UPS Recommendations?

w_tom wrote:
Michael W. Ryder wrote:
I realize this, he has been doing this for many years, but post to
educate others who might have been taken in by him.

Fine. Just post manufacturer numerical specs that define protection
for each type of surge - including the type that typically causes
damage. Michael cannot do that because plug-in manufacturers do not
even claim such protection. Sales are promoted by undersizing
protectors so that smoke promotes more sales. Sales are promoted by
installing protection from one type of surge - and leaving the naive to
assume that is protection from all types of surges.

It would be so easy for Michael W Ryder to dispute what I post. All
Michael need do is cite manufacturer numerical specs. No such specs
exist because plug-in protectors ... without that all so critical 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth ... cannot provide and do not claim
such protection.


WHERE did I say that everything you posted was wrong????? As I posted
to an earlier post which you seem to have ignored the manufacturers will
NOT provide specs to be used by some shyster for a class action lawsuit.
My posts were about UPS systems that totally remove the AC circuit
from the equation, not about stand-by UPS systems. Whole building
grounds will NOT protect equipment from transients without other
equipment. Our office installed the above as the first step when
encountering power problems. Total effect of zero. Same for an
isolation transformer. Only after running the equipment off of batter
power did the problems go away. Nothing was ever said about surge
protectors as our problems were with transients too small for a surge
protector.


No earth ground means no effective protection. Protectors from
responsible manufacturers have a dedicated earthing wire. Michael will
not even provide manufacturer numerical specs because no such
protection exists.


See above.



What do UPSes with effective protection have? Those building wide
UPSes also make the short connection to earth using a dedicated
connection. Plug-in UPSes have no such earthing connection and
therefore provide no numerical specifications. Michael cannot post
what does not exist. So he attacks the messenger - and hopes that is
technical proof.


WHO is attacking who here???? Why don't YOU post some specs showing
what your vaunted whole building ground can do??? Because you can't I
bet. I post examples of problems I have personally been involved in and
the final solution, you post attacks saying I can't provide numbers.
Numbers are worthless, results are all that counts.
This thread is done for me.

w_tom wrote:
Michael W. Ryder wrote:
I realize this, he has been doing this for many years, but post to
educate others who might have been taken in by him.

Fine. Just post manufacturer numerical specs that define protection
for each type of surge - including the type that typically causes
damage. Michael cannot do that because plug-in manufacturers do not
even claim such protection. Sales are promoted by undersizing
protectors so that smoke promotes more sales. Sales are promoted by
installing protection from one type of surge - and leaving the naive to
assume that is protection from all types of surges.

You have never provided "manufacturer numerical specs that define
protection for each type of surge" for any of your favorite
manufacturers. Your manufacturers apparently "do not even claim such
protection".

Any decent plug in suppressor or UPS with surge protection has MOVs
from H-G, N-G and H-N as shown in the IEEE guide on surges. They handle
common mode and transverse mode surges. You may not be able to figure
out how they work, but the IEEE and NIST can.

The obvious fix for undersized is not to buy undersized suppressor.


No earth ground means no effective protection. Protectors from
responsible manufacturers have a dedicated earthing wire.


Your religious views on earth ground are not relevant. The IEEE guide
clearly describes plug-in suppressors as clamping all wires to a common
ground at the suppressor. Earthing is not the primary method of
protection.


The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective.
That also applies to UPSs with built in surge protection.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0

bud--

Bud claims UPSes are effective surge protection and yet does not
provide numerical specifications for each transient type. So many
manufacturers to quote from. Bud cannot even find one to quote?
Exactly.

Bud promotes a myth about protecting from both common mode and
transvers mode. Fine. Manufacturer specifications say that? No. Why
does Bud claim what even the manufacturers do not publish? Notice the
plural - manufacturers. So many manufacturers and yet Bud cannot find
even one with those numerical specs?

Bud is again posting this myth:
The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective.

Bud's own citations don't make recommendations. His own citations
are technical discussions about what may work and how it may fail.
Instead we go to an IEEE *Standard* for recommendations:
IEEE Red Book (Standard 141) says:
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

What type of UPS makes that earthing connection? Building wide UPSes
have a short and dedicated earthing wire. Plug-in UPSes have no such
earthing wire - which explains why those UPS numerical specs don't even
claim such protection. Remember those specification numbers that
neither Bud nor Michael Ryder provide?

IEEE also recommends effective protection in another *standard*:
IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

IEEE Green book also discusses earthing for lightning protection.
IEEE says what is required: earth ground. Bud repeatedly denies this.
No earth ground means no effective protection. IEEE Standard 141 and
IEEE Standard 142 are quite specific on what is required for effective
protection: earthing. What does Bud say?
Earthing is not the primary method of protection.

Bud follows me around everywhere posting some mythical protection
without earthing. Some mythical protection that even manufacturers do
not claim. IEEE Std 141 and 142 have been quoted to him repeatedly.
So why does he even misrepresent IEEE? IEEE is quite blunt about what
is necessary AND what has been proven for protection long before WWII.
Earthing. Bud will say most anything to deny this 'well grounded'
reality.

bud-- wrote:
w_tom wrote:
...
No earth ground means no effective protection. Protectors from
responsible manufacturers have a dedicated earthing wire.

Your religious views on earth ground are not relevant. The IEEE guide
clearly describes plug-in suppressors as clamping all wires to a common
ground at the suppressor. Earthing is not the primary method of
protection.

The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective.
That also applies to UPSs with built in surge protection.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0

On Oct 5, 6:23 am, "w_tom" wrote:
Bud claims UPSes are effective surge protection and yet does not
provide numerical specifications for each transient type. So many
manufacturers to quote from. Bud cannot even find one to quote?
Exactly.

Bud promotes a myth about protecting from both common mode and
transvers mode. Fine. Manufacturer specifications say that? No. Why
does Bud claim what even the manufacturers do not publish? Notice the
plural - manufacturers. So many manufacturers and yet Bud cannot find
even one with those numerical specs?


To repeat:
You have never provided "manufacturer numerical specs that define
protection for each type of surge" for any of your favorite
manufacturers.

So many manufacturers and yet w_ cannot find even one with those
numerical specs? Could be another of your bs claims??

And repeating"
Any decent plug in suppressor or UPS with surge protection has MOVs
from H-G, N-G and H-N as shown in the IEEE guide on surges. They handle
common mode and transverse mode surges. You may not be able to figure
out how they work, but the IEEE and NIST can.


The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective. Bud's own citations don't make recommendations. His own citations
are technical discussions about what may work and how it may fail.

To take only one example: the IEEE guide, chapter 6, "SPECIFIC
PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2 examples of surge protection. Both use
SREs.
Saying the guides take a lot of space describing, but not recommending
plug-in surge protectors is stupid. Repeatedly making this claim
requires willful stupidity.




The IEEE and NIST guides say that plug-in suppressors are effective
(and UPSs with built in surge protection).
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective: 0
Your links ot manufacturer specs "that define protection for each type
of surge": 0.

bud--

Again Bud posts accusations and claims - and yet will not even
requote what the IEEE recommends. IEEE Standards 141 and 142 define
what effective protection must accomplish. Recommendations in IEEE Red
Book and IEEE Green Book are in direct contradiction to what Bud claims
and what the plug-in protector manufacturer hopes you will assume.
IEEE is quite blunt about what is essential to effective protection -
earthing:
IEEE Red Book (Std 141):
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding' :
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

Bud will recommend plug-in UPS and yet cannot even provide a single
manufacturer numerical spec that claims such protection.

Scary pictures of products that Bud recommends:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html


bud-- wrote:
To repeat:
You have never provided "manufacturer numerical specs that define
protection for each type of surge" for any of your favorite
manufacturers.

So many manufacturers and yet w_ cannot find even one with those
numerical specs? Could be another of your bs claims??

And repeating"
Any decent plug in suppressor or UPS with surge protection has MOVs
from H-G, N-G and H-N as shown in the IEEE guide on surges. They handle
common mode and transverse mode surges. You may not be able to figure
out how they work, but the IEEE and NIST can.
...

On Oct 5, 5:25 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
Again Bud posts accusations and claims - and yet will not even
requote what the IEEE recommends. IEEE Standards 141 and 142 define
what effective protection must accomplish. Recommendations in IEEE Red
Book and IEEE Green Book are in direct contradiction to what Bud claims
and what the plug-in protector manufacturer hopes you will assume.

The 5 EEs who wrote the IEEE guide have read the Red and Green books.
The IEEE guide recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as effective.


Bud will recommend plug-in UPS and yet cannot even provide a single
manufacturer numerical spec that claims such protection.

The first plug--in surge suppressor I found was
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=124817
Belkin
1770 joules
90,000-Amp maximum spike current
That sounds like manufacturer specs
And as I said, specs for different modes is a bs argument - you have
not provided that information from any manufacturer.

Scary pictures of products that Bud recommends:

Pathetic scare tactics.

http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
The Hanford link specifically references the new UL standard with
thermal disconnect as a fix.

http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
The 2nd and 3rd links are the same. Both give guidelines for using
plug-in suppressors

None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.

http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
The 4th link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.



The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Add to that the 4 horror picture sites.
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0

And still missing - your links to sites that have common and
transverse mode ratings for service panel suppressors, ratings which
you say are essential - for other people.

bud--

Bud says 5 EEs who wrote his citation read the IEEE standards. Yes,
and that is why his citations also define how his protection can be
compromised even by a kid with an Xbox.

But again return to what IEEE recommends. Not in a technical
discussion. IEEE recommendations are in standards that Bud will not
even discuss. Why would he discuss a recommendation that demonstrates
plug-in protectors as ineffective? Why would he discuss a *standard*
that recommends the 'whole house' protector?

What Bud hopes you will forget. IEEE Red Book (Std 141):
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.

IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
Grounding':
Lightning cannot be prevented; it can only be intercepted or
diverted to a path which will, if well designed and constructed,
not result in damage.

Scary pictures were so common in the 1980s that PC Magazine even had
two feature articles on how frequently undersized and mislocated
protectors created those scary pictures. Therefore UL has required
backup safety devices in all protectors - for decades. Why do recent
scary pictures still threaten fire? UL backup system alone is not
sufficient. Just another reason why properly sized plug-in protectors
are, instead, located in a safer place AND with the 'less than 10 foot'
connection to earth.

Again, scary pictures because human safety is dependent only on a UL
required backup safety device:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

Meanwhile, UL requires certain numbers be lists - numbers for human
safety. Manufacturer does not list each type surge and numbers for
each surge. Why? It protects only from one type of surge so that you
will call it surge protection. UPSes typically contain numbers so
small - so few joules - as to be all but no surge protection. Bud
hopes you will overlook a pathetically few joules inside a UPS. Too
few joules - enough to proclaim protection to the naive. Bud also hopes
you forget to ask for protection for each type surge. Why? Where
protection does not exist, then numbers do not exist. Those same
numbers that Bud forgot to promote in order to promote myths.

Those who politicians fear and hate, instead, demand numbers.
Protection inside a UPS is typically so grossly undersized as to be
ineffective. Bud, who promotes for plug-in protectors manufacturers,
fears you might learn why plug-in UPSes and plug-in protectors are so
ineffective. He even posts numbers required for UL - human safety - as
if that were numbers for transistor safety. Again, he knows he is
deceiving you.

Bud refuses to acknowledge or admit to what IEEE recommends in Red
Book and Green Book ... because plug-in protectors violate that
recommendation.

bud-- wrote:
On Oct 5, 5:25 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
...
The 5 EEs who wrote the IEEE guide have read the Red and Green books.
The IEEE guide recognizes plug-in surge suppressors as effective.
...

The first plug--in surge suppressor I found was
http://catalog.belkin.com/IWCatProdu...duct_Id=124817
Belkin
1770 joules
90,000-Amp maximum spike current
That sounds like manufacturer specs
And as I said, specs for different modes is a bs argument - you have
not provided that information from any manufacturer.
...

Pathetic scare tactics.
...
The Hanford link specifically references the new UL standard with
thermal disconnect as a fix.
...
The 2nd and 3rd links are the same. Both give guidelines for using
plug-in suppressors

None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.

http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
The 4th link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.



The IEEE and NIST guides clearly say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Add to that the 4 horror picture sites.
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still 0

And still missing - your links to sites that have common and
transverse mode ratings for service panel suppressors, ratings which
you say are essential - for other people.

On Oct 6, 7:22 pm, "w_tom" wrote:

But again return to what IEEE recommends. Not in a technical
discussion. IEEE recommendations are in standards that Bud will not
even discuss. Why would he discuss a recommendation that demonstrates
plug-in protectors as ineffective? Why would he discuss a *standard*
that recommends the 'whole house' protector?

What Bud hopes you will forget. IEEE Red Book (Std 141):....
.IEEE Green Book (IEEE 142) ....

#1
You have to be stupid to think the IEEE would publish a guide to the
general public that is not consistent with the IEEE color books. Maybe
if you tried real hard you could understand the IEEE and NIST guides

Scary pictures were so common in the 1980s that PC Magazine ....

As you know thhe UL standard has been changed to require MOVs
disconnect when they overheat.The PCmag articles were long before that.
Maybe if you read your hanford link...

Again, scary pictures because human safety is dependent only on a UL
required backup safety device:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

And the pathetic horror pics again. None of the sites say protectors
under the current standard are a problem and thy are certainly not
against plug-in surge suppressors.

UPSes typically contain numbers so
small - so few joules - as to be all but no surge protection. Bud
hopes you will overlook a pathetically few joules inside a UPS.
Not at all. A UPs may not be designed effective for surge protection.
One can plug a UPS into a plug-in surge suppressor.

. Bud also hopes
you forget to ask for protection for each type surge. Why? Where
protection does not exist, then numbers do not exist. Those same
numbers that Bud forgot to promote in order to promote myths.

Never seen - any site from w_ with the stats he requires others to
furnish. Another bs argument.


Bud, who promotes for plug-in protectors manufacturers,
To quote w_: -again- "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot
be challenged technically, then attack the messenger.."



Bud refuses to acknowledge or admit to what IEEE recommends in Red
Book and Green Book ... because plug-in protectors violate that
recommendation.

Repeat #1. The IEEE published one of the guides.


For those who can read and think, IEEE and NIST guides say that
plug-in suppressors are effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
And add the 4 horror picture sites.
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
always 0

And -still- missing - your links to sites that have common and
transverse mode ratings for service panel suppressors, ratings which
you say are essential - for other people.

bud--