Advice on purchasing Inspiron 1525 laptop

On Jan 5, 5:21*pm, "Christopher Muto" <m...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> thanks bud, nice to know that someone out there can read
> how on earth he thinks the circut in the apc notebook adapter is exactly the
> same as that in a generic power strip is beyond me. *it does much more than
> generic power strip.

It does? Then you posted those numbers. Oh? Still no numbers?
APC and Tripplite have same protection circuit also found in the $8
grocery store protector. Same circuit. A $150 Monster Cable
protector also has that same circuit. By charging more money, the
naive (ie Christopher) somehow know Monster Cable must be better. The
naive never learn even Monster Cable has the same circuit found in an
$8 discount store protector.

Christopher Muto repeatedly makes subjective claims AND refuses to
post spec numbers. As long as he (and Bud) do not provide numbers,
then he cannot be exposed as technically ignorant. What number claims
protection? Christopher does not know. If Christopher posts a
number, then everyone would learn how technically uneducated he really
is. If that number existed, Christopher would have posted it long
ago. He posts no numbers because he does not know what any of those
numbers mean. He recommended a protector only because popular urban
myth recommends it.

In North America, APC and Tripplite reputations are similar to
Monster Cable. Companies that sell effective 'whole house' protectors
also have superior international reputations ... such as Intermatic,
General Electric, Siemens, Square D (Schneider Electric), Polyphaser,
Keison, Leviton, Cutler Hammer (Eaton), and others. These same
companies are famous for numerous, safe and reliable electrical
equipment such as junction boxes, connectors, circuit breakers,
electric monitoring equipment ... Brand names found in every new
building in North America. Only those companies also provide 'whole
house' protectors.

Why do telcos not use APC and Tripplite products? At 100 surges per
thunderstorm, telcos need protectors that connect spikes to earth AND
remain functional after every spike. Another characteristic of
effective protectors? The protector must remain functional after
diverting (the word used by Bud's NIST citation) spike energy into
earth. Effective protection means spike energy is dissipated
harmlessly in earth AND does not enter the building. Effective
protection means nobody knows the surge even existed.

Both Christopher and Bud post repeatedly and still will not provide
that spec number. As every responsible source notes, spikes must be
harmlessly dissipated in earth. US Air Force manuals also demand a
'whole house' protector and not plug-in protectors from less
responsible manufacturers such as APC and Tripplite. Like all telcos
all over the world, the US Air Force also requires effective
protection. Therefore the US Air Force states:
> Install the surge protection as soon as practical where the
> conductor enters the interior of the facility.

Also called a 'whole house' protector. Also not called an APC or
Tripplite product.

An effective protector connect a spike to earth. Since it does not
have that short earthing connection, how does the APC, Monster Cable,
Tripplite, or generic power strip stop spikes? Somehow it will stop a
spikes by absorbing all that energy. Well again, review those spec
numbers. A protector of hundreds of joules will absorb what three
kilometers of sky could not stop? That is also what Bud and
Christopher claim. No wonder both fear to post spec numbers.

But again, where is that manufacturer spec number that claims
protection from the typically destructive spikes? Both Bud and
Christopher refuse to provide that spec number. Neither APC nor
Tripplite make numeric protection claims. If they did, then
Christopher would have posted those numbers long ago. Christopher
cannot post 1) what does not exist and 2) what he does not understand.

Christopher recommended APC and Tripplite products anyway. He knows
those products cost more money; therefore must be better. The only
number he really understands. A protector is only as effective as its
earth ground. Effective spike protection connects massive spike
energy harmlessly into earth – as even the US Air Force demands.

Best protection for the laptop AND everything else in the building is
a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Then protection inside
all appliances is not overwhelmed. A solution only provided by more
responsible companies - even required by all telcos and the US Air
Force.

"Christopher Muto" <> wrote in message
news: t...
> thanks bud, nice to know that someone out there can read

<snip>


Not to butt in, but you knew where this was headed when Mr. Whole House
Grounding entered the thread.

I shall now exit as abruptly as I entered the thread.........

;-)

Christopher Muto wrote:
> correct as always.
> he has been plonk'ed.
> but would like to know how he has managed to make whole house
> grounding portable for a laptop user

Well now you've killfiled him, you'll never know!

wrote:
> On Jan 5, 5:21 pm, "Christopher Muto" <m...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> thanks bud, nice to know that someone out there can read
>> how on earth he thinks the circut in the apc notebook adapter is exactly the
>> same as that in a generic power strip is beyond me. it does much more than
>> generic power strip.
>
> It does? Then you posted those numbers. Oh? Still no numbers?

The village idiot repeats the lie.

> Companies that sell effective 'whole house' protectors
> also have superior international reputations ... such as Intermatic,
> General Electric, Siemens, Square D (Schneider Electric), Polyphaser,
> Keison, Leviton, Cutler Hammer (Eaton), and others. These same
> companies are famous for numerous, safe and reliable electrical
> equipment such as junction boxes, connectors, circuit breakers,
> electric monitoring equipment ... Brand names found in every new
> building in North America. Only those companies also provide 'whole
> house' protectors.

A lot of companies make service panel suppressors.
And all of these companies except Polyphaser and SquareD make plug-in
suppressors.

For its best service panel suppressor, SquareD says "electronic
equipment may need additional protection by installing plug-in
[suppressors] at the point of use." The connected equipment warranty
is double when the suppressor "is used in conjunction with ... a point
of use surge protective device."

For SquareD’s next best suppressor, the connected equipment warranty
does not include "electronic devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and
stereo components, video equipment, televisions, and computers."

> Also called a 'whole house' protector.

A service panel suppressor is a good idea.

What does the NIST guide say?
"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
[electronic equipment], No for two-link appliances [equipment connected
to power AND phone or cable 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."

Service panel suppressors do not limit the voltage between power and
phone/cable wires, which is likely the major cause of equipment damage.

> An effective protector connect a spike to earth. Since it does not
> have that short earthing connection, how does the APC, Monster Cable,
> Tripplite, or generic power strip stop spikes?

If the village idiot could read he could find out how plug-in
suppressors work.

> Best protection for the laptop AND everything else in the building is
> a properly earthed 'whole house' protector.

The required religious belief in earthing.

Still never seen - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

Still never seen - answers to simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- How would w's favored service panel suppressors provide any
protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why do w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?


For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

On Jan 6, 11:00 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> The village idiot repeats the lie.

So again Bud posts denigrating replies rather than ... where is that
numeric spec that claims protection? Oh. No number exists. No wonder
those who actually need protection - every telco in the world - don't
use Bud's recommendation.

Even Bud's own citations show why his recommendations are not used.
Page 42 Figure 8 of that IEEE guide - the adjacent TV is damaged
because the protector did not and could not earth the spike.

NIST (Adobe page 19 of 24) says:
> 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.

Even the manufacturer will not claim plug-in protectors provide
effective protection. No wonder Bud again refuses to provide those
spec numbers. No wonder Bud's only proof is to belittle others. But
that is Bud's purpose. Protect those massive profit margins on
ineffective plug-in protectors. Lie, deceive, and malign to protect
obscene profits; as any good sales promoter would do.

When effective protection is required, the protector connects short
(ie 'less than 10 foot') to earth ground. A protector is only as
effective as what provides the protection - what dissipates energy -
earth ground.

My troll Bud (who follows me everywhere) must keep posting to get
the last reply. Obscene profits are at risk. So where are those
manufacturer numbers that claim protection? Never provided. Buf
cannot provide what never existed.

wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:00 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
>> The village idiot repeats the lie.
>
> So again Bud posts denigrating replies rather than ... where is that
> numeric spec that claims protection? Oh. No number exists.

The village idiot still can't find what Christopher posted. Or refuses
to find.

w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat the lies often
enough, people will believe it.

w must keep posting to get the last reply. His religious belief in
earthing is at risk

But his beliefs can’t answer simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- How would w's favored service panel suppressors provide any
protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why do w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

And still never seen - a link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in
suppressors do NOT work.

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud--

On Jan 7, 10:24*am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> The village idiot still can't find what Christopher posted. Or refuses
> to find. w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat the
> lies often enough, people will believe it.

Again the sales promoter with no engineering training refuses to post
a single manufacturer spec that claims protection.

He does cite the IEEE and NIST citations - that both describe why
Bud's obscenely profitable plug-in protectors can even earth surge
8000 volts destructively through an adjacent appliance. Even his NIST
citation says a protector without earthing in not effective.

So how does Bud promoter ineffective plug-in protectors? Even every
telco everywhere in the world does not waste money on Bud's
protectors. Bud cannot even post a single manufacturer spec that
claims protection. So Bud posts insults. Bud will post incessently
to even get the last post. Profits are at risk if you learn the scam
promoted by Bud. Where is that manufacturer spec? A plug-in
protector does not even claim to provide that protection. But it sure
is profitable. Honesty is not Bud.

The informed consumer does what every telco does everywhere in the
world. Simply earth one 'whole house' protector. Scam protector
manufacturers do not make 'whole house' protectors. Profit margin on
effective solutions is too low. Profits are higher when lying,
selling a scam, and posting insults. Where is that manufacturer spec
number that claims protection?

Evidently, westom1, you are the idiot. For the amount of time you have
spend spewing garbage in these forums, you should have gone and looked up
the answers, or called the companies. Nobody is going to be able to satisfy
you, even with full documentation, so go along on your merry way.


<> wrote in message
news:6de4a2cb-613e-451e-83e3-...
On Jan 7, 10:24 am, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> The village idiot still can't find what Christopher posted. Or refuses
> to find. w_ is a fan of Josef Goebbels and thinks if you repeat the
> lies often enough, people will believe it.

Again the sales promoter with no engineering training refuses to post
a single manufacturer spec that claims protection.

He does cite the IEEE and NIST citations - that both describe why
Bud's obscenely profitable plug-in protectors can even earth surge
8000 volts destructively through an adjacent appliance. Even his NIST
citation says a protector without earthing in not effective.

So how does Bud promoter ineffective plug-in protectors? Even every
telco everywhere in the world does not waste money on Bud's
protectors. Bud cannot even post a single manufacturer spec that
claims protection. So Bud posts insults. Bud will post incessently
to even get the last post. Profits are at risk if you learn the scam
promoted by Bud. Where is that manufacturer spec? A plug-in
protector does not even claim to provide that protection. But it sure
is profitable. Honesty is not Bud.

The informed consumer does what every telco does everywhere in the
world. Simply earth one 'whole house' protector. Scam protector
manufacturers do not make 'whole house' protectors. Profit margin on
effective solutions is too low. Profits are higher when lying,
selling a scam, and posting insults. Where is that manufacturer spec
number that claims protection?

On Jan 7, 11:55*am, "John Novicki Jr" <novi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Evidently,westom1, you are the idiot. *For the amount of time you have
> spend spewing garbage in these forums, you should have gone and looked up
> the answers, or called the companies.

How curious. Unlike you and Bud, I even designed these things. Since
you know plug-in protectors provide protection - somehow stops what
three miles of sky could not - then John could have provided those
numbers. No? Instead you insult? Insults mean you know without
first learning facts. Insults mean you don't really know.

Why do I ask for those spec numbers? Because I know those numbers
do not exist. But then I did this stuff even decades ago. Why do you
post insults? Once challlenged to prove your claim with numbers, you
cannot. Even the manufacturer does not make that protection claim.
So you can only insult.

Where are those manufacturer numbers that claim protection from
typically destructive surges? How does a protector without that short
connection to earth absorb energy that even three miles of sky could
not stop? Please - enlighten us without insults. What is that
energy number that claims to absorb destructive surges? How does that
'less than one inch' part stop what three miles of sky could not?

What does it say about you when you post insults AND do not provide
those spec numbers?

Christorpher Muto said:
> generic 'power strips' do little if anything to protect computers.
Christopher's APC and Tripplite protectors contain the same
protection circuits AND provide the same protection numbers. What
does a $25 or $150 protector do that a $10 protector with the same
circuit cannot? It gets promoted by myths only because it is more
expensive?

Christopher also was asked to post that protection number. Since
Christopher did not even know which number defines protection, then he
had to avoid posting any numbers. He even claimed numbers were
mysterously hidden somewhere in a sales brochure. Eventually
Christopher had to do what John and Bud now do: post insults.

Effective protection means a protector connects short (ie 'less than
10 feet') to earth. From Bud's NIST citation:
> 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.

Without that short earthing connectioning, APC and Tripplite
protectors mean no effective protection. How does a laptop and
everything in a building get protected? Spend tens or 100 times less
money for effective solutions from responsible companies such as
Siemens, Leviton, Intermatic, General Electric, Square D, Keison,
Cutler-Hammer, etc. How curious. One who actually does this stuff
only lists responsible companies AND says WHY a 'whole hosue'
protector is used by every telco all over world world. Earthed
protectors were used by telcos even 100 years ago. Telcos do not use
plug-in protectors. Telcos need real world protection. A protector
is only as effective as its earth ground. Sources for effective
protectors even provided. But then someone here even designed this
stuff decades ago.

wrote:
> On Jan 7, 11:55 am, "John Novicki Jr" <novi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Evidently,westom1, you are the idiot. For the amount of time you have
>> spend spewing garbage in these forums, you should have gone and looked up
>> the answers, or called the companies.

w can't look them up because the institution only lets w look at
newsgroups - the internet has dirty pictures.

And after some bad experiences, the institution doesn't let w near a
phone anymore either.

> Christopher also was asked to post that protection number. Since
> Christopher did not even know which number defines protection, then he
> had to avoid posting any numbers.

Ho-hum. The same lies. The same drivel.

But still no link to anyone who agrees with w that plug-in suppressors
do NOT work.

Why doesn’t anyone agree with you w???

And still no answers to simple questions:
- 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 does the NIST guide say "One effective solution is to have the
consumer install" a multiport plug-in suppressor?
- Why does the IEEE guide say for distant service points "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport
[plug-in] protector"?
- How would w's favored service panel suppressors provide any
protection in the IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why do w's favorite manufacturers make plug-in suppressors?
- Why does SquareD says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in [suppressors] at the point of use"?

And the #1 question - why doesn't w get any respect in technical
newsgroups?

For real science read the IEEE and NIST guides. Both say plug-in
suppressors are effective.

--
bud---