Re: After Lightening Storm - Computer Will Not Turn on

"Von Fourche" <> wrote in message
news: m...
>
>
>
> Ok, I'm posting this for my brother who's wife has a HP computer. I'm
> asking here because I figure you all would know. So, we had a storm last
> night. Some lightening. My brothers wife turned off here HP computer
> during the storm. My brother says the computer is hooked up to a power
> surge thing. Anyway, after the storm the computer will not turn on. I
> told him to check all the cables and plug it and unplug it. It will not
> turn on. The power surge thing still works. The monitor still comes on.
>
> So, does the computer have a fried powerpack from a lightening hit? My
> brother is thinking it's from lightening or maybe the on button is broke.
> If they had a power surge device, shouldn't that have saved the computer?
> Any ideas? I have not seen the computer yet. I suspect I will be taking
> a drive to his house this evening to check it out.
>
> Thanks!
>

I don't know why this works but I've done this a couple of times and it
works. (sometimes)
Unplug the power cord from the computer. Unplug the network cable. Wait 30
seconds. Plug the network cable back in, then the power cord. Try to power
up again. I just did this a couple of hours ago to a computer on the
network that wouldn't turn back on after a 2 second power interrupt after a
lightning strike nearby and it worked. Before unplugging the cables, a
light would flash by the power button, then nothing. Like I said, I don't
know why this would work but it does.

alien

"alien" <> wrote in message
news:RR6hk.16953$...
>
>
> "Von Fourche" <> wrote in message
> news: m...
>>
> I don't know why this works but I've done this a couple of times and it
> works. (sometimes)
> Unplug the power cord from the computer. Unplug the network cable. Wait
> 30
> seconds. Plug the network cable back in, then the power cord. Try to
> power
> up again. I just did this a couple of hours ago to a computer on the
> network that wouldn't turn back on after a 2 second power interrupt after
> a
> lightning strike nearby and it worked. Before unplugging the cables, a
> light would flash by the power button, then nothing. Like I said, I don't
> know why this would work but it does.
>
> alien
>
That's an indication of a failing power supply. The network cable is
irrelevant. One type of PSU failure is an intermittent failure to power
up. It will sometimes start after being unplugged completely for a brief
period. It will likely fail completely within a few months.

"GTS" <> wrote in message
news:g67h79$ik0$...
> "alien" <> wrote in message
> news:RR6hk.16953$...
>>
>>
>> "Von Fourche" <> wrote in message
>> news: m...
>>>
>> I don't know why this works but I've done this a couple of times and it
>> works. (sometimes)
>> Unplug the power cord from the computer. Unplug the network cable. Wait
>> 30
>> seconds. Plug the network cable back in, then the power cord. Try to
>> power
>> up again. I just did this a couple of hours ago to a computer on the
>> network that wouldn't turn back on after a 2 second power interrupt after
>> a
>> lightning strike nearby and it worked. Before unplugging the cables, a
>> light would flash by the power button, then nothing. Like I said, I
>> don't
>> know why this would work but it does.
>>
>> alien
>>
> That's an indication of a failing power supply. The network cable is
> irrelevant. One type of PSU failure is an intermittent failure to power
> up. It will sometimes start after being unplugged completely for a brief
> period. It will likely fail completely within a few months.
>
>
>


If the machine has taken a hit, nearly every component in the system is
suspect no matter if replacement of an individual component seems to revive
it.

Or in other words: it might run after repair but I don't know that I would
trust it to do so from that point on.

you make it sound pretty fatal!
what if running dell diags afterward prove that is is fine?
you sound like a computer salesman. lol


S.Lewis wrote:

> Or in other words: it might run after repair but I don't know that I would
> trust it to do so from that point on.
>
>

I concur with Stu, even though I am also a peddler of computers. With a strong
enough power spike, individual components on boards may sustain just enough
damage to weaken them, and they subsequently fail later on, sometimes much later
on. You never know for sure, and successful completion of all the diagnostics
in the world does not guarantee a system that won't fail later on.

You know those ads for CarFacts or CarFax or whatever? These are the ones that
claim to give you the entire history of a car. So the car you buy had an
accident and sustained a small crack in its frame, undetected by the repair
shop. You have the car for a year and it collapses while you are driving 90
down the Santa Ana Freeway or the Ryan Expressway. Same principle applies here,
except that there is no database repository for computer accidents... Ben Myers

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:25:16 -0400, JayB <> wrote:

>you make it sound pretty fatal!
>what if running dell diags afterward prove that is is fine?
>you sound like a computer salesman. lol
>
>
>S.Lewis wrote:
>
>> Or in other words: it might run after repair but I don't know that I would
>> trust it to do so from that point on.
>>
>>

i understand. but i treat all computers with distrust.
that's why you make backups and have disaster recovery.
expect that anything could fail at anytime.


but dont even think that carfax gives a complete history all the time in
every case.
it doesnt always. perhaps only for cars for normal people like us.
dealers can elect what repair info to stick in there if they have
control of it. and they want to hide something.
so for example,
a true carfax report will show every registration, title, inspection, etc.
my son bought a car used from a dealer, there were years missing from
the report. the carfax report was a joke and a waste of time. he knew
there was damage to it.


Ben Myers wrote:
> I concur with Stu, even though I am also a peddler of computers. With a strong
> enough power spike, individual components on boards may sustain just enough
> damage to weaken them, and they subsequently fail later on, sometimes much later
> on. You never know for sure, and successful completion of all the diagnostics
> in the world does not guarantee a system that won't fail later on.
>
> You know those ads for CarFacts or CarFax or whatever? These are the ones that
> claim to give you the entire history of a car. So the car you buy had an
> accident and sustained a small crack in its frame, undetected by the repair
> shop. You have the car for a year and it collapses while you are driving 90
> down the Santa Ana Freeway or the Ryan Expressway. Same principle applies here,
> except that there is no database repository for computer accidents... Ben Myers
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:25:16 -0400, JayB <> wrote:
>
>> you make it sound pretty fatal!
>> what if running dell diags afterward prove that is is fine?
>> you sound like a computer salesman. lol
>>
>>
>> S.Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Or in other words: it might run after repair but I don't know that I would
>>> trust it to do so from that point on.
>>>
>>>

"JayB" <> wrote in message
news:g67o3b$irl$...
>i understand. but i treat all computers with distrust.
> that's why you make backups and have disaster recovery.
> expect that anything could fail at anytime.
>
>
> but dont even think that carfax gives a complete history all the time in
> every case.
> it doesnt always. perhaps only for cars for normal people like us.
> dealers can elect what repair info to stick in there if they have control
> of it. and they want to hide something.
> so for example,
> a true carfax report will show every registration, title, inspection, etc.
> my son bought a car used from a dealer, there were years missing from the
> report. the carfax report was a joke and a waste of time. he knew there
> was damage to it.
>
>


Jay -

I didn't say that I wouldn't repair the machine and still use it. What I
meant was I doubt that I could trust it as a primary machine - even if it
passed diags.

If, say, a television and a couple of other appliances were lost in such a
strike, then I'd be very suspicious of even a "revived" system.

And your point about everyday trust of any system is a good one. I also try
to operate as if my OS or hard disks will crash tomorrow (regarding back
ups/redundancy).


Stew

"Von Fourche" <> wrote in message
news: m...
>
> "S.Lewis" <> wrote in message
> news:jQIhk.5522$...
>>
>> "GTS" <> wrote in message
>> news:g67h79$ik0$...
>>> "alien" <> wrote in message
>>> news:RR6hk.16953$...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Von Fourche" <> wrote in message
>>>> news: m...
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know why this works but I've done this a couple of times and it
>>>> works. (sometimes)
>>>> Unplug the power cord from the computer. Unplug the network cable.
>>>> Wait
>>>> 30
>>>> seconds. Plug the network cable back in, then the power cord. Try to
>>>> power
>>>> up again. I just did this a couple of hours ago to a computer on the
>>>> network that wouldn't turn back on after a 2 second power interrupt
>>>> after
>>>> a
>>>> lightning strike nearby and it worked. Before unplugging the cables, a
>>>> light would flash by the power button, then nothing. Like I said, I
>>>> don't
>>>> know why this would work but it does.
>>>>
>>>> alien
>>>>
>>> That's an indication of a failing power supply. The network cable is
>>> irrelevant. One type of PSU failure is an intermittent failure to
>>> power
>>> up. It will sometimes start after being unplugged completely for a
>>> brief
>>> period. It will likely fail completely within a few months.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> If the machine has taken a hit, nearly every component in the system is
>> suspect no matter if replacement of an individual component seems to
>> revive it.
>>
>> Or in other words: it might run after repair but I don't know that I
>> would trust it to do so from that point on.
>
>
>
>
> Just got done talking with my brother and his wife. Computer was running
> before the storm, they turned it off, after the storm it will not come on.
> They are wondering if it's the "on" button but I asked them if the "on"
> button seemed broke and they said no. I asked if they had the phone line
> from the jack to the modem running thru a surge blocker and they said they
> are not sure. His wife was asking - how much is this going to cost to get
> fixed?
>
>
>


Depends on the system. I've seen them where the dial-up modem (card) itself
was only fried; then again I've seen the slot also fried......

But if they also had it plugged in, it could've come in via the power supply
also.

They need a competent and honest tech to assess what they damage is - and
what their options are.

On Jul 23, 8:02*pm, "S.Lewis" <Gossa...@interesting.com> wrote:
> Depends on the system. *I've seen them where the dial-up modem (card) itself
> was only fried; *then again I've seen the slot also fried......

We routinely would fixed electronics by identifying damaged parts
for each board, replacing those parts, and never having future
failures. Properly noted is an effect called 'overstress' where parts
fail later. Same analysis is required on aerospace hardware so that
failure never happens. IOW trace excessive currents by analysis,
replace any part that may have exceeded manufacturer specs, and
eliminate overstress failures.

How are modems most often damaged? First surge circuit must be
identified. A most common path through modems is incoming on AC
electric (bypassing protection that is inside all power supplies),
through motherboard, through modem, then out to earth ground via phone
line.

A most common modem failure (the weakest point in that circuit) is a
PNP transistor that drives its off-hook relay.

In another situation, two plug-in protectors earthed a surge
destructively via adjacent and powered off computers. We traced the
surge path to earth ground. Protectors connected a surge into both
motherboards (bypassing the power supply). Outgoing on NIC. Through
network to a third computer. Out that computer to earth ground via a
dialup modem. In this case, various network interface chips and the
modem suffered damage. All parts in those paths replaced. Computers
never failed again. But again, overstress was made irrelevant by
tracing a surge's circuit.

We know some components will not be surge damaged. For example,
memory has an incoming path from motherboard. Where is the outgoing
path? None exists. So memory boards are not surge damaged. Essential
for damage is both an incoming and outgoing path. Without both, then
damage and overstress will not happen.

Damage is not capricious. But surges appear capricious without
sufficient konwledge. Surges do not enter via power supplies - due to
numerious layers of protection. But plug-in protectors can divert a
surge around that supply; directly into a motherboard.

Effective protection has always been to divert energy into earth
before a surge can enter the building. Incoming utility wires (ie
telephone, cable TV) have surge protection connected to earth. Surges
typically do not enter via these utilities. Most destructive surges
enter on AC electric. To have damage, a surge forms a connection to
earth. Outgoing connection to earth include telephone and cable TV.
Anything in that path can suffer damage or overstress.

"w_tom" <> wrote in message
news:4c82cf30-116c-4937-9d59-...
On Jul 23, 8:02 pm, "S.Lewis" <Gossa...@interesting.com> wrote:
> Depends on the system. I've seen them where the dial-up modem (card)
> itself
> was only fried; then again I've seen the slot also fried......

<snip>
>> Damage is not capricious. But surges appear capricious without
sufficient konwledge.


Konwledge is power, w_tom.