Documents supporting the efficacy of surge-suppression equipment:
I could literally double the number of posts with facts exposing those posted myths as bogus or incomplete. For example, HowStuffWorks is so full of myths and outright lies that criticisms hardly get past page one. Anyone with basic electrical knowledge would never cite HowStuffWorks. But most who recommend plug-in protectors only have English major education. If something is written, then it must be true? Too many 'experts' forgot to first learn the science. And never provide the always necessary tech numbers.
For example, where is the manufacturer spec numbers for anything he claims? Manufacturer does not even claim what he is posting.
Some of the many obvious and gross errors in HowStuffWorks:
http://tinyurl.com/2fy7u
http://tinyurl.com/yqyah
http://tinyurl.com/3bn64
The pathetic integrity of HowStuffWorks is also discussed by the technically educated in Wikipedia discussions for the topic "Surge Protector". More sources that define HowStuffWorks as bogus.
With a long citation full of confusing or distorted facts, only some will be discussed. To refute them all would be tedious. Just refuting a few with multiple reasons makes this post how long?
Moving on to another citation he forgot to read. His NIST.gov citation, says exactly what I have posted repeatedly:
> 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.
Plug-in protectors have no earth ground. For a long list of reasons already provide, and from the National Electrical code, that wall receptacle safety (equipment) ground is not earth ground. See that 'ground ' indicator on the protector? Remove the building's earth ground. Or put that protector in a building that is missing its earth ground. And that light will still report 'ground' as OK. It only reports on safety ground; not on earth ground. To get English majors to believe myths, they tell him all grounds are same. Total nonsense that only an English major would fall for.
If all grounds were same, then a lightning rod could be connected to motherboard 'earth' ground. Of course not. A computer's ground is digital ground - also not earth ground - no matter how English sentences get respun into myths.
A plug-in protector has no earth ground. And then that his NIST citation says why plug-in protectors are so ineffective. Another paragraph he forgot to read:
> A very important point to keep in mind is that your surge protector will work by
> diverting the surges to ground. The best surge protection in the world can be useless
> if grounding is not done properly.
I only describe plug-in protectors as ineffective. The NIST is blunter. NIST calls them useless.
Citing APC as a responsible source is akin to citing the superintendent of a torture chamber as proof that torture does not exist.
Cited in
www.eeel.nist.gov is a Dr Martzloff 1979 paper discussing how MOVs work. Nothing in that paper says anything about plug-in protectors. In fact, Figure 8 why the 'whole house' protector works. Says nothing about plug-in protectors. Effective protection in that paper shows no lightning damage if a surge is properly earthed to single point earth ground - at the breaker box and electric meter. His 1979 IEEE paper defines only what I have been saying.
Meanwhile, his post forgets to include Dr Martzloff's 1994 paper that discusses damage created by plug-in (point of connection) protectors. Yes, damage because a protector is too close to the appliance and too far from earth ground. Martzloff's first conclusion is damning - identifies plug-in protectors as wasted money:
> 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.
Objectionable voltages are the reason for appliance damage.
Why would someone waste tens or 100 times more money on a plug-in protectors when even manufacturer's specs do not claim protection? This poster did not even read his NIST citation that defines such protectors as "useless". Ignored the most relevant IEEE (eeel.nist.gov) paper from Dr Martzloff that describes appliance damage because of a plug-in protector.
Let's assume this is true:
> Any electrical device which is not grounded according to the manufacturer's specifications
> or is overloaded can present a fire hazard.
So how many TVs are overloaded or present fire hazards? No TVs are grounded. That safety ground does nothing to avert overloading. Anyone with basic electrical knowledge knows safety ground do nothing to avert overloading. Only a fuse or circuit breaker trips during an overload - and without any ground. Most every reader here knows that. Why does an English major not even know that simple fact?
Ground does nothing avert fire hazard. Fire due to appliance failure is eliminated by circuit breakers or fuses. My god. That was even stated in a Thomas Edison patent back in the 1800s. This poster does not even know simplest electrical concepts from 120 years ago? If not an English major, well one needs no electrical knowledge to pass the A+ Certified tech examination. Nope. 'English major' technical knowledge is also called propaganda. Anyone can subvert written text into myths by simply ignoring basic science facts. We call that science fiction.
Why do those scary pictures of plug-in protectors exist. Even with grounds, those scary pictures still happen because ground does not avert fire. What averts fire? The fire marshal in those citations defines it: fuses - not grounds.
A typical UPS connects an appliance directly to AC mains. Does not even claim to protect from surges. An informed reader need only read its manufacturer spec numbers. No such protection exists. Which is why data centers that have minimal reliability locate a tens of $thousand UPS within feet of earth ground. That serious UPS is connected short to earth ground to provide more than just battery backup. A $100 UPS only provides battery backup - nothing more. Even its specs claim nothing more. Only an English major would confuse a properly earthed tens of $thousand UPS with a $100 plug-in UPS.
How much can power vary and every computer must work perfectly normal? Incandescent bulbs can dim to 50% intensity - and even that is normal power to all computers. Numbers calculated right out of every manufacturer numeric spec. Numbers - what English majors avoid to promote myths. How often does your electricity vary that much?
A UPS is for an event that threatens only unsaved data - a blackout. Blackouts and voltage variations only cause hardware damage when English major hear a rumor - then know it must be true. All power supplies - even 40 year ago as required by international design standards - had to make voltage variations irrelevant - or simply power off normally. When posting fear, that reality must be ignored or denied.
Disk heads crash when power is lost? More fiction. This poster worked on late 1960s disk drives. Even today, all power off is 'sudden' power off to all drives. When does the disk drive's computer first learn that power is going down? When DC voltages start to drop. No disk drive is told in advance that power will be removed. Even 1960s drives (including one whose heads were moved by motor oil) did not have that warning and did not need it. To a disk drive, all power off (when the computer shuts down or when utility power is lost) look exactly same. Sudden power loss never causes head crashed in the real world.
Too many self proclaimed 'experts' will believe every disaster theory told rather than first learn well proven technology. His post is chock full of myths based mostly in fear and hearsay - especially including that HowStuffWorks citation. Myths, half truths, and lies. So intentionally egregious that nothing less than a blunt reply is acceptable. There is no polite way to respond to a post that denies even the simplest electrical concept - that does not even know what a fuse does.
. Coincidentally, I had the computers unplugged for dusting.
