructive path to earth ground via appliances.
This is called a direct strike. Human failure is required to
permit a surge inside the building.

If lightning strikes your house - IOW strikes AC electric
wires on a utility pole - AND if electronic damage occurs,
then you (the human) are reason for that failure. Two
reasons. 1) Because effective surge protection is available,
so effective, and understood for so long. 2) Because
effective surge protection is so inexpensive - tens of times
less money per appliance compared to plug-in protectors.

Don't post this myth: "no protective device will block 100%
of a transient". Only mythical protectors block, stop, filter
or absorb destructive transients. Effective protectors
'shunt' surges. That means an effective protector is located
at the service entrance AND connected 'less than 10 foot' to
earth ground. So effective and so inexpensive that surge
damage is considered unnecessary.

You need not install such protection. No law requires it.
But it is grossly irresponsible to tell others that no
protector device will work. They worked just fine even before
WWII, as even demonstrated in peer reviewed science papers.
The Empire State Building is struck about 25 times per year.
Where is all the FM and TV electronics damage?

Why does a 'building wide' (real) UPS provide protection?
UPS also does not stop, block or absorb surges. Again, those
verbs would only promote myths. The 'real' UPS includes a
'whole house' protector circuit. A UPS that does provide
effective protection is also typically connected 'less than 10
foot' to single point earth ground. Same principles apply.

A protector adjacent to appliances does not provide
effective protection, is typically undersized, and costs tens
of times more money per protected appliance. How to identify
the ineffective protector? 1) It has no dedicated earthing
connection AND 2) it avoids all discussion about earthing.
Two simple statements identify effective protection.

How to install effective protection? Spend less money. Use
well proven human knowledge. Earth before destructive
transients can enter a building. Never think a surge
protector will stop or block surges no matter how often that
myth is promoted. A surge protector is only as effective as
its earth ground.

"Peter R. Fletcher" wrote:
> How did the 100 amps get to the wall receptacle? Assuming that it came
> from outside, then, by exactly the same 'logic' that you are using, it
> should have been grounded through "other paths to earth ground" long
> before it got there. If lightning is going to strike your computer
> room, or even (probably) your house, under which circumstances your
> example might be more realistic, there is probably little you can do
> to save your hardware. If you calculate _instantaneous_ charge flow at
> a wall socket at the peak of a big, lightning-induced, transient, you
> may come up with tens or hundreds of amps as an answer, but it isn't
> really helpful or meaningful to use normal concepts of current flow in
> thinking about very short (microseconds) transients.
>
> In any event, no protective device will block 100% of a transient
> (true UPSes possible excepted, since they should totally disconnect
> the mains from the supplied device). The object of in-line surge
> suppressors is to provide a sufficiently low impedance path to ground
> for the peak of the transient that the power that gets through via the
> (typically much higher impedance) path through the protected equipment
> is not sufficient to do damage. It's like home security - the object
> there is not to make your house thief-proof, which is next to
> impossible, but to make it sufficiently challenging for the potential
> thief that (s)he will look elsewhere.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

If power loss creates damage, then what electronic parts are
damaged? To claim a blackout causes damage means failed
electronic parts are identified. I do this. I learned by
replacing parts AND tracing the destructive circuit to its
source. Power loss damages computer hardware when a human
buys defective hardware - often because he 'saved' money. An
electrician temporarily disconnecting a neutral wire can also
destroy electronics. Was that damage from the resulting
blackout? No. Blackout was only another symptom of the
failure. Too many only assume damage was created by the
blackout only because damaged happened. This is how junk
science reasoning gets promoted.

Purpose of an adjacent UPS is as notritenoteri has posted:
to protect data. A plug-in UPS contains same protector
circuit found in power strip protectors. How do you know?
The numbers. Review numbers on both that plug-in UPS and for
power strip protector. What are both protector circuits rated
in? Joules. Why? They both use the same protector
circuit. Why is a plug-in UPS any better than a power strip
protector? It is not. They both have the same protector
circuit. IOW they both claim the same ineffective
protection. Neither provides superior protection.

You want 'data' protection? Install the UPS. You want
'hardware' protection? Earth ground every incoming utility
wire either by direct hardwire connection or via a surge
protector. Some earthing connections are even required by
electrical codes. Power loss does not damage hardware.
Unfortunately much computer hardware purchased by computer
assemblers is defective by design - as demonstrated by what is
damaged.

The original poster asked how to prolong an Asus
motherboard. One solution starts with power supply
selection. Many power supplies installed by computer
assemblers are missing essential functions. Inferior supplies
may even fail during power loss. Many essential power supply
functions may exist only if the manufacturer includes a long
list of numeric specs. Numbered specs are essential. But
again, these numbers are too complex for those computer
assemblers who instead may blame a blackout. No numeric
specifications with that power supply? Then expect weird
failures - such as damage created by a blackout or even Asus
motherboard damage.

Leythos wrote:
> I agree with the above, and I was pretty sure that I said the same thing
> - power loss is what we experience the most, and uncontrolled power loss
> does impact the life expectancy of the hardware systems.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <41EACD73.16AD4339@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
> If power loss creates damage, then what electronic parts are
> damaged? To claim a blackout causes damage means failed
> electronic parts are identified. I do this. I learned by
> replacing parts AND tracing the destructive circuit to its
> source. Power loss damages computer hardware when a human
> buys defective hardware - often because he 'saved' money. An
> electrician temporarily disconnecting a neutral wire can also
> destroy electronics. Was that damage from the resulting
> blackout? No. Blackout was only another symptom of the
> failure. Too many only assume damage was created by the
> blackout only because damaged happened. This is how junk
> science reasoning gets promoted.

You know, what it really comes down to is this: Like it or not, those
crude devices you say have no merit, actually save people from data loss
and hardware loss more times that I can count.

Not every cheap PSU comes with a warning about cycling AC power source
to many times or too frequently, in fact, I don't know of ANY PSU that
comes with that warning.

It's still a simple matter of experience in most cases a UPS
(residential device connected to a line with ground) is going to be of
more benefit that not having the device.

When I was at the local computer store today I looked at every unit, all
but one claimed joules protection level, most had ground fault
indicators and reverse polarity indicators (meaning a swapped hot/neut).

As a good example of how well a UPS works, we had a new client that had
no UPS's in their buildings - not one and 70+ computers. On the average
they required service related to power problems at least once a week (8
buildings across the USA). After installing the UPS's at each device,
there were no more power related service calls, not more lost data, and
no more devices that were "broken" by storms. Even when other hardware
in the buildings, not protected by a UPS was damaged, the computers
protected by them were fine.

So, you can list all the technical spec's, the NEC, and anything else
you want, but the simple fact is that a UPS, even a cheap one, will pay
for itself after the first power outage or other event where the systems
survive.


--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
a source of disagreement. Engineers first learn both the
underlying theory of what happens AND also identify the
failure at each individual component. It is the standard
requirement of understanding the problem both theoretically
and experimentally. That is called science. Sometimes a
technician will see a failure, see that it coincided with an
event, and the associate the two as same. And so we have this
myth about power blackouts causing hardware problems.

Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware.
UPSes may be helpful for hardware protection WHEN that
hardware is defective. One source of motherboard damage are
power supplies that do not contain essential functions. Power
supplies often purchased by computer assemblers who only
understand one number - price. If a blackout or brownout
causes hardware damage or other power related service calls,
then the hardware was defective when purchased and installed
by that shameful computer assembler.

Some details. Just because a UPS has a joules rating does
not mean it features protection. Basic technical knowledge
would make that obvious. UPSes and power strip protectors
both have joules ratings. IOW both provide same protection
using same protector circuit. Both provide same ineffective
protection for the same repeated reason using the same
circuit.

Power supplies have no warning about power cycling because
power cycling is not a problem to properly designed power
supplies. In the world of rumors, power cycling causes
damage. Again, that can occur when hardware is missing
essential functions that were common even 30 years ago. It is
a problem created by bean counter mentalities who promote
themselves as computer experts.

You can blame problems on anything but the human. Its
easy. The user would not know differently. And
unfortunately, either do so many computer assemblers who never
even learned basic functions of power supplies and UPSes. For
example, the Ground Fault Indicator does not say anything
about earth ground. Its function is not relevant to anything
in this discussion. To test earth ground, the UPS would
require a complete electric circuit through Earth ground.
Where is the complete circuit through Earth ground? It does
not exist - obviously it does not exist.

That Ground Fault indicator only reports a defective SAFETY
ground. Safety ground is different from earth ground even
though both share some components. Furthermore, that Ground
Fault Indicator cannot even report a good Safety ground. It
can only report when the Safety ground is defective AND says
absolutely nothing about Earth ground. But the Ground Fault
Indicator can have technicians confusing Safety ground with
Earth ground to promote the myths about hardware protection.

A plug-in UPS is only for data protection. Hardware
protection of the Asus motherboard is provided by things such
as a 'whole house' protector AND by a power supply that
actually meets Intel specs - requirements that were standard
even 30 years ago. Many power supplies today do not even
contain functions considered essential 30 years ago. That
would explain hardware damage and other power related
problems.

Leythos wrote:
> You know, what it really comes down to is this: Like it or not, those
> crude devices you say have no merit, actually save people from data loss
> and hardware loss more times that I can count.
>
> Not every cheap PSU comes with a warning about cycling AC power source
> to many times or too frequently, in fact, I don't know of ANY PSU that
> comes with that warning.
>
> It's still a simple matter of experience in most cases a UPS
> (residential device connected to a line with ground) is going to be of
> more benefit that not having the device.
>
> When I was at the local computer store today I looked at every unit, all
> but one claimed joules protection level, most had ground fault
> indicators and reverse polarity indicators (meaning a swapped hot/neut).
>
> As a good example of how well a UPS works, we had a new client that had
> no UPS's in their buildings - not one and 70+ computers. On the average
> they required service related to power problems at least once a week (8
> buildings across the USA). After installing the UPS's at each device,
> there were no more power related service calls, not more lost data, and
> no more devices that were "broken" by storms. Even when other hardware
> in the buildings, not protected by a UPS was damaged, the computers
> protected by them were fine.
>
> So, you can list all the technical spec's, the NEC, and anything else
> you want, but the simple fact is that a UPS, even a cheap one, will pay
> for itself after the first power outage or other event where the systems
> survive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware." where is this
axiom written? Science you say? More like junk science. This NG is full of
people with problems that was caused by everything from bad design to the
wind. How much practical experience have you had I'm curious. I obviously
live on another planet where the techies are mostly concerned about fixing
the problem. You tell me where I can get one of these power supplies that
is guaranteed not to be responsible in any fashion whatsover for problems
caused by blackouts or brown outs. I haven't heard of any but I don't know
many of the answers in fact I don't know most of them. WHat an advertising
advantage "we guarantee our power supplies are perfect in the event of
blackouts or brownouts" .
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com...
> What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
> a source of disagreement. Engineers first learn both the
> underlying theory of what happens AND also identify the
> failure at each individual component. It is the standard
> requirement of understanding the problem both theoretically
> and experimentally. That is called science. Sometimes a
> technician will see a failure, see that it coincided with an
> event, and the associate the two as same. And so we have this
> myth about power blackouts causing hardware problems.
>
> Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware.
> UPSes may be helpful for hardware protection WHEN that
> hardware is defective. One source of motherboard damage are
> power supplies that do not contain essential functions. Power
> supplies often purchased by computer assemblers who only
> understand one number - price. If a blackout or brownout
> causes hardware damage or other power related service calls,
> then the hardware was defective when purchased and installed
> by that shameful computer assembler.
>
> Some details. Just because a UPS has a joules rating does
> not mean it features protection. Basic technical knowledge
> would make that obvious. UPSes and power strip protectors
> both have joules ratings. IOW both provide same protection
> using same protector circuit. Both provide same ineffective
> protection for the same repeated reason using the same
> circuit.
>
> Power supplies have no warning about power cycling because
> power cycling is not a problem to properly designed power
> supplies. In the world of rumors, power cycling causes
> damage. Again, that can occur when hardware is missing
> essential functions that were common even 30 years ago. It is
> a problem created by bean counter mentalities who promote
> themselves as computer experts.
>
> You can blame problems on anything but the human. Its
> easy. The user would not know differently. And
> unfortunately, either do so many computer assemblers who never
> even learned basic functions of power supplies and UPSes. For
> example, the Ground Fault Indicator does not say anything
> about earth ground. Its function is not relevant to anything
> in this discussion. To test earth ground, the UPS would
> require a complete electric circuit through Earth ground.
> Where is the complete circuit through Earth ground? It does
> not exist - obviously it does not exist.
>
> That Ground Fault indicator only reports a defective SAFETY
> ground. Safety ground is different from earth ground even
> though both share some components. Furthermore, that Ground
> Fault Indicator cannot even report a good Safety ground. It
> can only report when the Safety ground is defective AND says
> absolutely nothing about Earth ground. But the Ground Fault
> Indicator can have technicians confusing Safety ground with
> Earth ground to promote the myths about hardware protection.
>
> A plug-in UPS is only for data protection. Hardware
> protection of the Asus motherboard is provided by things such
> as a 'whole house' protector AND by a power supply that
> actually meets Intel specs - requirements that were standard
> even 30 years ago. Many power supplies today do not even
> contain functions considered essential 30 years ago. That
> would explain hardware damage and other power related
> problems.
>
> Leythos wrote:
> > You know, what it really comes down to is this: Like it or not, those
> > crude devices you say have no merit, actually save people from data loss
> > and hardware loss more times that I can count.
> >
> > Not every cheap PSU comes with a warning about cycling AC power source
> > to many times or too frequently, in fact, I don't know of ANY PSU that
> > comes with that warning.
> >
> > It's still a simple matter of experience in most cases a UPS
> > (residential device connected to a line with ground) is going to be of
> > more benefit that not having the device.
> >
> > When I was at the local computer store today I looked at every unit, all
> > but one claimed joules protection level, most had ground fault
> > indicators and reverse polarity indicators (meaning a swapped hot/neut).
> >
> > As a good example of how well a UPS works, we had a new client that had
> > no UPS's in their buildings - not one and 70+ computers. On the average
> > they required service related to power problems at least once a week (8
> > buildings across the USA). After installing the UPS's at each device,
> > there were no more power related service calls, not more lost data, and
> > no more devices that were "broken" by storms. Even when other hardware
> > in the buildings, not protected by a UPS was damaged, the computers
> > protected by them were fine.
> >
> > So, you can list all the technical spec's, the NEC, and anything else
> > you want, but the simple fact is that a UPS, even a cheap one, will pay
> > for itself after the first power outage or other event where the systems
> > survive.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Before cars had electronic ignitions, I built and installed
one in my late 1960s model. And then wondered why Detroit
could not do same. EPA regulations finally forced Detroit's
bean counters to let the engineers design (even better). Is
your experience (and theoretical training) anywhere near as
comprehensive?

Notice the difference between my posts and other. I keep
insisting on and providing numbers. Numbers alone suggest
underlying knowledge. No numbers suggests a poster has no
knowledge and is probably rationalizing junk science. Numbers
are a benchmark that should have made your question
irrelevant. Since you did not recognize the significance of
numbers, I better understand the breath and depth of your
experience.

How long can all power supply outputs be shorted before a
power supply is destroyed? Knowing of functions that must be
inside a power supply, then that answer is not only easy, but
can be provided with relative numbers. Many computer people
do not know that simple answer, would never understand why,
and do not even know the simple 3 word phrase that summarizes
that answer. But then one of my first jobs was design, debug,
and manufacturer of power supplies. Ever have a large
electrolytic capacitor explode in front of you? One supply
was a hybrid of switching and linear circuits for analog
operation. Of course, those with basic electrical knowledge
would appreciate why. Just more background so that lurkers
can appreciate which one here was posting technical facts and
not urban myths.

Again, more little facts that say, in no uncertain terms, my
experience, training, and education are significant. If you
did not know the above answers, then appreciate how much
remains to be learned. I keep providing and referring to
technical numbers that too many computer assemblers often
don't know and will insist they need not know. Why? Many
'computer experts' need only replace a silver box to prove
their technical prowess. They don't even use a simple 3.5
digit multimeter. The worst of them fix computers by
shotgunning. They need not understand what happens inside
that silver box. Then when other failures happen, they simply
attach more boxes - such as a UPS. Then blame fictional
excuses such as 'dirty' electricity or a mythical surge. Did
they measure that problem? No. They just knew it must have
existed - no numbers required.

notritenoteri wrote:
> "Blackout and voltage sags (brownouts) do not harm hardware." where
> is this axiom written? Science you say? More like junk science.
> This NG is full of people with problems that was caused by
> everything from bad design to the wind. How much practical
> experience have you had I'm curious. I obviously live on another
> planet where the techies are mostly concerned about fixing
> the problem. You tell me where I can get one of these power
> supplies that is guaranteed not to be responsible in any
> fashion whatsover for problems caused by blackouts or brown outs.
> I haven't heard of any but I don't know many of the answers in fact
> I don't know most of them. WHat an advertising advantage "we
> guarantee our power supplies are perfect in the event of
> blackouts or brownouts" .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
> What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
> a source of disagreement.

[snip]

You win - but I'm still going to purchase, install, and use common UPS
devices on all of our systems and clients systems because I can see the
benefit of such devices each time there is a change in the AC line power
being supplied to the building.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

If it raises your comfort level go for it. Remember UPS's are like cars they
need maintenace, at a minimum a new battery every so often.
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c55f02e82abd4db989f47@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
> > What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
> > a source of disagreement.
>
> [snip]
>
> You win - but I'm still going to purchase, install, and use common UPS
> devices on all of our systems and clients systems because I can see the
> benefit of such devices each time there is a change in the AC line power
> being supplied to the building.
>
> --
> --
> spamfree999@rrohio.com
> (Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Use facts from cars to discuss a UPS. How long does that
car battery last even in weather extremes? Six years? Nine
years? Battery backup systems in high reliability buildings
are surviving twenty years. So why does that plug-in UPS
battery always in a perfect environment typically last only
three years? Details may be found in technical concepts such
as the battery recharge circuit. So how good is that plug-in
UPS design? Serious battery backup or a disposable one?
These quality questions would be understood by computer
experts those with electrical knowledge. Just another
function that should be inside the box. Is it? Or are they
selling a UPS only on price?

notritenoteri wrote:
> If it raises your comfort level go for it. Remember UPS's are like
> cars they need maintenace, at a minimum a new battery every so often.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <AwXGd.1026$P_3.5501@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>,
caldasfire@hades.com says...
> If it raises your comfort level go for it. Remember UPS's are like cars they
> need maintenace, at a minimum a new battery every so often.

From what I've read, I was working on these things before you were out
of school, I'm more than aware that they need to have the batteries
changed on scheduled intervals, more frequently if they are used
frequently.

And, again, it's not my comfort level that I'm raising, it's customer
down-time and cost related to power problems.

> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c55f02e82abd4db989f47@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <41EC13DD.DC0A75D9@hotmail.com>, w_tom1@hotmail.com says...
> > > What is comes down to is simply this ... and this is always
> > > a source of disagreement.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > You win - but I'm still going to purchase, install, and use common UPS
> > devices on all of our systems and clients systems because I can see the
> > benefit of such devices each time there is a change in the AC line power
> > being supplied to the building.
> >
> > --
> > --
> > spamfree999@rrohio.com
> > (Remove 999 to reply to me)
>
>
>

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)