|
Posted by on May 12, 2007, 11:32 am
>
> > If w_ could only read and think he would know that HIS hanford link says
> > overheating MOVs were fixed with a revised UL 1449 standard.
> > From the hanford link:
> > "Surge protection devices in some older model multi-outlet power strips
> > can overheat and create a potential fire hazard."
>
> > Why does hanford say both "some" and "older"?
>
> Bud spins subjective words into a wild speculation. "Some"?
> "Older"? Is that a technical answer?
>
> If those 'scary picture' protectors did not meet UL1449 - a standard
> for 25 years, then why not cite that specific fact? Bud is so
> desperate to prove a point - to promote his product - as to cite
> "Some" and "Older" as definitive facts. Only a junk scientist would
> advance such rationalizations. Protectors that even meet UL1449 2nd
> edition create those scary pictures.
>
> How does UL1449 2nd edition make 'scary pictures' less likely?
> Disconnect protector components faster. Abandon an adjacent appliance
> to the surge. Instead protect a power strip protector. What kind of
> protection is that? Ineffective. When was a protector's task to
> protect itself; not the appliance?
>
> UL1449 says a protector need not even provide protection. A
> protector can completely fail during UL1449 testing - and still obtain
> UL1449 approval. UL does not care if protector disconnects so quickly
> as to provide zero protection. UL1449 only wants no 'sparks and
> flames' during smaller test waveforms.
>
> Therein lies the tradeoff. Either claim to protect an appliance and
> suffer those scary pictures. Or disconnect MOVs (protector
> components) so fast that internal appliance protection protects that
> appliance. Latter condition indicated by a 'failure' light. As
> noted earlier, that 'failed' indicator is an unacceptable condition
> often associated with grossly undersized and overpriced plug-in
> protectors.
>
> No effective protector fails quickly. But doing in plug-in
> protectors can achieve a UL1449 2nd edition approval - while
> protecting that excessively high profit margin.
>
> Let's view that profit margin. Take a $3 power strip. Add some
> $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or $100 as a power strip protector. Make
> sure the protector components disconnect so quickly that it can obtain
> a UL1449 approval. IOW protect the protector - not appliances. No
> wonder plug-in protectors don't even claim to protect from the
> typically destructive type of surge. View it yourself. Where does it
> list protection from each type of surge? It does not. More important
> is to disconnect MOVs so that scary pictures occur less often.
>
> 'Whole house' protectors such as in Lowes, Home Depot, and
> electrical supply houses (not sold in Sears, Wal-Mart, Circuit City,
> Radio Shack, Staples, etc) have that essential earthing wire AND
> remain functional after surges. An effective protector shunts a
> surge to earth, remains functional, and never lets a homeowner know
> that a surge even existed. Effective: remains functional as in not
> spitting 'sparks and flames'.
>
> That power strip protector would not have shorted to closet rack. A
> short would have been eliminated by a 15 amp circuit breaker. But
> internal components may have spit 'sparks or flame' during a surge too
> small to overwhelm other household appliances. Just another problem
> with plug-in protectors. Plug-in protectors may fail during a surge
> so small that appliances were not harmed. Catastrophic failures are
> not acceptable from more responsible manufacturers. Protector inside
> a closet failed catastrophically during that same 'so trivial' surge?
> No wonder superior protectors are located where?
w_tom has reached a new level of silliness. When a manufacturer puts
surge protecting components inside say a DVD player, it's a great
thing. Not only will it protect the electronics from a surge, it
will do so despite the fact that the only ground it has is the same
ground a plug in protector would have. And it's perfectly safe to sit
the DVD player in a bedroom without fear that's it's gonna burn the
house down.
But install the same surge components into a power strip and it's a
death trap unacceptable for a living space. No, wait, not the same
components. BIGGER components, able to handle an even bigger surge.
It's gonna spew fire and also won't protect at all against a surge
because it's impossible to do surge protection without a true nearby
earth ground. Funny if their so unsafe, they are UL listed, ain't
it?
Sure there have been problems with some surge protectors. There have
been problems and safety recalls with some cars too, haven't there?
Should we stop buying them too?
>
> At the service entrance and not inside a closet of flammable
> clothes; not on a desktop of flammable papers; not behind furniture
> in dust balls on a rug. A superior 'whole house' protector also has
> what that closet protector would not - 'less than 10 foot' connection
> to earth. Smoking protector inside a closet - just another example of
> why plug-in protectors are not effective protection.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap