On Dec 10, 9:17 pm, w_tom wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:03 pm, J Carnaghie wrote:
>
> > I agree with Bud in that a quality surge protector
> > is a good investment on any electronic device.
> > Most newer laptops come with a power supply that
> > can use virtually all voltages and frequencies
> > found in homes; check the label.
>
> Bud is not recommending 'quality' surge protectors. Buy a $3 power
> strip. Add some $0.10 parts.
One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that part for $0.10.
> Bud's citation says what a protector does when too close
> to appliances on Page 42 Figure 8. That protector earths a surge,
> 8000 volts destructively, through an adjacent TV.
The illustration in the IEEE guide has 2 TVs. One is connected to a
plug-in suppressor which protects it.
It is simply a lie that the plug-in suppressor at one TV in any way
contributes to damage at the other TV. 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."
> Bud hopes you
> don't read his citations with engineering care.
I do hope people will read the guides. Excellent information from
reliable sources.
> Where are numerical
> specs that cite each type of surge and claim protection from each
> surge?
"Each type of surge" is nonsense. Plug-in suppressors have voltage
clamps between all wires. That covers all surge modes.
>
> So where does that travel protector even claim to provide
> protection?
Manufacturers for some plug-in suppressors even have warranties for
connected equipment.
> Where are the numbers?
w_ can't google the numbers for himself because the institution only
lets him look at newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures.
>
> At home, many use UPSes.
Completely irrelevant to the thread.
>
> Finally, what sometimes happens to current technology protectors?
> See 'scary pictures' from others who are not protecting massive profit
> margins. Included are a recent Boston fire, the reason why such
> fires exist according to a NC fire marshal, and others:
> 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 required thermal disconnects. That was 1998. There is no
reason to believe, from any of these links, that there is a problem
with suppressors produced under the UL standard that has been in
effect since 1998.
> Protector that
> Bud recommends is also those travel protectors.
I recommend only accurate information - read the guides and decide for
yourself.
Both guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Then read w_'s sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective
- oops, there aren't any
Never answered:
- 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"?
--
bud-- |