OT: Remote Desktop

Discussion in 'Dell' started by journey, May 9, 2006.

  1. journey

    User N Guest


    It is with great repetition that you extoll the virtues of whole house
    protection, label plug in protectors as not effective against certain types
    of common faults, etc. However, it seems to me that *alot* of people
    have just two options... to use a plugin protector of some kind or not.
    Ideally such a protector would offer 100% effective protection against
    all threats, but even if it does not, it could still conceivably be of some
    value. If we dismiss cost for a moment, the question might be reduced
    to whether or not using a plugin device can offer any additional degree
    of protection (over and above what is built into common computer
    equipment, which probably includes a fair amount of low end stuff that
    is borderline if not below spec) against any type or degree of fault and
    if so, whether said poses more risks than benefits.

    Do you believe all plugin protectors offer zero net benefits, or worse,
    in all environments? Do you believe some plugin protectors offer some
    net benefits in some environments? If the latter, what advice would you
    give people to assist them in choosing the best plugin protector?
    User N, May 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. journey

    w_tom Guest

    Detailed previously is damage because a protector was adjacent to
    electronics. This problem even suggested in IEEE papers such as
    Martzloff, et al in 1994:
    There is no best plug-in protector. But a kludge solution exists -
    assuming nothing else is possible. Remember protection is about
    connecting as short as possible to earth - the 'less than 10 foot'
    connection. Protector power cord starts with an undesirable six feet -
    undermining protection. Cut power cord of a plug-in protector (of
    maximum joules) to be short as possible. Locate receptacle closest to
    earth ground - ie receptacle attached to breaker box. Now a protector
    may accomplish something useful.

    Above kludge is an example of 'secondary' protection system. Of
    course, inspection of a 'primary' protection 'system' is required:

    Meanwhile, standard protection already (should) exist on cable and
    telephone. Telco installs a 'whole house' protector on phone line -
    for free. Every incoming utility wire must be earthed. Homeowner
    inspection is required. Telco and cable company now install their
    wires to meet earthing requirements. More effective than that kludge
    plug-in protector is earthing integrity. Inspection of what is
    protection is still necessary no matter what protector is used. Even
    the kludge solution still requires an earthing inspection.

    Some effective 'supplemental' solutions exist. They are effective IF
    a properly earthed 'whole house' solution exists. Without that
    earthing, these supplemental solutions are easily compromised.

    People assume what they see - a magic box - is the active solution.
    What is not seen - earthing - that is THE most critical part of a
    protection 'system'. Earthing - not any protector - is where every
    layman begins. Even the kludge solution is useless without effective
    earthing. Earthing of primary and secondary protection 'systems'.
    Last thing to consider - the absolute last - is a plug-in protector.
    They are that ineffective as was even demonstrated by tracing and
    repairing damaged ICs due to direct lightning strikes. Adjacent
    protector provided destructive paths through adjacent and powered off
    computers. Destructive path made possible because plug-in protector
    was adjacent and was not earthed. Adjacent plug-in protector
    compromised protection already inside the computer.
    w_tom, May 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. journey

    User N Guest

    My understanding is that proper point of use protection involves
    routing all AC/ground/signal lines through a single multiport protector.
    I quickly scanned that paper and it appears to me that the first test
    scenario demonstrated that such a device mitigated the problem
    associated with the less than ideal wiring. The second test scenario
    appears not to adhere to the single protector recommendation.
    Not earthed suggests no path to earth. Are you saying the protector
    had no path or a poor path to earth? Was everything routed through
    a single protector? It seems to me the devil would be in the details
    and conceptually at least, the damage could be caused by improper
    facilities wiring and/or improper protector use. The risk of which
    would be worth noting, but frankly, I'm more interested in the risks
    when both of those things are proper.
    That is pretty much a non-starter, obviously. Honestly, I can't recall
    the last time I was in an apartment where the computer was less than
    a 20' run to the box. As for homes, the runs were at least 30-40 feet.
    People put computers where they are most convenient to use, and
    always will.

    I don't believe going from a N' earth to a N+1' earth is going to
    eliminate all protection. I would think that longer runs would mean
    reduced immunity, with the falloff being a function of surge current.
    The important question, to me, would be what can proper plugin
    protection (sans point of entry protection) protect you against given
    realistic earthing lengths. It has to be something, and I'm not talking
    about just internal building events. I'm sure somebody must have
    worked the numbers and then provided numbers for various types
    of power service faults, lighting strikes on things at different
    distances and what not. Got a link to something authoritative and
    User N, May 19, 2006
  4. journey

    w_tom Guest

    Asked for are numerous principles and citations. Therefore this will
    be quite ... long... - chock full of sources and numbers that
    discuss and provide effective electronics protection. Sources for
    superior products will be listed.

    A few principles are known by default and (therefore) not discussed
    in that IEEE paper. Wire resistance being irrelevant. Wire impedance
    is why a wall receptacle safety ground is not earth ground AND why
    earthing must be as short as possible - 'less than 10 feet'.
    Somewhere (I have long forgotten where) is a paper that describes in
    numbers how protection decreased with each additional foot of earthing
    wire (a difference between N and N+1 foot connection). Even sharp
    bends or wire splices increase that wire impedance unacceptably.
    Household branch circuits are too long, too many sharp bends, too many
    splices, and bundled with other wires. Household branch circuits have
    no earthing; only safety ground. This due to a principle called

    In a figure (figure 8/9), an adjacent, 'point of use' protector
    leaves two TVs at 8000 volts. Will that 8000 volts just sit there,
    causing no damage, because everything in the room stays at 8000 volts?
    Not for one millisecond. Those 8000 volts will find paths to earth
    because the room is not constructed for equipotential (a faraday cage).
    That 8000 volt path may be destructive because domestic rooms are
    chock full of alternative electrical paths. How did static electricity
    travel from your finger, through table top,via floor, to bottom of your
    shoes? Those items are electrically conductive at those voltages.
    Same compromises a single point protector - that assumes all outgoing
    paths are only via that protector.

    Not possible to obtain sufficient equipotential anywhere. So we also
    demand conductivity - an alternative and non-destructive path to earth.
    But sufficient conductivity also cannot be obtained. So we also need
    equipotential. An effective shunt mode protector must perform both
    equipotential and conductivity. That means earthing. No way around
    facts. Where is that plug-in protector connection to earth? Does not
    exist. Where do they discuss earthing - and the concepts of
    equipotential and conductivity? Somehow they forget. Sales with
    excessive profits have always been more important than science honesty.

    The least complex, least expensive, and most reliable way to obtain
    both conductivity and equipotential is a 'whole house' protector.
    Responsible manufacturers such as Intermatic, Cutler-Hammer, Siemens,
    Polyphaser, GE, Leviton, and Square D manufacturer such protectors.
    These effective products are available from Home Depot, Lowes, and
    electrical supply houses. Specifically not listed is APC, Belkin,
    Tripplite, and Monster Cable who have a long history of charging
    excessively for ineffective and grossly undersized protectors.

    If a protector smokes, then it provided protection? Of course not.
    But the naive believe this to be so. Therefore many plug-in protectors
    are grossly undersized. Some scary pictures demonstrate but another
    problem with such protectors:
    http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Articles/Surge Protectors.pdf
    So where is this single point ground that provides protection? Follow
    the smoke?

    To be effective, a single point earthing - the protection - must be
    single digit feet from a 'whole house' protector. Some incoming
    utilities don't even need protectors to make that single point
    connection (ie cable TV should not have protectors because protection
    is a direct hardwire connection). One industry benchmark has NO
    connection to earth. To make their product even more effective, a
    protector is connected zero feet to earth ground. But then Polyphaser
    protection has been legendary for how many multiple decades? Did you
    know about Polyphaser or did you learn only from names on retail store
    shelves? It begs a question of why others call APC, et al "quality"

    More problems with a single point connection not at earthing. Is
    that transient going to seek earth ground via household ground wires?
    If so, then transients are induced on all other adjacent AC electric
    cables (two, three, or four wires per cable). Tranisents are then
    induced into household electronics. That earthing wire must not just
    be short, no splices, and no sharp bends. It also must not be bundled
    with other non-earthing wires. More principles that are beyond one
    aspect of protection: equipotential.

    The IEEE paper moves on to make a point understood for generations -
    an adjacent plug-in protector may even contribute to damage of
    electronics (as was demonstrated previously including IC replacement).
    Above and following facts demonstrate why.

    Your apartment with 6 foot power cord on the power strip, 20 feet to
    the breaker box which means far longer by wire looping inside walls,
    splices at every wall receptacle, sharp bends, then breaker box is how
    many feet to the building's single point ground? Typically is 50+ feet
    to earth. Too much distance; too much impedance. What you describe as
    a "non-starter' is but another reason why plug-in protectors have all
    but no earth ground in virtually every apartment and home.

    A statement that "People put computers where they are most
    convenient to use" but again demonstrates why plug-in protectors are
    not effective AND why a 'whole house' solution works; no matter where
    that computer and all other household electronics are located.

    In a previous example (some numbers provided by effective protector
    manufacturers), a trivial 100 amp transient earthed by a plug-in
    protector would confront maybe 0.2 ohms wire resistance and 130 ohms
    wire impedance. IOW computer and protector would be something less
    than (100 amps times 130 ohms) 13,000 volts during a trivial transient.
    One of those IEEE papers (fig 8/9) showed two TVs and a plug-in
    protector suffering same problem: 8000 volts. And again, the problem
    is wire length - too much wire impedance. An industry benchmark -
    Polyphaser - discusses earthing extensively in highly regarded
    application notes. Distance to earth - how earthing is routed, etc are
    all so critical to whether a protector is effective AND what plug-in
    advocates ignore:

    How earthing is routed, etc is why we keep that earthing simpler, at
    the service entrance, with a less expensive and more reliable 'whole
    house' solution. Trying to 'single point' or to earth a plug-in
    protector is so complex and so easily installed wrong.

    Other industry professionals demonstrate what is THE most critical
    component of a protection system. Erico show two structures each with
    a single point ground. Destructive transients even enter on
    underground utility wires:

    When East Orange in Apopka FL needed transient problems solved, did
    they single point ground electronics at plug-in protectors? Of course
    not. East Orange needed protection that works - not something sold on
    retail store shelves promoted by half truths. E Orange fixed reasons
    for electronics damage by bonding to earth and fixing the earthing

    Where ever complete protection 'systems' are discussed - even
    Franklin lightning rods - earthing is THE most critical 'system'
    component (and not discussed by ineffective, overpriced plug-in
    In each case where real world protection is installed, an earthing
    system provides both conductivity and equipotential. Even from IEEE
    Green Book (IEEE 142) entitled 'Static and Lightning Protection
    Grounding' :
    What is necessary to make a plug-in protector inside the room
    effective? " ... enclosing the object in a complete metal
    encapsulation." - also called a Faraday cage. Plug-in protectors don't
    even claim to provide effective protection. A review of their
    numerical specs exposes what they 'spin' around - no protection is
    claimed in their numbers. Their own specs don't even list such
    protection - obviously for so many above reasons.

    "Intercepted or diverted" to a path that will not cause damage.
    Earthing provides that protection. Making a single point inside a room
    (a half truth promoted by forgetting to mention a missing Faraday
    cage), then a transient at 8000 volts or less than 13000 volts will
    find other destructive paths to earth. But then that was even
    demonstrated by replacing burned out ICs in a computer network
    (previous post). Adjacent plug-in protectors simply diverted lightning
    into those powered off computers and through network. Without a
    conductive path to earth, then no effective protection exists. Without
    a conductive path to earth, then transients will find other destructive
    paths. Destructive transients cannot be stopped or blocked. Why did
    lightning strike a non-conductive church steeple? Because even a
    wooden church steeple was a conductive path to earth. Same material
    also inside that domestic room where a plug-in protector somehow will
    not let 8000+ volts conduct elsewhere? By installing superior
    conductivity - lightning rods - then lightning stopped harming church
    steeples. Conductivity - and plug-in protectors don't even claim such
    abilities - is essential also to transistor protection. Destructive
    transients will find other potentially destructive paths inside a
    domestic room.

    Anything that an adjacent plug-in protector will do is already inside
    that appliance - including single point bonding. Will an adjacent
    protector do anything better? Of course not. Electronics internally
    have one or multiple layer single point grounds. What is the point of
    use (plug-in) protector going to do when appliance internally does
    single point better? Appliance internal protection is dependant on a
    'whole house' protector so that internal protection is not overwhelmed.
    Just more facts a plug-in protector manufacturer hopes you never learn
    to sell ineffective protectors at grossly excessive costs. Just
    another reason why that IEEE paper concedes a plug-in protector may
    even contribute to damage.

    A plug-in protector only "mitigated the problem associated with the
    less than ideal wiring" when we 'cherry pick' facts. Does the building
    have two wire plugs? Then what will a plug-in protector use for safety
    ground? Meanwhile, with two wire or three wire receptacles, a 'whole
    house' protector still provides far superior protection. "Less than
    ideal wiring" still gets the same superior protection from a 'whole
    house' protector. So again, plug-in protectors forget to mention this
    "less than ideal wiring" problem to sell ineffective solutions. Yes,
    even with only two wire wall receptacles, a 'whole house' protection
    'system' remains just as effective. So again, even 'less than ideal
    wiring' in a building that can compromise a plug-in protector is
    totally irrelevant to 'whole house' solutions.

    About one day worth of sources - papers, industry app notes, ham
    radio and commercial broadcasters, etc are listed in a 30 Mar 2005
    entitled "UPS unit needed for..." at:
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?X61C23DCA .
    w_tom, May 20, 2006
  5. journey

    Leythos Guest

    And, again, you've failed to show how a device protected by a quality
    APC UPS unit on a standard 3 wire circuit, didn't have anything to do
    with protecting the devices that were protected by it. The devices in
    questions, computers, some on the UPS protection, some not, were
    undamaged where connected to the quality APC UPS device, while those not
    connected to a UPS were damaged.
    Leythos, May 20, 2006
  6. journey

    Notan Guest

    OK, a bottom-line question...

    Other that whole house protection, IN YOUR OPINION, does an effective,
    plug-in UPS exist?

    Notan, May 20, 2006
  7. journey

    Leythos Guest

    And make sure you qualify that response for UPS and not some cheap MOV
    surge protector.
    Leythos, May 20, 2006
  8. journey

    w_tom Guest

    Five general type of power problems exist: blackouts, brownouts,
    surges, harmonics, and noise. Which one(s) need to be solved?
    Different devices address different problems.

    For blackouts and brownouts - short term backup - a battery backup
    UPS will maintain power sufficient to protect data. Computer grade
    UPSes should only be used on computers / electronics. Better grade
    UPSes are necessary for appliances with small electric motors. This
    because computers / electronics have such robust power supplies making
    'dirty' power from a computer grade UPS sufficient.

    Another type UPS is a building wide solution. These tend to be for
    longer power interruptions, may be integrated with fossil fuel driven
    generators, AND often have that short connection to earth. Building
    wide units can include surge protection since a short and dedicated
    earthing connection exists; since these type units are typically
    located at the service entrance.

    No preferred single solution exists if power problems are not first
    defined. Above are some examples to demonstrates how different UPSes
    address different types of power problems for different types of

    Noise and harmonics should be made irrelevant by the design of a
    computer's power supply.
    w_tom, May 20, 2006
  9. journey

    Notan Guest

    Are there *better* technologies to use, when monitoring line voltage
    and transients?

    Notan, May 20, 2006
  10. journey

    Leythos Guest

    So, how about telling us which of the above, in your list, a Quality UPS
    solution, one that is on a 3 wire circuit, can provide any means of
    protection against.

    You left that out of your last reply.

    We know that UPS's handle 1) Blackouts, 2) Brownouts, 3) Surges, 4)
    Harmonics, and 5) Noise.
    Leythos, May 20, 2006
  11. journey

    Pat Conover Guest

    White Flag waving, I surrender :)
    Pat Conover, May 20, 2006
  12. journey

    w_tom Guest

    Again, monitoring for what purpose? To view current AC line
    electricity, two basic tools are an RMS type voltmeter and an

    To record AC line electric history, the benchmark name for so many
    decades has been Drantz. But again, to what purpose and therefore to
    what accuracy? Even an AM radio and an incandescent bulb can monitor
    AC electric line - albeit - with crude but sufficient accuracy.
    w_tom, May 21, 2006
  13. journey

    Leythos Guest

    It's nice that you can't answer a question and have to be so vague.

    As was already asked, and you failed to answer:
    Leythos, May 21, 2006
  14. journey

    w_tom Guest

    A typical computer grade UPS uses a relay to connect computer either
    directly to AC mains or temporarily to battery backup. Does that relay
    stop or eliminate harmonics, surges, or noise? Of course not. Then we
    review that UPS's numerical specs. Even there, no such claims.

    A UPS that would address all five problems (blackouts, brownouts,
    surges, harmonics, and noise) is typically many tens of thousands of
    dollars: a building wide system found in high reliability facilities
    such as telephone switching stations and hospitals. Will that less
    than $100 UPS solve harmonics, noise, and surge problems? It does not
    even claim to in its numerical specifications.

    Meanwhile, when does a computer grade UPS output dirtiest power?
    When in battery backup mode. This one outputs a modified sine wave at
    120 volts. What is it? Two 200 volt square waves with a spike of up
    to 270 volts between those square waves. This is clean power? This
    is a sine wave? Yes. Does this UPSt eliminate noise, harmonics and
    surges? Of course not. Since computers have such robust power
    supplies, then those 200 volt square waves and that 270 volt spike
    (which is a modified sine wave) is not harmful to computer.

    Widespread are technically naive myths that all UPSes do more than
    just blackouts and brownout protection. Most UPSes are only for data
    protection from short power loss. Myth promoters will hype that an
    adjacent UPS does surge, noise, and harmonic protection. Noise and
    harmonic solutions must already be inside a computer. They are called
    computer grade UPes - selling for less than $100. A plug-in UPS is for
    data protection from power loss. Other 'solutions' are located
    w_tom, May 21, 2006
  15. journey

    w_tom Guest

    They are called shunt mode protectors. A far less expensive and
    more effective 'whole house' solution is defined by being very close to
    a single point earth ground AND distant from electronics. There is no
    magic in the box. Its about location, location, location - the all so
    critical single point earth ground.

    " Do ...all plugin protectors offer zero net benefits, or worse, in
    all environment"? Describes previoulsy was a kludge solution. Cut its
    power cord short. Connect it to the AC recpetacle closest to earth
    ground. By being closer to earth and farther from computer
    transistors, then a shunt mode protector becomes more effective. Also
    a plug-in protector must be maximum joules. Minimally acceptable for
    plug-in type (assuming no other port such as modem and cable is part of
    that number) is 3000 joules.

    Closer a shunt mode protector gets to a common earthing point AND
    farther it gets from protected trasnsistors, then the better a

    Others who may be building new homes should learn when effective
    protection should be installed - when footing are poured - Ufer
    grounds. Plug-in protectors hope you never learn any of this -
    especially why ground - not the protector - provides protection. Stop
    worrying about the protector. Always start by asking where the earth
    ground is.

    Meanwhile, all this is seconary protection. Primary protection
    should also be inspected:
    w_tom, May 21, 2006
  16. journey

    Leythos Guest

    So, you are saying that a quality UPS installed on a 3-wire circuit, in
    a typical home in the USA, does provide "Some" protection and is not
    completely worthless.
    Leythos, May 21, 2006
  17. journey

    Leythos Guest

    So, you are saying that a quality UPS installed on a 3-wire circuit, in
    a typical home in the USA, does provide "Some" protection and is not
    completely worthless.
    Leythos, May 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.