«

Bud promotes plug-in protectors. Therefore he must spin lies to
protect profits. His own citations state that a protector works only
by earthing surges. His plug-in protectors do not have that dedicated
earth ground. He hopes you will not read what every responsible
source (which eliminates plug-in protector promoters) states as
necessary for protection. From his citation Adobe page 8 of 24:
> 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. So
> a name that makes sense would be "surge diverter"
> but it was not picked. So, for the rest of this
> booklet, we will stick to the most popular "surge
> protector".

Where does that protector divert a surge if it does not have that
earthing connection? Bud's other citation Page 42 Figure 8 warn you
what happens. The surge protector earths that surge, 8000 volts
destructively, through the adjacent TV.

Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts. Sell it for $25 or
$150. These massive profits are what Bud is protecting. Bud will
even lie to deny what happens to his grossly undersized protectors.
After all, their purpose is to protect profits; not appliances:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://tinyurl.com/3x73ol or
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/P...OR%20FIRES.doc
http://www3.cw56.com/news/articles/local/BO63312/

The best advice for others come from this poster. The best advice
for Bud's profit margins comes from Bud. Therefore Bud will post half
truths forever as he has done in will over 400 other threads. He will
keep posting until he get the last post because he is a sales promoter
- does not even have design experience.

The Electrical Engineering Times discussed what provides surge
protection in two articles entitled "Protecting Electrical Devices
from Lightning Transients" at:
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807127
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArti...leID=201807830

Well if they are discussing protection, then it must discuss Bud's
protectors? No. The article is about protection. Plug-in protectors
do not even claim to provide protection. Ask Bud why he never
provides those numeric specifications? He cannot because no
protection is provided. EE Times defines surge protection. Therefore
EE Times discusses earthing and the connection to that earthing. What
does Bud's protectors not have? That earthing connection. Bud's
citations say why plug-in protector even contribute to damage of the
adjacent appliances.

Bud's protectors are so effective at failing. Unfortunately, when
undersized, they also create those scary pictures. Effective
protectors don't create that problem. But Bud does not sell effective
'whole house' protectors. So Bud posts lies - incessantly. Bud's
protector even earthed a surge, 8000 volts destructively, through an
adjacent TV. It did exactly what the manufacturer specs claim. So
Bud will not quote those specs.

On Oct 31, 1:22 pm, bud-- <remove.budn...@isp.com> wrote:
> The best information on surges and surge protection I have seen is at:http://omegaps.com/Lightning%20Guide...ion_May051.pdf
> - "How to protect your house and its contents from lightning: IEEE guide
> for surge protection of equipment connected to AC power and
> communication circuits" published by the IEEE in 2005 (the IEEE is the
> dominant organization of electrical and electronic engineers in the US).
> And also:http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/p.../surgesfnl.pdf
> - "NIST recommended practice guide: Surges Happen!: how to protect the
> appliances in your home" published by the US National Institute of
> Standards and Technology in 2001
>
> The IEEE guide is aimed at those with some technical background. The
> NIST guide is aimed at the unwashed masses.
> ...

On Oct 31, 11:15 pm, "Buffalo" <E...@nada.com.invalid> wrote:
> Lightning does not always follow the rules of the best (lowest resistance,
> impedance) simple route to ground, at least as far as I have discovered.
> Perhaps this is due to some sort of 'ionization' or something/

Lightning always finds lower impedance (not just resistance) paths
to earth. But humans are not very good at predicting those paths and
often are not good at understanding those paths. For example, many
humans think of concrete as not conductive. But concrete makes one of
the most conductive earth grounds (Ufer ground) because it is so
conductive.

If curiious, open the wall to find where that wire created a
connection to earth via a wooden stud or maybe a foundation bolt.
Surge could easily pass also through circuit breaker and not damage
that breaker. Remember, the surge first flows through everything.
But only something in that path fails. Circuit breaker would conduct
a surge but the wire may have suffered the damage. That surge could
have been incoming on everything on the same circuit including a
plugged-in freezer, the
lights and a drill press. Typically only the one item that makes the
best path to earth. It is perfectly normal for everything else on the
same circuit to have better internal protection; not get damaged.

Maybe garage door sensors were damaged because a better path to
earth was via what the sensor was mounted upon. But we know one
fact. If the surge found earth via that path, it was because that was
a lower impedance path to earth.

In article <. com>,
says...
> Bud promotes plug-in protectors.

So does the IEEEE - you need to stop with your lies and read their site,
the people that know a lot more than you do.

--

Leythos - (remove 999 to email me)

Fight exposing kids to porn, complain about sites like PCBUTTS 1.COM
that create filth and put it on the web for any kid to see: Just take a
look at some of the FILTH he's created and put on his website:
http://forums.speedguide.net/archive.../t-223485.html all exposed
to children (the link I've include does not directly display his filth).
You can find the same information by googling for 'PCBUTTS1' and
'exposed to kids'.

w_tom wrote:

I generally agree with w_’s comments on MOVs.
One point may not be clear. The energy (Joule) rating of a MOV is for a
single 'event'. As the energy absorbed in ‘events’ becomes a smaller
percentage of the rating, the cumulative rating greatly increases.
Values taken from an actual 330Joule MOV:
* with 330J hits the MOV can withstand 1 hit - cumulative energy
dissipated 330Joules
* with 90J hits the MOV can withstand 10 hits - cumulative energy
dissipation 900Joules
* with 24J hits the MOV can withstand 100 hits - cumulative energy
dissipation 2400Joules
* with 13.5J hits the MOV can withstand 1000 hits - cumulative energy
dissipation 13,500Joules.
High Joule ratings extend the life more than one would expect.

Plug-in suppressors with high ratings are readily available. And the
impedance of branch circuit wiring greatly limits current, and thus
energy, that can reach a plug-in suppressor. With a high rating they are
likely to never fail.

The author of the NIST guide has written "In fact, the major cause of
TVSS [surge suppressor] failures is a temporary overvoltage, rather than
an unusually large surge."

>
> Fourth, varistors do not protect by absorbing energy. Both wires
> and varistors absorb some energy when conducting (shunting)
> electricity. Is the purpose of wire or a varistor to absorb energy?
> Of course not. The purpose of both are to shunt energy elsewhere.

The “purpose” of a MOV is to clamp the voltage across it.

A MOV connected across a relay coil *does* protect only by absorbing energy.

A service panel suppressor dumps most of the energy to earth.

A plug-in suppressor primarily clamps the voltage. The IEEE guide says
energy is conducted to earth elsewhere.

> Protector
> manufacturers installed fuses that disconnect an MOV before it can
> explode; resulting in a failure indicator. Of course the surge still
> remains connected to the appliance. But don't worry. The protector
> component - the MOV - has been safely disconnected so that the MOV is
> not damaged.

The IEEE guide goes on at length describing how the protected load can
be connected across the MOVs - and be disconnected when the MOVs fail,
or can be connected directly to the source. The normal failure mode of
MOVs is low resistance. If connected across the MOVs, the protected load
is ‘protected’ even when the MOVs fail.

If a service panel suppressor fails protection is lost.

>
> This picture demonstrates MOVs completely removed from the protector
> and still its light says the destroyed protector is OK. That light
> says nothing about a working protector. That light can only report
> one type of protector failure - blown fuse:
> http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

This is indeed a serious problem if you live in an area where thieves
steal MOVs out of surge suppressors. Check with your local police to see
if a MOV theft ring is active in your area.

>
> That safety backup fuse does not always work. A protector should be
> properly sized so that the safety backup is not the only human
> protection. This problem is demonstrated in 'scary pictures'. These
> 'scary pictures' might be on your rug or adjacent to a desktop of
> papers:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

w_ can't understand his own hanford link. It is about "some older
model" power strips and says overheating was fixed with a revision to
UL1449 that requires thermal disconnects. That was 1998.

None of these links indicate the problem suppressors shown had UL
labels. And none of these links say there is any problem with
suppressors under the current UL standard. Or that plug-in suppressors
shouldn't be used. The links actually give info on how to use plug-in
suppressors.


> Specifically not on the list are Tripplite, APC, Belkin, and Panamax.

Because it is w_’s list.

But look at w_’s approved SquareD.
For the `best' suppressor - SDSB1175C
- The literature says "electronic equipment may need additional
protection by installing plug-in TVSS devices at the point of use." Why
does SquareD also suggest plug-in suppressors??
- The connected equipment warranty $ is double when the suppressors "is
used in conjunction with ... a point of use surge protective device."
Doesn't SquareD have confidence in "whole house" suppressors???

For the next best suppressor - QO2175SB and HOM2175SB
- The connected equipment warranty $ does not include "electronic
devices such as: microwave ovens, audio and stereo components, video
equipment, televisions, and computers."
Belkin plug-in suppressor connected equipment warranties include
electronics. Why doesn't w_’s favorite brand??

>
> Often a surge is too small to overwhelm protection already inside
> the appliance. Yes, all appliances contain internal surge
> protection. But an adjacent protector was so grossly undersized as to
> 'sacrifice' itself. Such grossly undersized protectors promote sales
> among the naive.

Only the naive would buy a surge suppressor that is grossly undersized.

Only the naive would post an argument requiring a grossly undersized
suppressor.

“Undersized” is a red herring. Suppressors with high ratings are readily
available.


> No wonder that plug-
> in protector also does not have something so critical - a short
> connection to earth.

And the required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Both the IEEE and NIST guides say plug-in suppressors are effective.
Still never seen - a link from w_ to a source that says plug-in
suppressors are NOT effective.

–
bud--

w_tom wrote:
> Bud promotes plug-in protectors. Therefore he must spin lies to
> protect profits.

To quote w_ "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." My only association
with surge protectors is I have some.

With no valid technical arguments, w_ has to discredit those that oppose
him.

> His plug-in protectors do not have that dedicated
> earth ground.

The required statement of religious belief in earthing.

Repeating:
“ The IEEE guide explains plug-in suppressors work by CLAMPING the
voltage on all wires (signal and power) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Plug-in suppressors do not work primarily by earthing (or
stopping or dissipating). The guide explains earthing occurs elsewhere.
(Read the guide starting pdf page 40).”

> He hopes you will not read what every responsible
> source (which eliminates plug-in protector promoters) states as
> necessary for protection. From his citation Adobe page 8 of 24:

Repeating:
“What does the NIST guide really say about plug-in suppressors?
They are ‘the easiest solution’.
and:
‘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,
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.’ ”

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the NIST guide says about them.


> Bud's other citation Page 42 Figure 8 warn you
> what happens. The surge protector earths that surge, 8000 volts
> destructively, through the adjacent TV.

The illustration in the IEEE guide has a surge coming in on a cable
service. There are 2 TVs, one is on a plug-in suppressor. The plug-in
suppressor protects TV1, connected to it.

Without the plug-in suppressor the surge voltage at TV2 is 10,000V. With
the suppressor at TV1 the voltage at TV2 is 8,000V. It is simply a *lie*
that the plug-in suppressor at TV1 in any way contributes to the damage
at TV2.

The point of the illustration for the IEEE, and anyone who can think, is
"to protect TV2, a second multiport protector located at TV2 is required."

w_ says suppressors must only be at the service panel. In this example a
service panel protector would provide absolutely *NO* protection. The
problem is the wire connecting the cable entry block to the power
service ‘ground’ is too long. The IEEE guide says in that case "the only
effective way of protecting the equipment is to use a multiport protector."

Because plug-in suppressors violate w_'s religious belief in earthing
he has to twist what the IEEE guide says about them.


>
> Take a $3 power strip. Add some $0.10 parts.

One of the MOVs in a plug-in suppressor I recently bought has a rating
of 75,000A and 1475Joules. Provide a source for that MOV for $0.10.


> These massive profits are what Bud is protecting. Bud will
> even lie to deny what happens to his grossly undersized protectors.
> After all, their purpose is to protect profits

The “old political trick” #2.

> not appliances:
> http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

Apparently the hanford link is too complicated for w_. Making it very
easy and quoting:
"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"?

and:
"Underwriters Laboratories Standard UL 1449, 2nd Edition, Standard For
Safety For Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, now requires thermal
protection in power strips. This protection is provided by a thermal
fuse located next to the MOV."

Those with knowledge of surge suppression know 1449-2ed was effective 1998.
Why do you repeat the lie that overheating is a problem with new
suppressors?


> The best advice
> for Bud's profit margins comes from Bud.

The “old political trick” #3.


> What
> does Bud's protectors not have? That earthing connection.

The religious belief in earthing #2.


> So Bud posts lies - incessantly.

My “lies” come from the IEEE and NIST. Both the IEEE and NIST guides say
plug-in suppressors are effective. Read the sources.

There are 98,615,938 other web sites, including 13,843,032 by lunatics,
and w_ can't find another lunatic that says plug-in suppressors are NOT
effective. All you have is w_'s opinions based on his religious belief
in earthing.

w_ has never answered:
- 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"?
- How would a service panel suppressor provide any protection in the
IEEE example, pdf page 42?
- Why does SquareD say in addition to their "whole house" suppressors
"electronic equipment may need additional protection" from plug-in
suppressors.


Bizarre claim - plug-in surge suppressors don't work
Never any sources that say plug-in suppressors are NOT effective.
Twists opposing sources to say the opposite of what they really say.
Attempts to discredit opponents.
w_ is a purveyor of junk science.

--
bud--

when you CLone you mac address
That sure will not work

second did your electrily reset the modem after connect the router to
the modem?

third does your router is dhcp set





On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 10:10:37 -0600, "Buffalo" <>
wrote:

>
><> wrote in message
>news: roups.com...
>> Anybody had this issue / resolved it?
>>
>> Mediacom cable, cable modem SURFboard SB4200
>> Router DLINK DI-604
>> Windows XP Pro, I'm a fairly saavy networking user
>>
>> Everything was working fine for over a year, had a lightning storm and
>> after that the internet wouldn't connect. Here's what is interesting:
>>
>> If I connect my PC directly to the cable modem, the internet comes up
>> just fine. ipconfig /renew gives me an address and I'm good to go.
>> This suggests that the cable modem and PC work fine, problem must be
>> the router.
>>
>> I get another DI-604 router and try it, but it doesn't work either. I
>> powered everything off and on, I clone the MAC address on my card to
>> the modem, and I try several times, using the router's web interface,
>> to renew the IP address with the cable modem's DHCP and it times out
>> every time.
>>
>> I then grab a COMPUSA router (which I have used before and used to
>> work with this same cable modem) and it doesn't work either. Trying
>> to renew the IP address with the COMPUSA router's web interface
>> results in time-outs also.
>>
>> I plug the PC into the cable modem directly, and the orange activity
>> light on the cable modem starts dancing. I plug either router into
>> the cable modem, and the light is totally dead. No flashing,
>> blinking, no nothing.
>>
>> Has anyone experienced this? Any ideas to try? I've searched usenet
>> and other sites to no use.
>>
>> Matt
>Are you using the same connector on the PC when connecting to the modem
>directly and also from the router? (USB, CAT?)
>Have you tried switching the cables ( the one that goes to your PC from the
>modem with the one that goes from the Router to the PC)?
>Perhaps a cable problem?
>Though you probably tried all this, I just thought I would mention it.
>PS: if you don't get a solution here, try the virtualdr.com forum. It is
>free and very good.
>