Surge protectors?

[w_tom]

. We DO see system damage when cable installers disconnect the
cable line from the surge suppressor, however, which leads me to
believe that the signal lines are critical to protection. The whole
house suppression probably does not address this.

Any protector that does not make a short connection to earth ground
does what? Earthing that surge destructively elsewhere such as
through the adjacent appliance. Any protection that works at the
appliance is already inside the appliance. New standards mean that
signal lines must withstand even 15,000 volts without damage. Yes
that few volt signal line must also not be damaged by 2,000 and 15,000
volts

So we earth that surge before it even enters the building - does not
get near to signal lines.

Did damage exist? That says little about the protector and says
nothing about a plug-in protector. That damage says a surge was
permitted inside the building to maybe overwhelm protection inside
signal lines.

How does the telephone company with signal lines everywhere inside
their building not suffer computer damage? Every wire is properly
earthed either by a direct earthing connection or via a 'whole house'
type protector. Why is telephone service not down for four days every
year while they replace that computer? Why can that computer suffer
one hundred surges during every thunderstorm and not suffer damage?
They don't use grossly overpriced Panamax or Monster Cable products.
Instead they spend less money on more effective 'whole house' type
protectors and they enhance that single point earthing. How is the
protection made even better? They install even better earth grounds.

Did a surge enter on cable TV wire? Then how was that cable
earthed. Installing a Panamax on that cable TV wire is even not
recommended by the cable company for the same reasons that early 20th
Century Ham radio operators finally stopped surges. Will the Panamax
absorb surges?

The Panamax does not even claim to protect from type of surges that
typically cause electronics damage. Those who recommend that Panamax
routinely ignore that reality. Good reason why Panamax does not make
that claim. No dedicated earthing wire. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

Meanwhile, smoke detectors also were not routinely damaged during
surges. Is that because smoke detectors are connected to invisible
protectors? No. If something is undamaged with a Panamax proves
nothing since other appliances also are not damaged - and have no
Panamax. Damning is that the Panamax does not even claim to protect
from that type of surge.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[bud--]

First, even effective surge protectors do not stop typically
destructive surges. One that implies protection forgets to mention it
protects from surges that typically don't damage - surges that don't
overwhelm protection already in all appliances.

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form
the IEEE:
http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
And also the NIST:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.

For us surges coming in on US power wires, common mode surges are
converted to transverse mode by the neutral-ground bond at the service.
In any case, plugin suppressors have MOVs from H-N, H-G, N-G. That
covers all surge modes.

What determines the effectiveness of that 'whole house' protector?
Quality of earthing and connection to earthing.

w_ has a religious belief (immune from challenge) that surge protection
must use earthing. Thus in his view plug-in suppressors (which are not
well earthed) can not possibly work. The IEEE guide explains plug-in
suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all wires (signal and power)
to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work
primarily by earthing. The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).

Note that all interconnected equipment needs to be connected to the same
plug-in suppressor, or interconnecting wires need to go through the
suppressor. External connections, like phone, also need to go through
the suppressor (as Leonard said). Connecting all wiring through the
suppressor prevents damaging voltages between power and signal wires.
These multiport suppressors are described in the IEEE guide.

According to NIST guide, US insurance information indicates equipment
most frequently damaged by lightning is
computers with a modem connection
TVs, VCRs and similar equipment (presumably with cable TV
connections).
All can be damaged by high voltages between power and signal wires.

Another important protection element, referred to by someone else, is
single point ground. The most important part of a single point ground is
that phone, CATV, ... protection blocks connect with a *short* ground
wire to the earthing wire at the power service. With a large surge there
will always be a difference from the house ground to ‘absolute’ ground.
The goal is for the power, CATV and phone 'grounds' to rise together.
The author of the NIST guide wrote “the impedance of the grounding
system to ‘true earth’ is far less important than the integrity of the
bonding of the various parts of the grounding system.”

In many houses the phone, CATV service entry are distant from the power
service. The IEEE guide (starting pdf page 40) provides an example of
what can happen if the interconnecting wires are too long. In that case
the IEEE guide says "the only effective way of protecting the equipment
is to use a multiport protector." (But another method is to run the
phone wire from the entry NID to the power service area and install a
2nd NID, then distribute the phone wires from there.)

Meanwhile, where does that Panamax even discuss earthing? It does
not because it does not even claim to protect from surges that
typically damage household appliances. No earth ground means no
effective protection.

The religious belief in earthing again.

And the myth of the magic damaging surge again.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Ratings range from junk to very high.

The IEEE guide lists earthing, single point ground, power service
surge suppression, and plug-in suppressors as protection elements. If I
was in high lightning areas I would use them all.


It is not obvious what the Power Sentry reference to 2ms is about. A
surge will be over far before 2 ms. It could be that the Power Sentry
will disconnect if there is overvoltage for 2 ms.
(The author of the NIST guide wrote "in fact, the major cause of TVSS
[surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than an
unusually large surge.")

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

Urge suppressors, what a good idea. I think urge suppressors should be
applied to all convicted child molestors and all suicide bombers...then they
should be grounded to a level of 6 ft. If there is any doubt on the
effectiveness, then Michaels ground test should be applied.

You can find info on keeping them legal from the NRA.

Leonard

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Urge suppressors, what a good idea. I think urge suppressors should be
applied to all convicted child molestors and all suicide bombers...then they
should be grounded to a level of 6 ft. If there is any doubt on the
effectiveness, then Michael's ground test should be applied.

You can find info on keeping them legal from the NRA.

I have plenty of 100 A fuses for that application. I'd even spring
for a 150 A circuit breaker! The question is, would it stop sleezebags
from running for office? ;-)


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Franc Zabkar]

The same cut & pasted crap he's posted for years.

I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.

What's really annoying is that he patronisingly directs people to
consult datasheets when he himself avoids doing the same, or
misunderstands them when he does. If you challenge him with actual
numbers and formulae, he will run away and attempt to disguise his
ignorance with a page of tedious, convoluted technobabble.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.

What's really annoying is that he patronisingly directs people to
consult datasheets when he himself avoids doing the same, or
misunderstands them when he does. If you challenge him with actual
numbers and formulae, he will run away and attempt to disguise his
ignorance with a page of tedious, convoluted technobabble.

- Franc Zabkar

Most of us have given up on trying to make sense out of his posts and trying
to have any real dialogue with him. You can hurt your brain doing so.
Michael's has exploded at least once, and I think Bud has suffered some
damage as well. You have to give Bud credit for his persistence, though.

Leonard

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Most of us have given up on trying to make sense out of his posts and trying
to have any real dialogue with him. You can hurt your brain doing so.
Michael's has exploded at least once, and I think Bud has suffered some
damage as well. You have to give Bud credit for his persistence, though.

He took a real beating on a while
back. He kept bleating about a long gone standards group for business
equipment, and claiming that all personal computers had to boot and
continue to work at 90 VAC input. I posted a long list of power supply
model numbers and the nameplate specifications, which he dismissed as
irrelevant, because I didn't have a degree, like him. I never knew that
being an anonymous idiot on USENET required a degree, but he's the
living, ranting proof. An bunch of people kept kicking him around, till
he finally stopped posting. Another regular on that group claims that
there never was a problem with bad electrolytics on motherboards,
because he had spent his entire working life working for IBM, on
mainframes.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[w_tom]

The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is form
the IEEE:http://omegaps.com/Lightning Guide_FINALpublishedversion_May051.pdf
And also the NIST:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half
truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to
acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high.

Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far
from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective
earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground
destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not
necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But
Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even
destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector.
Therefore it was too far from earth ground.

A surge finds earth ground. If not earthed before entering a
building, then a surge may even find destructive paths through
disconnected appliances. This was demonstrated even by early 20th
Century Ham radio operators who would put their antenna wires even
inside a mason jar. Damage to disconnected equipment still resulted.
When the antenna (incoming) wire was earthed. then damage stopped.
Protection means surges must be earthed before entering a building.

Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.
But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

You cannot really suppress a surge altogether, nor
"arrest" it. What these protective devices do is
neither suppress nor arrest a surge, but simply
divert it to ground, where it can do no harm.

All appliances contain internal protection. Protection that may be
overwhelmed if surges are not properly earthed before entering the
building. Protection that may be overwhelmed if a protector is too
close to an appliance and therefore earths that surge destructively
through the appliance: Page 42 Figure 8.

A long list of responsible companies do make 'whole house'
protectors that costs tens of times less money per appliance AND
provide superior protection. This long list includes names that any
electrically informed guy will recognize: Square D, Cutler-Hammer,
Intermatic, Leviton, GE, Siemens. One 'whole house' protector does so
much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire.
These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical
supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50.

Why do plug-in promoters fear you learn what is necessary for
effective protection? Let's see. Bud's protector is a $3 power strip
with some $0.10 components. It is sold for $25 or $100. With profit
margins that high, then it was essential for Bud to not discuss
earthing. No earth ground means no effective protection.

Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point
earth ground. Surge protection is secondary to profit margins. Even
his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that
reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no
earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A
protector simply connects a surge to protection. But a protector
promoted as a magic box becomes a profit center.

 

[bud--]

Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half
truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to
acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high.

To quote the all-knowing w_ “It is an old political trick. When facts
cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

My “half truths” come from the IEEE and NIST. w_’s opinions come from
his religious belief in earthing - with no sources.

Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far
from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective
earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground
destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not
necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But
Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even
destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector.
Therefore it was too far from earth ground.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop.
There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor
protects TV1 connected to it.

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

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

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service
is too long (not a “single point ground”). As I said in my previous
post, the IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of
protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector.”

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

Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.

Poor w_ can’t figure out that my last post covered earthing, as do
both guides .

And because plug–in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in
earthing he can’t understand how they work. Repeating from my last
post: “The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The
guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf
page 40).”

But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The question is not about earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or
CATV or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link
appliances, the prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that
does not mean that a surge protector installed at the service entrance
is useless."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing
he has to distort what the NIST guide says about them.

One 'whole house' protector does so
much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire.
These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical
supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50.

w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ‘whole house
protector’. Or specs for one.
Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source.

Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point
earth ground.

If w_ could only read and think he would have seen single point ground
was a major point in my last post.

Even
his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that
reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no
earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A
protector simply connects a surge to protection.

And the religious belief in earthing again.

The question is not earthing – everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

Never explained by w_:
- 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".


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

 

[bud--]

I'd like to know who he is. His IP addresses change from day to day,
and they don't seem to belong to any one particular ISP. For someone
who craves to be seen as an authority, he sure makes it difficult to
verify his credentials, assuming he has any. And based on what has
transpired in a current thread at aus.electronics, it is clear to me
that he has not even a basic understanding of electrical fundamentals.
For example, he dismisses the distinction between volts, amps, watts,
and joules as "semantics". And he has absolutely no idea how a simple
MOV works.

My guess is that he was once quite sharp but is rather impaired now.

Some of his comments are very good. The comments you refer to on
aus.electronics were amazingly (and I think uncharacteristically) bad.
He sometimes totally misunderstands what people say (in addition to
making things up). He has a fetish for tower antennas - ham? worked in
broadcast?

He uses google-groups to search - favorites are surge, lightning and
power supply. Always certain, sometimes right.

Someone posted not too long ago (I have no idea if it is accurate but
hey - this is the usenet):
IP address: 71.224.156.198
Reverse DNS: c-71-224-156-198.hsd1.pa.comcast.net.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 33287
ASN Name: DNEO-OSP4
IP range connectivity: 2
Registrar (per ASN): ARIN
Country (per IP registrar): US [United States]
Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
Country IP Range: 71.128.0.0 to 71.255.255.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
Country (per outside source): US [United States]
Private (internal) IP? No

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

Finally the industry promoter has arrived to 'cut and paste' half
truths. From those citations are reality that Bud refuses to
acknowledge. He cannot. Profits are just too high.

To quote the all-knowing w_ “It is an old political trick. When facts
cannot be challenged technically, then attack the messenger."

My “half truths” come from the IEEE and NIST. w_’s opinions come from his
religious belief in earthing - with no sources.

Page 42 Figure 8 of his first citation shows a protector too far
from earth ground. Protector too close to electronics. And a defective
earthing system. Therefore 8000 volts finds earth ground
destructively through adjacent TVs. Bud claims that earthing is not
necessary. it is necessary to sell protectors at gross profit. But
Page 42 figure 8 shows, a protector without proper earthing can even
destroy the TV. A protector too close to TV earths a surge 8000 volts
destructively through that TV. It was not a 'whole house' protector.
Therefore it was too far from earth ground.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a CATV drop.
There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in suppressor
protects TV1 connected to it.

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

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

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the CATV entry block to the power service
is too long (not a “single point ground”). As I said in my previous post,
the IEEE guide says in that case "the only effective way of protecting the
equipment is to use a multiport protector.”

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

Bud repeately insists that earthing is not required for protection.

Poor w_ can’t figure out that my last post covered earthing, as do both
guides .

And because plug–in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing
he can’t understand how they work. Repeating from my last post: “The IEEE
guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the voltage on all
wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the suppressor. Plug-in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing. The guide explains
earthing occurs elsewhere. (Read the guide starting pdf page 40).”

But his second citation says otherwise. From page 6 (Adobe page 8 of
24) of
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/practiceguides/surgesfnl.pdf

The question is not about earthing. The only question is whether plug-in
suppressors work.

What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are "the easiest solution".
and:
"Q - Will a surge protector installed at the service entrance be
sufficient for the whole house?
A - There are two answers to than question: Yes for one-link appliances,
No for two-link appliances [equipment connected to power AND phone or CATV
or....]. Since most homes today have some kind of two-link appliances, the
prudent answer to the question would be NO - but that does not mean that a
surge protector installed at the service entrance is useless."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_’s religious belief in earthing he
has to distort what the NIST guide says about them.

One 'whole house' protector does so
much more because, well, notice it has the essential earthing wire.
These products are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and electrical
supply houses. Some are avialable for less than $50.

w_ has never provided a link to the mythical $50 ‘whole house protector’.
Or specs for one.
Yet another claim w_ can't back up with a source.

Meanwhile, Bud will do anything to avoid discussing single point
earth ground.

If w_ could only read and think he would have seen single point ground was
a major point in my last post.

Even
his own citations define earthing as necessary. He ignores that
reality. Bud ignores earthing since products he promotes have no
earthing. Earth ground - not a protector - is the protection. A
protector simply connects a surge to protection.

And the religious belief in earthing again.

The question is not earthing – everyone is for it. The only question is
whether plug-in suppressors work. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief in
earthing.

Never explained by w_:
- 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".


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

Your comments are supported by my field experience. We see lightning damaged
tuners and inputs all the time. The are never connected through surge
suppressors on the cable or sat line. We have hundreds of installs WITH
surge suppressors that never see any damage. w_tom IS correct about them
importance of grounding, up to a point. He consistently ignores the fact
that clamping does not assume that ground is always the lowest potential,
nor that clamping does not necessarily require earthing to be effective.
MOVs just dump current when their clamping voltage is exceeded. They
require a voltage difference, not an earth ground. Earthing is important,
but it is not the whole story. He simply does not tell the whole story and
ignores a great deal of context. He is a perfect example of how a lot of
knowledge can be made useless, or even harmful, when it is misapplied.

Leonard

 

[Franc Zabkar]

My guess is that he was once quite sharp but is rather impaired now.

Some of his comments are very good. The comments you refer to on
aus.electronics were amazingly (and I think uncharacteristically) bad.
He sometimes totally misunderstands what people say (in addition to
making things up). He has a fetish for tower antennas - ham? worked in
broadcast?

I think he gets away with a lot of what he says because of the nature
of the subject. I confess that I know next to nothing about it myself,
but I do know how to read a datasheet and I understand basic circuit
theory. And being an engineer, I like to quantify observations and
assertions with numbers and examples wherever possible.

He uses google-groups to search - favorites are surge, lightning and
power supply. Always certain, sometimes right.

I've encountered him in PSU debates and once again I have mixed
thoughts about him. He doesn't appear to have an intimate knowledge of
the inner workings of PSUs, or any electronic device for that matter.
Instead he seems to be a specification junkie. That said, he has
corrected me on at least one occasion that I can recall, and of course
I'm grateful for that.

Someone posted not too long ago (I have no idea if it is accurate but
hey - this is the usenet):
IP address: 71.224.156.198
Reverse DNS: c-71-224-156-198.hsd1.pa.comcast.net.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 33287
ASN Name: DNEO-OSP4
IP range connectivity: 2
Registrar (per ASN): ARIN
Country (per IP registrar): US [United States]
Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
Country IP Range: 71.128.0.0 to 71.255.255.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
Country (per outside source): US [United States]
Private (internal) IP? No

That's very interesting!

There is an edit in Wikipedia's Varistor article by someone posting
from 71.224.191.77 on 13 January 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varistor&diff=100463390&oldid=99724060

The changes reflect what w_tom has been saying at aus.electronics
recently, and the writing style is remarkably similar.

For example, the article states that "less energy is absorbed by a
varistor ... as varistor energy rating is increased." This is
something that I demonstrated to be essentially insignificant (a 20mm
MOV absorbs only about 5% less energy than a 7mm MOV when clamping the
same 1000A surge).

- Franc Zabkar

 

[w_tom]

He took a real beating on a while
back. He kept bleating about a long gone standards group for business
equipment, and claiming that all personal computers had to boot and
continue to work at 90 VAC input. I posted a long list of power supply
model numbers and the nameplate specifications, which he dismissed as
irrelevant, because I didn't have a degree, like him.

w_tom saw repeated accusations provided without technical facts.
Technical facts were presented - and ignored by technicians who
somehow knew without even first learning industry standards.
Demonstrated here and again is why Michael Terrell *knew* computers
must not work at 90 VAC. He completely ignored industry standard
numbers. He did not understand that faceplate numbers are often
derated numbers. He chose to believe derated numbers rather that
industry design standards.

Many computer power supplies that must operate even at 90 VAC will
not say 90 on its faceplate. But industry standards define reality.
Technicians would not know what reality is - unless the technician
learned (instead) from industry standards.

According to Michael Terrell, a faceplate number is biblical?
That's what we sometimes tell technicians when they have trouble
grasping concepts. Computer power supply typically exceeds those
numbers. Again consult Intel specs - what Michael repeatedly ignored
because those standards contradicted them. Computers under maximum
load must start up even when voltages are only at 90 VAC. Exact quote
(again) from those Intel specs is:

The power supply shall be capable of supplying full rated output
power over two input voltage ranges rated 100-127 VAC and
200-240 VAC RMS nominal. ... The power supply must be able
to start up under peak loading at 90 VAC.

From Table 1
Minimum 90 Nominal 115 Maximum 135 VAC RMS
Minimum 180 Nominal 240 Maximum 265 VAC RMS

Quoted directly from standards that ATX power supplies must meet.
Still Michael Terrell denied those numbers as he also denies how surge
protectors do and do not work.

This is not about power supplies. This is about the many who somehow
know without even learning basic technology - ignore standards. These
same people promote plug-in protectors as some kind of magic box
rather than learn the technology. Demonstrated again is what also
happened in alt.certification.a-plus . Technicians repeatedly denied
facts and numbers.

Another standard for electronics is from the Computer Equipment
Manufacturers Association. Numbers from that standard also contradict
Michael Terrell:

Undervoltages without interruption-
50 volts RMS for less than 20 msec
85 volts RMS for less than 0.5 sec
95 volts RMS for less than 10 sec

Another poster in alt.certification.a-plus stated what reality
really is - directly contradicting Michael Terrell both then and now:
Tom MacIntyre in "Motheboard Problem? Post Problem?" in
alt.certification.a-plus on 7 Sept 2001

We operate everything on an isolated variac, which means that I can
control the voltage going into the unit I am working on from about 150
volts down to zero. This enables us to verify power regulation for over
and under-voltage situations. A linear supply (many TV's) will start to
lose its regulation from 100 volts down to maybe 90, and the set will
shut off by 75 volts AC or so.

Switching supplies (more and more TV's, and all monitors I've ever
seen), on the other hand, are different. Although it's hard on the
primary section due to the current and duty cycle of the switching,
they can and will regulate with very low voltages on the AC line in;
the best I've seen was a TV which didn't die until I turned the variac
down to 37 VAC! A brownout wouldn't have even affected the
picture on that set.

How did a TV work at 75 volts when its faceplate says otherwise?
Michael - the faceplate is a derated number - repeated because you
still have problems grasping it. You are supposed to know that just
like you are supposed to know what a protector does, what destructive
surges seek, and why effective protectors have that dedicated earthing
wire.

How many times was Michael Terrell contradicted with technical facts
and numbers from reality ... again? Three? Four? It could be 100.
History suggests he will still deny the 90 VAC spec number. Quoted
from an industry standard - and he will still deny it?

Those who promote Panamax products as effective protectors, well,
why does the manufacturer's numerical specification forget to make
that same claim? Panamax has no dedicated earth ground and therefore
does not claim to protect from that type of surge. If it does not
mention various types of surges, then maybe some techs will assume all
surges are same type? That is how Panamax, APC, Monster Cable, and
the grocery store protector are all recommended. Half truths that
ignore basic technology. But again, why look at numbers when one knows
by even denying direct quotes from an Intel spec.

Only beating in that previous discussion was truth and reality. So
many accusations made by denying technical facts and ignoring industry
standards. Why did Michael Terrell deny those industry standards?
He did not even know that faceplate numbers may be derated. He should
have known that reality before posting. He also should have learned
what shunt mode protectors do before promoting myths. No earth ground
means no effective protection.

 

[w_tom]

He consistently ignores the fact that clamping does not assume that
ground is always the lowest potential, nor that clamping does not
necessarily require earthing to be effective. MOVs just dump
current when their clamping voltage is exceeded. They require a
voltage difference, not an earth ground. Earthing is important, but
it is not the whole story. He simply does not tell the whole story and
ignores a great deal of context.

If better earthing is not provided, then where does a surge current
go? Clamping (shunting, connecting, bonding, diverting) a surge
current to single point ground is the purpose of a shunt mode
protector. If that earth ground is not sufficient, how do we avoid
future failure? We improve earthing.

Same was the solution to Orange County facilities in FL. They did
not install plug-in protectors. They needed the problem solved. That
means upgrading the earthing so that protectors shunt (clamp) surge
current to earth:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Why does the telco also not use those plug-in protectors? They also
know what provides the protection. Telcos are fanatical about
shunting surges through properly earthed protectors. Repeat damage
means that earthing system gets immediate attention. They don't waste
money on an ineffective plug-in solution.

An MOV shunts surge currents when voltage to earth is exceeded - as
posted. If that earthing connection is too long or if earthing is not
sufficient, then surge currents will find other destructive paths.
Just another reason why those without surge damage installed or
upgraded the earthing system - to make the protector even better.
Surges earthed where wires enter the building. It is standard
procedure in every professionally installed solution.

Did I discuss other details? Of course not. Those details are not
relevant to this topic - residential electrical protection. But we
know some of the most expensive solutions that don't even claim to
earth destructive surges are plug-in (point of use) products promoted
by Bud.

Bud routinely forgets to mention other facts. It is no accident
that the very first point in Martzloff's conclusions in his 1996 paper
said:

Conclusion:
1) Quantitative measurements in the Upside-Down house clearly
show objectionable difference in reference voltages. These occur
even when or perhaps because, surge protective devices are
present at the point of connection of appliances.

Do we install $25 and $100 protectors on dishwasher, bugler alarm,
smoke detector, furnace, and bathroom GFCIs? These are even more
important than a TV - essential to human life. What protects them?
Bud recommends more plug-in protectors. So much money and so little
protection - that cannot be installed on so many human safety
devices. Instead we earth one 'whole house' protector for everything
- even AC powered telephone appliances (answering machine, portable
phone base station, etc). And if it is not good enough, we enhance
the earthing. Massively superior protection for tens of times less
money.

If earth ground is not sufficient, do we spend $25 or $100 for
everything - or fix the earthing? A surge that does not enter the
house will not overwhelm protection even found standard in TVs. Much
less expensive solution that even works for two wire receptacle
(pre-1960 wired) homes.

 

[bud--]

Same was the solution to Orange County facilities in FL. They did
not install plug-in protectors. They needed the problem solved. That
means upgrading the earthing so that protectors shunt (clamp) surge
current to earth:
http://www.psihq.com/AllCopper.htm

Its w_’s tower antenna fetish. If you plan on erecting a 280 foot
lightning rod (aka. tower antenna)in your yard and connecting it to
equipment in your house this may be relevant.

Why does the telco also not use those plug-in protectors?

Let me see - why wouldn’t the telco use a plug-in suppressor on a high
amp hard wired switch with thousands of signal wires that would have to
go through a multiport suppressor?

An MOV shunts surge currents when voltage to earth is exceeded - as
posted. If that earthing connection is too long or if earthing is not
sufficient, then surge currents will find other destructive paths.

As Leonard said in the quote above, MOVs clamp the voltage across them -
they don’t care if earth is involved. The IEEE guide says plug–in
suppressors do not work primarily by earthing and that earthing occurs
elsewhere in the system as the electrical codes intended. In the example
in the guide, earthing is primarily by the ground wire from CATV entry
block to power service.

And in the example in the IEEE guide, a service panel suppressor would
have provided *NO* protection.

But we
know some of the most expensive solutions that don't even claim to
earth destructive surges are plug-in (point of use) products promoted
by Bud.

I promote only accurate information as opposed to the drivel from w_.
Find out what works and use what is appropriate. Read the sources. The
IEEE guide recognizes earthing, single point ground, service panel
suppressor and plug-in suppressors as effective protection components.

Bud routinely forgets to mention other facts. It is no accident
that the very first point in Martzloff's conclusions in his 1996 paper
said:

w_ routinely forgets to mention that Martzloff said in the same 1994
(not 1996) document:
"Mitigation of the threat can take many forms. One solution. illustrated
in this paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference
equalizer [multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."

In 2001 Martzloff wrote the NIST guide which says plug-in suppressors work.

As usual w_ uses selective editing to try to make sources say the
opposite of what they actually say. Pathetic what w_ will do to protect
his religious belief in earthing.

Do we install $25 and $100 protectors on dishwasher, bugler alarm,
smoke detector, furnace, and bathroom GFCIs? These are even more
important than a TV - essential to human life. What protects them?
Bud recommends more plug-in protectors.

I don’t recommend - I provide accurate information against w_’s
disinformation. As noted previously, the NIST guide indicates computer
with modem, and TV related equipment with CATV are most often damaged by
surges. The only 2 examples of protection in the IEEE guide(a computer
and TV/entertainment equipment)use plug-in suppressors. Protection is
always a trade-off of value of equipment protected, risk and cost of
protection.


As always, w_ has no links to a source that says plug-in suppressors are
NOT effective.

But both the NIST and IEEE guides say they are effective.

Never explained by w_:
- 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"?
- Why did Martzloff say in his paper "One solution. illustrated in this
paper, is the insertion of a properly designed surge reference equalizer
[multiport plug-in surge suppressor]."
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

w_tom saw repeated accusations provided without technical facts.
Technical facts were presented - and ignored by technicians who
somehow knew without even first learning industry standards.
Demonstrated here and again is why Michael Terrell *knew* computers
must not work at 90 VAC. He completely ignored industry standard
numbers. He did not understand that faceplate numbers are often
derated numbers. He chose to believe derated numbers rather that
industry design standards.

Many computer power supplies that must operate even at 90 VAC will
not say 90 on its faceplate. But industry standards define reality.
Technicians would not know what reality is - unless the technician
learned (instead) from industry standards.

According to Michael Terrell, a faceplate number is biblical?
That's what we sometimes tell technicians when they have trouble
grasping concepts. Computer power supply typically exceeds those
numbers. Again consult Intel specs - what Michael repeatedly ignored
because those standards contradicted them. Computers under maximum
load must start up even when voltages are only at 90 VAC. Exact quote
(again) from those Intel specs is:

Quoted directly from standards that ATX power supplies must meet.
Still Michael Terrell denied those numbers as he also denies how surge
protectors do and do not work.

I have never seen a ATX form factor power supply that claimed to be
ATX compliant. The same goes for cases, and the motherboards that I
have manuals for.

You are the one who ignores that a piece of wire has resistance,
inductance, and capacitance between conductors that affect the waveform
of any pulse on a power line. This properties, along with the MOV limit
the COMMON MODE voltage between line and neutral. The impulse will also
lift the ground conductor above zero volts, it is anywhere near the
source.

BTW, we had over 33,000 lightning strikes in Central Florida
yesterday.

This is not about power supplies. This is about the many who somehow
know without even learning basic technology - ignore standards.

Not all standards are created equally. Some are technical, others
are political.

These
same people promote plug-in protectors as some kind of magic box
rather than learn the technology.

Who does that? They are used, WITH equipment installed at the
breaker box. I haven't seen a house in my area that doesn't have some
protection installed by the old Florida Power, or Progress Energy, who
bought them.

Demonstrated again is what also
happened in alt.certification.a-plus . Technicians repeatedly denied
facts and numbers.

Smart move, damming every tech in the newsgroup.

Another standard for electronics is from the Computer Equipment
Manufacturers Association. Numbers from that standard also contradict
Michael Terrell:

Numbers from a group that hasn't existed in 13 years? Also, you
ignore that their standards were 'voluntary'.



Those obsolete references are for BUSINESS Computers: I.E. Mini
computers and mainframes, not PCs. PCs, by definition, are home
computers.

<http://www.google.com/search?num=10...Computer+Equipment+Manufacturers+Association">

The last time you went on this ridiculous rant, you called it:
"Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association" (CBEMA)
which changed its name in 1994:
**********************************************************************
A cite from: http://www.itic.org/about.php

In 1973, BEMA became the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers
Association (CBEMA). For the next two decades, the association's value
to member companies was manifest in numerous regulatory and legislative
accomplishments, in successful efforts to build a network with
counterparts in other nations, and in its ability to sustain voluntary
industry standards programs in the U.S. and abroad.

The association again reorganized in 1994 and was renamed the
Information Technology Industry Council or ITI. The new name better
reflected the dynamic IT industry as it is today -- consisting of
manufacturers and suppliers of computers, telecommunications, business
equipment, software, and IT services.
**********************************************************************

Another poster in alt.certification.a-plus stated what reality
really is - directly contradicting Michael Terrell both then and now:

Tom only saw what he wanted to see, as usual.

Tom MacIntyre in "Motheboard Problem? Post Problem?" in
alt.certification.a-plus on 7 Sept 2001


How did a TV work at 75 volts when its faceplate says otherwise?
Michael - the faceplate is a derated number - repeated because you
still have problems grasping it. You are supposed to know that just
like you are supposed to know what a protector does, what destructive
surges seek, and why effective protectors have that dedicated earthing
wire.

Just because it will work for a short time at 75 volts DOES NOT MEAN
THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO SO. It will increase the current in the
semiconductors used to switch the primary. That will cause the parts to
run hotter, and shorten their life. You also increase the ripple
current through the input filter capacitors, causing more heating. That
dries out the electrolyte and raises the ESR. For someone who claims to
have designed switch mode power supplies for decades, you know little or
nothing about long term reliability, or proper derating of components.

How many times was Michael Terrell contradicted with technical facts
and numbers from reality ... again? Three? Four? It could be 100.
History suggests he will still deny the 90 VAC spec number. Quoted
from an industry standard - and he will still deny it?

Tell us, Tom, where does your computer say it complies with the ATX
standard? The only thing I've found is claims that the components meet
ATX "Form factor" which is the MECHANICAL specifications.

http://www.formfactors.org/default.asp give the specifications for ATX,
which is the website that Intel uses to disseminate the ATX design
specifications. Since they wrote the spec, and only qualify power
supplies under form factor, you don't have a leg to stand on.

http://www.formfactors.org/searchproducts.asp only list that the
approved supplies are one of the ATX variants. All of the supplies on
that list that I found data on DID NOT meet the ATX electrical
specifications.

Those who promote Panamax products as effective protectors, well,
why does the manufacturer's numerical specification forget to make
that same claim? Panamax has no dedicated earth ground and therefore
does not claim to protect from that type of surge. If it does not
mention various types of surges, then maybe some techs will assume all
surges are same type? That is how Panamax, APC, Monster Cable, and
the grocery store protector are all recommended. Half truths that
ignore basic technology. But again, why look at numbers when one knows
by even denying direct quotes from an Intel spec.

This from the master of half truths?

Only beating in that previous discussion was truth and reality. So
many accusations made by denying technical facts and ignoring industry
standards. Why did Michael Terrell deny those industry standards?
He did not even know that faceplate numbers may be derated. He should
have known that reality before posting. He also should have learned
what shunt mode protectors do before promoting myths. No earth ground
means no effective protection.

The entire electronics industry disagrees with you.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

I have never seen a ATX form factor power supply that claimed to be
ATX compliant. The same goes for cases, and the motherboards that I
have manuals for.

You are the one who ignores that a piece of wire has resistance,
inductance, and capacitance between conductors that affect the waveform
of any pulse on a power line. This properties, along with the MOV limit
the COMMON MODE voltage between line and neutral. The impulse will also
lift the ground conductor above zero volts, it is anywhere near the
source.

BTW, we had over 33,000 lightning strikes in Central Florida
yesterday.




Not all standards are created equally. Some are technical, others
are political.




Who does that? They are used, WITH equipment installed at the
breaker box. I haven't seen a house in my area that doesn't have some
protection installed by the old Florida Power, or Progress Energy, who
bought them.




Smart move, damming every tech in the newsgroup.




Numbers from a group that hasn't existed in 13 years? Also, you
ignore that their standards were 'voluntary'.




Those obsolete references are for BUSINESS Computers: I.E. Mini
computers and mainframes, not PCs. PCs, by definition, are home
computers.

<http://www.google.com/search?num=10...Computer+Equipment+Manufacturers+Association">

The last time you went on this ridiculous rant, you called it:
"Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association" (CBEMA)
which changed its name in 1994:
**********************************************************************
A cite from: http://www.itic.org/about.php

In 1973, BEMA became the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers
Association (CBEMA). For the next two decades, the association's value
to member companies was manifest in numerous regulatory and legislative
accomplishments, in successful efforts to build a network with
counterparts in other nations, and in its ability to sustain voluntary
industry standards programs in the U.S. and abroad.

The association again reorganized in 1994 and was renamed the
Information Technology Industry Council or ITI. The new name better
reflected the dynamic IT industry as it is today -- consisting of
manufacturers and suppliers of computers, telecommunications, business
equipment, software, and IT services.
**********************************************************************


Tom only saw what he wanted to see, as usual.



Just because it will work for a short time at 75 volts DOES NOT MEAN
THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO SO. It will increase the current in the
semiconductors used to switch the primary. That will cause the parts to
run hotter, and shorten their life. You also increase the ripple
current through the input filter capacitors, causing more heating. That
dries out the electrolyte and raises the ESR. For someone who claims to
have designed switch mode power supplies for decades, you know little or
nothing about long term reliability, or proper derating of components.




Tell us, Tom, where does your computer say it complies with the ATX
standard? The only thing I've found is claims that the components meet
ATX "Form factor" which is the MECHANICAL specifications.

http://www.formfactors.org/default.asp give the specifications for ATX,
which is the website that Intel uses to disseminate the ATX design
specifications. Since they wrote the spec, and only qualify power
supplies under form factor, you don't have a leg to stand on.

http://www.formfactors.org/searchproducts.asp only list that the
approved supplies are one of the ATX variants. All of the supplies on
that list that I found data on DID NOT meet the ATX electrical
specifications.




This from the master of half truths?





The entire electronics industry disagrees with you.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Careful Michael, you know how your head tends to explode when you beat it
against a wall.

Leonard

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Careful Michael, you know how your head tends to explode when you beat it
against a wall.

Don't worry, I saved that message to copy and paste every time
'what's his face' shows up. ;-)

BTW, do you want to bet on whether he'll snip away all the facts and
continue to show everyone his ignorance? ;-)

Anyway, he isn't a wall. He isn't much of anything.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[w_tom]

You are the one who ignores that a piece of wire has resistance,
inductance, and capacitance between conductors that affect the waveform
of any pulse on a power line. This properties, along with the MOV limit
the COMMON MODE voltage between line and neutral. The impulse will also
lift the ground conductor above zero volts, it is anywhere near the
source.

First, wire parameters were never ignored. As Michael knows, those
parameters were discussed extensively. Wire inductance is why each
incoming utility wire must make a 'less than 10 foot' earthing
connection. Wire impedance is why plug-in protectors have all but no
earth ground - therefore not effective protectors. Michael read a
classic example where voltage between a plug-in protectors and the
breaker box earth ground could be something less than 13,000 volts
potential difference during a trivial 100 amp surge. Just another
reason why Page 42 Figure 8 in Bud's citations shows a plug-in
protector instead earthing a surge 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. Why is that voltage not earthed by a plug-in protector -
via the less than 13,000 volt ground wire? Wire parameters are why a
connection to earth must be so short (no splices, no sharp bends, etc)
and why plug-in protectors avoid all discussion about earthing.

The 'less than 10 foot' earthing connection is but another reason
why a 'whole house' protector is so effective and why plug-in
protectors don't even claim (in manufacturer numerical specs) to
protect from a typically destructive surge.

The second point: lifting of ground potential (also called GPR) is
why effective protection systems use single point earthing. But
again, an effective protection system achieves both conductivity and
equipotential. What defines both parameters? Single point earthing
electrode. Better protected homes install an Ufer ground or something
equivalent since protection is defined by earthing. Better protected
homes don't waste tens of times more money on ineffective and
overhyped plug-in protectors. Other examples of superior protection
(and again plug-in protectors are not a solution):
http://www.psihq.com/iread/ufergrnd.htm
http://scott-inc.com/html/ufer.htm

What defines protection? Earth ground. How do we install superior
and effective protection 'systems'? See comp.sys.mac.comm on 4 Jul
2007 entitled "DSL speed" at
http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef

Plug-in protectors are missing THE most critical component in every
protection 'system': single point earth ground. Those promoting such
grossly profitable devices ignore wire impedance and earth ground (as
well as manufacturer datasheets, research papers, and even concepts
demonstrated by Franklin in 1752). Wire parameters are why a 'whole
house' protector is so effective as well as less expensive. No earth
ground (ie Panamax and other poorly regarded products without a
dedicated earthing wire) means no effective protection. What do
responsible manufacturers such as Square D, GE, Siemens, Intermatic,
Cutler-Hammer, Leviton, etc all provide with their protectors? A
dedicated earthing wire. Why? That 'less than 10 foot' earthing
connection determines quality - due to wire resistance, inductance,
etc.

Those effective solutions are available in Lowes, Home Depot, and
electrical supply houses.

Bud's citation Page 42 Figure 8: a protector without proper
earthing, instead, earths a surge 8000 volts destructively through an
adjacent TV. Bud calls that acceptable because profits on each plug-
in protector are so high. Bud routinely ignores wire resistance,
inductance, etc - whihch is Michael's first point. Bud routinely
ignores the essential purpose of earthing - which is Michael's second
point. Bud promotes protectors that don't even claim to protect from
the typically destructive surge. That typically destructive surge is
not a voltage difference between neutral and ground wires.

Common mode surge - enters on any one or all three AC wires. Finds
earth ground (outgoing) via another circuit path such as a cable TV
wire, table top, or concrete floor.

In Page 42 Figure 8. Why does that surge current find earth ground
destructively through a TV? Wire to earth ground is too long -
Michael's 1st point. Earthing that provides protection is improperly
installed - Michael's 2nd point. A protector is only as effective as
its earth ground - a statement defined in part by wire parameters and
how the earthing electrode is installed.

Meanwhile, a person who repeatedly replies with supporting technical
facts and numbers also posted details about earthing in
http://tinyurl.com/2gbgef . Earthing - not a magic box - defines
protection. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground -
including its dedicated wire connection. The effective protector has
a dedicated wire for that 'less than 10 foot' connection to single
point earth ground. Plug-in protectors 'forget' to install that
necessary wire.

Meanwhile those 'obsolete' standards for power supplies? Intel
simply upped many of those requirements. And better power supply
manufacturers now exceed some of those 'obsolete' numbers that every
good tech was expected to have learned decades ago. Those numbers
still apply today when the computer tech buys power supplies based in
technical facts - not just in watts and dollars as is so common among
computer assemblers. Any power supply that cannot start a computer
when incandescant lamps are at 40% intensity is defective - directly
traceable to a 'bean counter' masking as a technician. Provided three
times over is what every responsible computer tech knows. A computer
must even startup just fine when the 120 VAC power is only 90 VAC.
That has been and is still the standard - where people know by first
learning the technology - such as numbers from manufacturer
datasheets, etc.