Power supply fried, replaced it, computer won't start

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by ., Aug 28, 2006.

  1. .

    Rod Speed Guest

    David Matthew Wood <> wrote

    >>> Not against equipment damage, no. Or else this one
    >>> would not have sparked and let out smoke and would
    >>> have continued to run after the short was removed.


    >>> Here, I'll rephrase it, because this is what I meant in the first place:


    Easy to claim now.

    >>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    >>> protection against damage from shorts.


    >>> There. Done.


    >> Nothing like your original.


    > In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.


    You actually said they dont have ANY protection.

    > If you had followed the thread which is what I had been doing, "protection
    > against
    > damaged from shorts" would have been assumed, as it is all in context.


    Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs,
    and those clearly wont the only thing being discussed
    because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    have any protection against running unloaded either.

    >>>>>>> And again later, I unknowingly had a bad power
    >>>>>>> connector which turned out to be shorted.
    >>>>>>> Fired up the supply, it came on for not even half
    >>>>>>> a second, and turned itself off again. Short was
    >>>>>>> cleared, power was fired up again, and all was well.


    >>>>>> Nothing at all unusual about, thats the way its sposed to work.


    >>>>> And yet it isn't as reliable on poor cheap
    >>>>> designs - some of which will just blow.


    >>>> **** all in fact.


    >>>> And that that proves nothing about your stupid claim that
    >>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    >>> No, but a couple of blowed cheap power supplies does.


    >> Nope, not with your original stupid claim.


    > Equipment damage should have been assumed.


    Only when you dont have a clue about the basics. You qualify.

    >>> A couple cheap blown power supplies later....


    >> Still says nothing useful what so ever about the stupid claim
    >> that some cheap power supplys not having ANY protection
    >> against equipment damage. There aint a single one that is
    >> that bad, even tho there are certainly some that cant handle
    >> a shorted rail, and others that cant protect against equipment
    >> damage when the power supply itself fails.


    > Blown power supply due to short: equipment damage.


    Irrelevant to your original stupid claim that some
    cheap supplys dont have ANY protection at all.

    > Something connected to supply that is
    > destroyed by supply: equipment damage.


    Irrelevant to your original stupid claim that some
    cheap supplys dont have ANY protection at all.

    > If this protection isn't good enough to prevent
    > damage, then I don't really consider it protection.


    Pity about when its protecting against some other situation.

    > Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.


    Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY protection.

    > Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.


    Lying now.

    >>> The spikes are within tolerance.


    >> There is no such animal.


    > You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.


    Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.

    > The rest of the world isn't so lucky.


    Pathetic, really.

    >>> Does a power supply always get constant stable power?
    >>> No, it does not. Does it always give constant stable power?
    >>> No, it does not. Voltage always fluctuates, and so therefore,
    >>> the protection circuitry has to be designed so that it does not
    >>> trip under these conditions provided that they are within tolerance.


    >> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    >> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.


    > Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    > has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.


    Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.

    >>> But what does this have to do with a short circuit killing a power
    >>> supply, or tripping protection circuitry? Absolutely nothing.


    >> Yep, it was just another stupid claim you made.


    > No,


    Yep.

    > you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    > when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.


    Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.

    >>> Ok, then I'll re-reword it. SOME cheap power supplies don't
    >>> have adequate protection against damage from shorts.


    >>> DONE!


    >> If you'd actually said that, no one would have commented on that.


    > Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.


    Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    them not having any protection against running unloaded either.

    >>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power supplies to run WITHOUT
    >>> a load - and yet, some won't even power up without a load. Why is that?


    >> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    >> so that it needs some load to start properly.


    > How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    > whether or not there is a load during start up?


    Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

    >>> and correct the problem long before
    >>> it has any chance to do any damage.


    >> You may not notice that one channel
    >> has died if you arent relatively close to it.


    > I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts, thank you.


    You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.

    >>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.


    >>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    >>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!


    >>>> There are no 'output transformers'


    >>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.


    >> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.


    > You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.


    I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.

    >> And those care least about no speakers anyway.


    > Again, very bad for the output transformers.


    Wrong, as always.

    > But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    > the very people who designed the amps in the first place,


    Lying, again.

    > I don't really know what else to tell you.


    Yep, you clearly havent got a clue about the basics, you're DONE.

    >>>> And any decent designed amp has that protection to prevent any
    >>>> damage when the inevitable happens, the speakers get disconnected.


    >>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    >>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    >>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    >>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.


    >> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.


    > Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    > is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?


    Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.

    >>> You just said the amp had protection circuitry. Had this been
    >>> working properly, the amp would have gotten shut down anyway.


    >> There is more than one way protection against that can be done.


    >> It doesnt necessarily involve shutting down the amp.


    > No, but it still involves shutting down components of
    > an amp that can be damaged by running with no load,
    > which isn't what I call RUNNING an amp without a load!


    Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.
     
    Rod Speed, Aug 30, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    > >>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    > >>> protection against damage from shorts.

    >
    > >>> There. Done.

    >
    > >> Nothing like your original.

    >
    > > In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.

    >
    > You actually said they dont have ANY protection.


    Protection against equipment damage, no. That is what the thread was
    about.

    >
    > > If you had followed the thread which is what I had been doing, "protection
    > > against
    > > damaged from shorts" would have been assumed, as it is all in context.

    >
    > Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs,
    > and those clearly wont the only thing being discussed
    > because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    > have any protection against running unloaded either.


    Because you said you were running it unloaded. Now if you're running it
    unloaded and protection kicks in on it, that's not exactly continuing to
    run it unloaded, now is it?


    > > Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.

    >
    > Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY protection.


    Protection against damage, no it obviously did not. That is what the
    thread was about.

    >
    > > Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.

    >
    > Lying now.


    Why did you remove the statement this was about?

    >
    > >>> The spikes are within tolerance.

    >
    > >> There is no such animal.

    >
    > > You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.

    >
    > Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.


    So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household a/c
    outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?

    > >> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    > >> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.

    >
    > > Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    > > has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.

    >
    > Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    > some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.

    > > you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    > > when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.

    >
    > Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.


    The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.

    > > Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.

    >
    > Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    > them not having any protection against running unloaded either.


    You said you were continuing to run it unloaded. But you can't continue
    to run it unloaded if protection kicks.

    >
    > >>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power supplies to run WITHOUT
    > >>> a load - and yet, some won't even power up without a load. Why is that?

    >
    > >> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    > >> so that it needs some load to start properly.

    >
    > > How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    > > whether or not there is a load during start up?

    >
    > Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.


    Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power switches.
    One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the switch. The
    other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?

    >
    > >>> and correct the problem long before
    > >>> it has any chance to do any damage.

    >
    > >> You may not notice that one channel
    > >> has died if you arent relatively close to it.

    >
    > > I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts, thank you.

    >
    > You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.


    I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would notice it.

    >
    > >>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.

    >
    > >>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    > >>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!

    >
    > >>>> There are no 'output transformers'

    >
    > >>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.

    >
    > >> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.

    >
    > > You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.

    >
    > I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.
    >
    > >> And those care least about no speakers anyway.

    >
    > > Again, very bad for the output transformers.

    >
    > Wrong, as always.


    So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?

    >
    > > But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    > > the very people who designed the amps in the first place,

    >
    > Lying, again.


    How so? The very people who design them say it's not good to run them
    without a load. You on the other hand are saying otherwise.

    > >>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    > >>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    > >>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    > >>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.

    >
    > >> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.

    >
    > > Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    > > is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?

    >
    > Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    > in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.


    Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.

    Protection stops this from happening.

    How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without a load, which is what you
    said you were doing?
     
    David Matthew Wood, Aug 30, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. .

    Rod Speed Guest

    David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote


    >>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    >>>>> protection against damage from shorts.


    >>>>> There. Done.


    >>>> Nothing like your original.


    >>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.


    >> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.


    > Protection against equipment damage, no.


    Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    protection against equipment damage.

    > That is what the thread was about.


    >>> If you had followed the thread which is what I had
    >>> been doing, "protection against damaged from shorts"
    >>> would have been assumed, as it is all in context.


    >> Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs,
    >> and those clearly wont the only thing being discussed
    >> because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    >> have any protection against running unloaded either.


    > Because you said you were running it unloaded.


    Lying, again. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    before I ever said anything about what I was doing.

    > Now if you're running it unloaded and protection kicks in on it,


    It doesnt with PC power supplys, it either fails to
    start because some wont start without a load, or
    it runs fine unloaded if its happy to start unloaded.

    > that's not exactly continuing to run it unloaded, now is it?


    Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

    >>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.


    >> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY protection.


    > Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.


    It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.

    Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it has OTHER protection.

    > That is what the thread was about.


    Lying, again.

    >>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.


    >> Lying now.


    > Why did you remove the statement this was about?


    I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.

    >>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.


    >>>> There is no such animal.


    >>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.


    >> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.


    > So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    > a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?


    Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.

    >>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    >>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.


    >>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    >>> has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.


    >> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    >> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    > Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.


    Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.

    >>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    >>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.


    >> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.


    > The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.


    Pity you spewed your drivel about unloaded in your first post in this thread.

    >>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.


    >> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    >> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.


    > You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.


    Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded.

    > But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.


    There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power supply.
    Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at all unloaded.

    >>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    >>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    >>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?


    >>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    >>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.


    >>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    >>> whether or not there is a load during start up?


    >> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.


    > Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    > switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the
    > switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?


    Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start unloaded.

    >>>>> and correct the problem long before
    >>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.


    >>>> You may not notice that one channel
    >>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.


    >>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts, thank you.


    >> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.


    > I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would notice it.


    And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.

    >>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.


    >>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    >>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!


    >>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'


    >>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.


    >>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.


    >>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.


    >> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.


    >>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.


    >>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.


    >> Wrong, as always.


    > So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?


    They dont.

    >>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    >>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,


    >> Lying, again.


    > How so? The very people who design them
    > say it's not good to run them without a load.


    Plenty dont.

    > You on the other hand are saying otherwise.


    Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.

    >>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    >>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    >>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    >>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.


    >>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.


    >>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    >>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?


    >> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    >> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.


    > Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.


    > Protection stops this from happening.


    > How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    > a load, which is what you said you were doing?


    I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.
     
    Rod Speed, Aug 30, 2006
    #43
  4. On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:58:56 -0400, Meat Plow <>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:30:02 +0000, . Has Frothed:
    >
    >> My friend who built the PC for me is traveling, and I will ultimately
    >> bring the computer to him and his extensive testbench if I can't figure
    >> this out myself. But I'm really at my wit's end now and am hoping for a
    >> few useful "try this" suggestions.

    >
    >Take everyone off the main board except video card if an add on and power
    >it up. If not then the mobo may be phucked.
    >
    >--
    >
    >Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004


    Why not take out the video card too. It can certainly cause this
    problem. The MB will still power up without a video card, it just
    beeps at you (a good thing in this case).

    Neal
     
    Neal Eckhardt, Aug 31, 2006
    #44
  5. In article <>,
    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    > David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > > Rod Speed <> wrote

    >
    > >>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    > >>>>> protection against damage from shorts.

    >
    > >>>>> There. Done.

    >
    > >>>> Nothing like your original.

    >
    > >>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.

    >
    > >> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > > Protection against equipment damage, no.

    >
    > Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    > protection against equipment damage.


    Ok fine. But some isn't always good enough, in which case I don't
    consider the equipment protected.

    >
    > > That is what the thread was about.

    >
    > >>> If you had followed the thread which is what I had
    > >>> been doing, "protection against damaged from shorts"
    > >>> would have been assumed, as it is all in context.

    >
    > >> Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs,
    > >> and those clearly wont the only thing being discussed
    > >> because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    > >> have any protection against running unloaded either.

    >
    > > Because you said you were running it unloaded.

    >
    > Lying, again. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    > before I ever said anything about what I was doing.


    Lying that you said you were running it unloaded?

    let's look back a bit:

    Me: since it is bad for a power supply to run without a load.

    You: Oh bullshit.

    me: really? Why don't you try it then.

    You: Done that plenty of times thanks."

    hmm..

    >
    > > Now if you're running it unloaded and protection kicks in on it,

    >
    > It doesnt with PC power supplys, it either fails to
    > start because some wont start without a load, or
    > it runs fine unloaded if its happy to start unloaded.


    If it runs unloaded, it's not running fine at all. Quite unstable
    actually.

    >
    > > that's not exactly continuing to run it unloaded, now is it?

    >
    > Irrelevant to what was being discussed.


    Not if it is shut off in order to not run unloaded.

    >
    > >>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.

    >
    > >> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY
    > >> protection.

    >
    > > Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.

    >
    > It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.


    And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted rail.
    Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against equipment damage as
    well - in this case, the supply itself.

    >
    > Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it has OTHER protection.


    Took out the mobo when this happened, actually. Not my idea of
    protection.

    >
    > > That is what the thread was about.

    >
    > Lying, again.


    OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.


    >
    > >>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.

    >
    > >> Lying now.

    >
    > > Why did you remove the statement this was about?

    >
    > I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    > the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.


    Oh crap.. lol my mistake! I took out your comment along with others in
    order to keep the message short. Didn't mean to do that. Oops! ^_^

    >
    > >>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.

    >
    > >>>> There is no such animal.

    >
    > >>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.

    >
    > >> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.

    >
    > > So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    > > a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?

    >
    > Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.


    If the power supply handles it fine (which they all do to a degree),
    then it has tolerance. It has to, since household current is not always
    stable. Storms, big motors kicking on and off, etc.
    Again, voltage regulation.

    >
    > >>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    > >>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.

    >
    > >>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    > >>> has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.

    >
    > >> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    > >> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > > Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.

    >
    > Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    > too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.


    I have one running in this computer that will not stay on if there is
    nothing connected to the 5v good power line.

    >
    > >>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    > >>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.

    >
    > >> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.

    >
    > > The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.

    >
    > Pity you spewed your drivel about unloaded in your first post in this thread.


    PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.

    >
    > >>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.

    >
    > >> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    > >> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.

    >
    > > You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.

    >
    > Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded.


    Doesn't matter. Obviously there is some protection against running it
    unloaded - in which case I don't consider that actually running unloaded
    at all.

    >
    > > But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.

    >
    > There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power supply.
    > Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at all unloaded.


    If it doesn't start unloaded, then that's protection against running
    non-stable, due to it being unloaded.

    >
    > >>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    > >>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    > >>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?

    >
    > >>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    > >>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.

    >
    > >>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    > >>> whether or not there is a load during start up?

    >
    > >> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

    >
    > > Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    > > switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the
    > > switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?

    >
    > Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start unloaded.
    >
    > >>>>> and correct the problem long before
    > >>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.

    >
    > >>>> You may not notice that one channel
    > >>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.

    >
    > >>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts, thank you.

    >
    > >> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.

    >
    > > I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would notice it.

    >
    > And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    > you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.


    Which never happens in my house.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    > >>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!

    >
    > >>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'

    >
    > >>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.

    >
    > >>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.

    >
    > >>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.

    >
    > >> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.

    >
    > >>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.

    >
    > >>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.

    >
    > >> Wrong, as always.

    >
    > > So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?

    >
    > They dont.


    Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.

    >
    > >>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    > >>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,

    >
    > >> Lying, again.

    >
    > > How so? The very people who design them
    > > say it's not good to run them without a load.

    >
    > Plenty dont.


    More of them do.

    >
    > > You on the other hand are saying otherwise.

    >
    > Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    > the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.


    Properly designed as in protection against this condition. Again, not
    the same as running without a load.

    >
    > >>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    > >>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    > >>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    > >>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.

    >
    > >>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.

    >
    > >>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    > >>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?

    >
    > >> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    > >> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.

    >
    > > Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.

    >
    > > Protection stops this from happening.

    >
    > > How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    > > a load, which is what you said you were doing?

    >
    > I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.


    You said yours ran without a load and that continuing to run without one
    (if a speaker becomes disconnected) wouldn't hurt it.
     
    David Matthew Wood, Sep 1, 2006
    #45
  6. .

    Rod Speed Guest

    David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <> wrote


    >>>>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    >>>>>>> protection against damage from shorts.


    >>>>>>> There. Done.


    >>>>>> Nothing like your original.


    >>>>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.


    >>>> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.


    >>> Protection against equipment damage, no.


    >> Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    >> protection against equipment damage.


    > Ok fine. But some isn't always good enough,


    Again, nothing like your original.

    > in which case I don't consider the equipment protected.


    Again, nothing like your original.

    >>> That is what the thread was about.


    >>>>> If you had followed the thread which is what I had
    >>>>> been doing, "protection against damaged from shorts"
    >>>>> would have been assumed, as it is all in context.


    >>>> Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs, and
    >>>> those clearly werent the only thing being discussed
    >>>> because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    >>>> have any protection against running unloaded either.


    >>> Because you said you were running it unloaded.


    >> Lying, again. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    >> before I ever said anything about what I was doing.


    > Lying that you said you were running it unloaded?


    Lying about the BECAUSE. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    about running the power supply unloaded BEFORE I ever said a thing.

    > let's look back a bit:


    > Me: since it is bad for a power supply to run without a load.


    > You: Oh bullshit.


    > me: really? Why don't you try it then.


    > You: Done that plenty of times thanks."


    > hmm..


    Humming aint gunna save your bacon, you clearly made that
    stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded BEFORE
    I said anything, so you are clearly lying with your BECAUSE.

    >>> Now if you're running it unloaded and protection kicks in on it,


    >> It doesnt with PC power supplys, it either fails to
    >> start because some wont start without a load, or
    >> it runs fine unloaded if its happy to start unloaded.


    > If it runs unloaded, it's not running fine at all.


    Wrong, as always.

    > Quite unstable actually.


    Wrong, as always.

    >>> that's not exactly continuing to run it unloaded, now is it?


    >> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.


    > Not if it is shut off in order to not run unloaded.


    Pity that if it does shut down ITS CLEARLY PROTECTED AGAINST
    RUNNING THAT WAY, and if it doesnt shut down IT CANT DAMAGE
    ANYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS CONNECTED TO IS.

    >>>>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.


    >>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY
    >>>> protection.


    >>> Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.


    >> It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.


    > And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted rail.
    > Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against equipment damage
    > as well - in this case, the supply itself.


    Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.

    >> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it has OTHER protection.


    > Took out the mobo when this happened, actually. Not my idea of protection.


    Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.

    >>> That is what the thread was about.


    >> Lying, again.


    > OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.


    Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    No evidence that the OPs power supply damaged anything.

    >>>>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.


    >>>> Lying now.


    >>> Why did you remove the statement this was about?


    >> I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    >> the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.


    > Oh crap.. lol my mistake! I took out your comment along with others
    > in order to keep the message short. Didn't mean to do that. Oops!
    > ^_^


    A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself |-)

    >>>>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.


    >>>>>> There is no such animal.


    >>>>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.


    >>>> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.


    >>> So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    >>> a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?


    >> Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.


    > If the power supply handles it fine (which they
    > all do to a degree), then it has tolerance.


    Thats not what 'within tolerance' means.

    > It has to, since household current is not always stable. Storms,
    > big motors kicking on and off, etc. Again, voltage regulation.


    THERE IS NO TOLERANCE TO BE WITHIN.

    >>>>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    >>>>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.


    >>>>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    >>>>> has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.


    >>>> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    >>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    >>> Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.


    >> Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    >> too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.


    > I have one running in this computer that will not stay on
    > if there is nothing connected to the 5v good power line.


    No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start up
    fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.

    Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.

    >>>>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    >>>>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.


    >>>> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.


    >>> The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.


    >> Pity you spewed your drivel about unloaded in your first post in this thread.


    > PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.


    No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start up
    fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.

    Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.

    >>>>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.


    >>>> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    >>>> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.


    >>> You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.


    >> Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded.


    > Doesn't matter.


    Corse it does.

    > Obviously there is some protection against running it unloaded


    Nope, it just doesnt start that way.

    > - in which case I don't consider that actually running unloaded at all.


    There is no PROTECTION, it just doesnt start unloaded.

    >>> But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.


    >> There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power supply.
    >> Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at all unloaded.


    > If it doesn't start unloaded, then that's protection
    > against running non-stable, due to it being unloaded.


    Wrong, as always. There is no protection, it just doesnt start
    unloaded because of how its designed, the design needs a load
    to start because thats the cheapest way to design a switcher.

    IT COST MORE TO DESIGN THE POWER SUPPLY TO START UNLOADED.

    >>>>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    >>>>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    >>>>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?


    >>>>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    >>>>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.


    >>>>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    >>>>> whether or not there is a load during start up?


    >>>> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.


    >>> Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    >>> switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the
    >>> switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?


    >> Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start unloaded.


    >>>>>>> and correct the problem long before
    >>>>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.


    >>>>>> You may not notice that one channel
    >>>>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.


    >>>>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts, thank you.


    >>>> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.


    >>> I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would notice it.


    >> And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    >> you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.


    > Which never happens in my house.


    You and your house are completely and utterly irrelevant.

    >>>>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.


    >>>>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    >>>>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!


    >>>>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'


    >>>>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.


    >>>>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.


    >>>>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.


    >>>> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.


    >>>>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.


    >>>>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.


    >>>> Wrong, as always.


    >>> So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?


    >> They dont.


    > Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.


    Wrong, as always. And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.

    >>>>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    >>>>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,


    >>>> Lying, again.


    >>> How so? The very people who design them
    >>> say it's not good to run them without a load.


    >> Plenty dont.


    > More of them do.


    You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.

    >>> You on the other hand are saying otherwise.


    >> Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    >> the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.


    > Properly designed as in protection against this condition.
    > Again, not the same as running without a load.


    Plenty of amps run fine without a load and without protection cutting in.

    >>>>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    >>>>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    >>>>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    >>>>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.


    >>>>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.


    >>>>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    >>>>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?


    >>>> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    >>>> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.


    >>> Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.


    >>> Protection stops this from happening.


    >>> How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    >>> a load, which is what you said you were doing?


    >> I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.


    > You said yours ran without a load and that continuing to run
    > without one (if a speaker becomes disconnected) wouldn't hurt it.


    Yep, and I proved that the amp didnt give a damn when that happened.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 1, 2006
    #46
  7. In article <>,
    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    > David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > > Rod Speed <> wrote
    > >> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > >>> Rod Speed <> wrote

    >
    > >>>>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    > >>>>>>> protection against damage from shorts.

    >
    > >>>>>>> There. Done.

    >
    > >>>>>> Nothing like your original.

    >
    > >>>>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.

    >
    > >>>> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > >>> Protection against equipment damage, no.

    >
    > >> Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    > >> protection against equipment damage.

    >
    > > Ok fine. But some isn't always good enough,

    >
    > Again, nothing like your original.


    And?

    >
    > > in which case I don't consider the equipment protected.

    >
    > Again, nothing like your original.


    I said this a couple of times actually.

    >
    > >>> That is what the thread was about.

    >
    > >>>>> If you had followed the thread which is what I had
    > >>>>> been doing, "protection against damaged from shorts"
    > >>>>> would have been assumed, as it is all in context.

    >
    > >>>> Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs, and
    > >>>> those clearly werent the only thing being discussed
    > >>>> because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    > >>>> have any protection against running unloaded either.

    >
    > >>> Because you said you were running it unloaded.

    >
    > >> Lying, again. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    > >> before I ever said anything about what I was doing.

    >
    > > Lying that you said you were running it unloaded?

    >
    > Lying about the BECAUSE. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    > about running the power supply unloaded BEFORE I ever said a thing.


    Nope.

    >
    > > let's look back a bit:

    >
    > > Me: since it is bad for a power supply to run without a load.

    >
    > > You: Oh bullshit.

    >
    > > me: really? Why don't you try it then.

    >
    > > You: Done that plenty of times thanks."

    >
    > > hmm..

    >
    > Humming aint gunna save your bacon, you clearly made that
    > stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded BEFORE
    > I said anything, so you are clearly lying with your BECAUSE.


    Nope.

    >
    > >>> Now if you're running it unloaded and protection kicks in on it,

    >
    > >> It doesnt with PC power supplys, it either fails to
    > >> start because some wont start without a load, or
    > >> it runs fine unloaded if its happy to start unloaded.

    >
    > > If it runs unloaded, it's not running fine at all.

    >
    > Wrong, as always.


    Nope.

    >
    > > Quite unstable actually.

    >
    > Wrong, as always.


    So now you're saying that power supplies are perfectly stable under NO
    load......

    nope.

    >
    > >>> that's not exactly continuing to run it unloaded, now is it?

    >
    > >> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.

    >
    > > Not if it is shut off in order to not run unloaded.

    >
    > Pity that if it does shut down ITS CLEARLY PROTECTED AGAINST
    > RUNNING THAT WAY, and if it doesnt shut down IT CANT DAMAGE
    > ANYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS CONNECTED TO IS.


    How would it damage something that isn't connected to it? Where did
    that come from?

    >
    > >>>>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.

    >
    > >>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY
    > >>>> protection.

    >
    > >>> Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.

    >
    > >> It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.

    >
    > > And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted rail.
    > > Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against equipment damage
    > > as well - in this case, the supply itself.

    >
    > Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.
    >
    > ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    > PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.


    uh huh - and the better ones do.

    >
    > >> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it has OTHER protection.

    >
    > > Took out the mobo when this happened, actually. Not my idea of protection.

    >
    > Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.
    >
    > ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    > PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.


    uh huh - and again, the better ones do.

    >
    > >>> That is what the thread was about.

    >
    > >> Lying, again.

    >
    > > OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.

    >
    > Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.
    >
    > No evidence that the OPs power supply damaged anything.


    I never said the OP's power supply did damage anything! His old PS died
    so he replaced it. The new one didn't power up - he had something
    connection wrong. He fixed the connection and then his machine booted
    up fine. Where did I say otherwise?

    >
    > >>>>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.

    >
    > >>>> Lying now.

    >
    > >>> Why did you remove the statement this was about?

    >
    > >> I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    > >> the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.

    >
    > > Oh crap.. lol my mistake! I took out your comment along with others
    > > in order to keep the message short. Didn't mean to do that. Oops!
    > > ^_^

    >
    > A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself |-)


    Wow... at first I thought you just liked to troll in these groups to
    argue and I wasn't going to stoop to your level, but damn.... you really
    are an ass!

    >
    > >>>>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.

    >
    > >>>>>> There is no such animal.

    >
    > >>>>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.

    >
    > >>>> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.

    >
    > >>> So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    > >>> a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?

    >
    > >> Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.

    >
    > > If the power supply handles it fine (which they
    > > all do to a degree), then it has tolerance.

    >
    > Thats not what 'within tolerance' means.
    >
    > > It has to, since household current is not always stable. Storms,
    > > big motors kicking on and off, etc. Again, voltage regulation.

    >
    > THERE IS NO TOLERANCE TO BE WITHIN.


    It has to be designed to tolerate normal and unavoidable voltage
    fluctuations. If the fluctuations are within a certain, threshold they
    are within tolerance. If input voltage is outside this threshold, the
    PS will shut down. If the input voltage remains within this threshold,
    it is within tolerance. An AC supply is not perfectly 100% stable so
    therefore, a PS has to be designed to tolerate this to a point.

    >
    > >>>>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    > >>>>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.

    >
    > >>>>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    > >>>>> has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.

    >
    > >>>> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    > >>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > >>> Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.

    >
    > >> Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    > >> too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.

    >
    > > I have one running in this computer that will not stay on
    > > if there is nothing connected to the 5v good power line.

    >
    > No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start up
    > fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.
    >
    > Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    > IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.


    You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine and
    stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected. Yet, I
    have one in this machine that does not stay powered if the 5v Power Good
    line is not connected.

    >
    > >>>>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    > >>>>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.

    >
    > >>>> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.

    >
    > >>> The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.

    >
    > >> Pity you spewed your drivel about unloaded in your first post in this
    > >> thread.

    >
    > > PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.

    >
    > No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start up
    > fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.
    >
    > Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    > IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.


    Again....
    You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine and
    stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected. Yet, I
    have one in this machine that does not stay powered if the 5v Power Good
    line is not connected.

    >
    > >>>>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.

    >
    > >>>> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    > >>>> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.

    >
    > >>> You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.

    >
    > >> Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded.

    >
    > > Doesn't matter.

    >
    > Corse it does.
    >
    > > Obviously there is some protection against running it unloaded

    >
    > Nope, it just doesnt start that way.
    >
    > > - in which case I don't consider that actually running unloaded at all.

    >
    > There is no PROTECTION, it just doesnt start unloaded.
    >
    > >>> But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.

    >
    > >> There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power supply.
    > >> Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at all unloaded.

    >
    > > If it doesn't start unloaded, then that's protection
    > > against running non-stable, due to it being unloaded.

    >
    > Wrong, as always. There is no protection, it just doesnt start
    > unloaded because of how its designed, the design needs a load
    > to start because thats the cheapest way to design a switcher.
    >
    > IT COST MORE TO DESIGN THE POWER SUPPLY TO START UNLOADED.


    Even when power is switched on an off by a hard wired switch?
    Even some AT supplies won't stay on without a load. The one I have that
    will not stay on unless I at least have a hard drive or two connected to
    it is an AT supply. Again, how is this cheaper?

    >
    > >>>>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    > >>>>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    > >>>>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?

    >
    > >>>>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    > >>>>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.

    >
    > >>>>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    > >>>>> whether or not there is a load during start up?

    >
    > >>>> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

    >
    > >>> Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    > >>> switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the
    > >>> switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?

    >
    > >> Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start unloaded.

    >
    > >>>>>>> and correct the problem long before
    > >>>>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.

    >
    > >>>>>> You may not notice that one channel
    > >>>>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.

    >
    > >>>>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts, thank you.

    >
    > >>>> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.

    >
    > >>> I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would notice it.

    >
    > >> And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    > >> you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.

    >
    > > Which never happens in my house.

    >
    > You and your house are completely and utterly irrelevant.
    >
    > >>>>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    > >>>>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!

    >
    > >>>>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'

    >
    > >>>>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.

    >
    > >>>>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.

    >
    > >>>>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.

    >
    > >>>> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.

    >
    > >>>>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.

    >
    > >>>>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.

    >
    > >>>> Wrong, as always.

    >
    > >>> So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?

    >
    > >> They dont.

    >
    > > Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.

    >
    > Wrong, as always. And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.


    And now you're saying none of them say this, which is wrong.

    >
    > >>>>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    > >>>>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,

    >
    > >>>> Lying, again.

    >
    > >>> How so? The very people who design them
    > >>> say it's not good to run them without a load.

    >
    > >> Plenty dont.

    >
    > > More of them do.

    >
    > You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.


    You give me that same line even when I say some.

    >
    > >>> You on the other hand are saying otherwise.

    >
    > >> Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    > >> the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.

    >
    > > Properly designed as in protection against this condition.
    > > Again, not the same as running without a load.

    >
    > Plenty of amps run fine without a load and without protection cutting in.


    Just as plenty of them don't.

    > >>>>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    > >>>>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    > >>>>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    > >>>>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.

    >
    > >>>>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.

    >
    > >>>>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    > >>>>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?

    >
    > >>>> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    > >>>> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.

    >
    > >>> Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.

    >
    > >>> Protection stops this from happening.

    >
    > >>> How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    > >>> a load, which is what you said you were doing?

    >
    > >> I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.

    >
    > > You said yours ran without a load and that continuing to run
    > > without one (if a speaker becomes disconnected) wouldn't hurt it.

    >
    > Yep, and I proved that the amp didnt give a damn when that happened.


    As I can (and have in the past) proved that a lot of amps do give a damn
    if this happens.
     
    David Matthew Wood, Sep 1, 2006
    #47
  8. .

    Rod Speed Guest

    David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <> wrote


    >>>>>>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    >>>>>>>>> protection against damage from shorts.


    >>>>>>>>> There. Done.


    >>>>>>>> Nothing like your original.


    >>>>>>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.


    >>>>>> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.


    >>>>> Protection against equipment damage, no.


    >>>> Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    >>>> protection against equipment damage.


    >>> Ok fine. But some isn't always good enough,


    >> Again, nothing like your original.


    > And?


    So you are fooling absolutely no one with your desperate backpeddling.

    >>> in which case I don't consider the equipment protected.


    >> Again, nothing like your original.


    > I said this a couple of times actually.


    Not in your original you never did.

    If you had said what you are saying now in your
    original, I wouldnt have commented on your original.

    I commented on your original because you mangled the story utterly.

    And you are still mangling the story completely
    with power supplys starting unloaded.

    >>>>> That is what the thread was about.


    >>>>>>> If you had followed the thread which is what I had
    >>>>>>> been doing, "protection against damaged from shorts"
    >>>>>>> would have been assumed, as it is all in context.


    >>>>>> Its just plain wrong even with just shorted outputs, and
    >>>>>> those clearly werent the only thing being discussed
    >>>>>> because you went on to stupidly claim that they dont
    >>>>>> have any protection against running unloaded either.


    >>>>> Because you said you were running it unloaded.


    >>>> Lying, again. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    >>>> before I ever said anything about what I was doing.


    >>> Lying that you said you were running it unloaded?


    >> Lying about the BECAUSE. You made that stupid pig ignorant claim
    >> about running the power supply unloaded BEFORE I ever said a thing.


    > Nope.


    Yep.
    http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/msg/13f72b7e160b75fa

    >>> let's look back a bit:


    >>> Me: since it is bad for a power supply to run without a load.


    >>> You: Oh bullshit.


    >>> me: really? Why don't you try it then.


    >>> You: Done that plenty of times thanks."


    >>> hmm..


    >> Humming aint gunna save your bacon, you clearly made that
    >> stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded BEFORE
    >> I said anything, so you are clearly lying with your BECAUSE.


    > Nope.



    Yep.
    http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/msg/13f72b7e160b75fa

    >>>>> Now if you're running it unloaded and protection kicks in on it,


    >>>> It doesnt with PC power supplys, it either fails to
    >>>> start because some wont start without a load, or
    >>>> it runs fine unloaded if its happy to start unloaded.


    >>> If it runs unloaded, it's not running fine at all.


    >> Wrong, as always.


    > Nope.


    Yep, some power supplys will run fine unloaded.

    >>> Quite unstable actually.


    >> Wrong, as always.


    > So now you're saying that power supplies
    > are perfectly stable under NO load......


    Yep, some handle that fine.

    > nope.


    Fraid so.

    >>>>> that's not exactly continuing to run it unloaded, now is it?


    >>>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed.


    >>> Not if it is shut off in order to not run unloaded.


    >> Pity that if it does shut down ITS CLEARLY PROTECTED AGAINST
    >> RUNNING THAT WAY, and if it doesnt shut down IT CANT DAMAGE
    >> ANYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS CONNECTED TO IS.


    > How would it damage something that isn't connected to it?


    Precisely.

    > Where did that come from?


    Your stupid claim that it shuts down to protect anything when its unloaded.

    >>>>>>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.


    >>>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY
    >>>>>> protection.


    >>>>> Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.


    >>>> It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.


    >>> And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted
    >>> rail. Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against equipment
    >>> damage as well - in this case, the supply itself.


    >> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    >> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.


    > uh huh - and the better ones do.


    No one ever said they didnt.

    >>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about
    >>>> whether it has OTHER protection.


    >>> Took out the mobo when this happened,
    >>> actually. Not my idea of protection.


    >> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    >> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.


    > uh huh - and again, the better ones do.


    No one ever said they didnt.

    >>>>> That is what the thread was about.


    >>>> Lying, again.


    >>> OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.


    >> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >> No evidence that the OPs power supply damaged anything.


    > I never said the OP's power supply did damage anything!


    I never ever said you did.

    > His old PS died so he replaced it. The new one didn't power up
    > - he had something connection wrong. He fixed the connection
    > and then his machine booted up fine. Where did I say otherwise?


    You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that
    its bad for power supplys to run unloaded.

    >>>>>>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to itself.


    >>>>>> Lying now.


    >>>>> Why did you remove the statement this was about?


    >>>> I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    >>>> the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.


    >>> Oh crap.. lol my mistake! I took out your comment along with others
    >>> in order to keep the message short. Didn't mean to do that. Oops!
    >>> ^_^


    >> A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself |-)


    > Wow... at first I thought you just liked to troll in these
    > groups to argue and I wasn't going to stoop to your level,


    Corse you never ever argue yourself, eh ?

    > but damn.... you really are an ass!


    That was a JOKE you stupid fuckwit. It even had a
    smiley on the end for the terminally SOH challenged.

    >>>>>>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.


    >>>>>>>> There is no such animal.


    >>>>>>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.


    >>>>>> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.


    >>>>> So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    >>>>> a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?


    >>>> Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.


    >>> If the power supply handles it fine (which they
    >>> all do to a degree), then it has tolerance.


    >> Thats not what 'within tolerance' means.


    >>> It has to, since household current is not always stable. Storms,
    >>> big motors kicking on and off, etc. Again, voltage regulation.


    >> THERE IS NO TOLERANCE TO BE WITHIN.


    > It has to be designed to tolerate normal and unavoidable voltage fluctuations.


    Duh. THERE IS STILL NOW SPECIFIED TOLERANCE.

    > If the fluctuations are within a certain, threshold they are within tolerance.


    THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.

    > If input voltage is outside this threshold, the PS will shut down.


    Wrong again with spikes.

    > If the input voltage remains within this threshold, it is within tolerance.


    THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.

    > An AC supply is not perfectly 100% stable so therefore,
    > a PS has to be designed to tolerate this to a point.


    THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD WITH SPIKES.

    >>>>>>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    >>>>>>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.


    >>>>>>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    >>>>>>> has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.


    >>>>>> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    >>>>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    >>>>> Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.


    >>>> Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    >>>> too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.


    >>> I have one running in this computer that will not stay on
    >>> if there is nothing connected to the 5v good power line.


    >> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will
    >> start up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.


    >> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    >> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.


    > You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    > and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.


    No I didnt. You're lying, again.

    > Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    > powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.


    Irrelevant to anything I ever said.

    >>>>>>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    >>>>>>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.


    >>>>>> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted outputs.


    >>>>> The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.


    >>>> Pity you spewed your drivel about
    >>>> unloaded in your first post in this thread.


    >>> PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.


    >> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will
    >> start up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.


    >> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    >> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.


    > Again....
    > You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    > and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.


    No I didnt. You're lying, again.

    > Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    > powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.


    Irrelevant to anything I ever said.

    >>>>>>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.


    >>>>>> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    >>>>>> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.


    >>>>> You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.


    >>>> Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running unloaded.


    >>> Doesn't matter.


    >> Corse it does.


    >>> Obviously there is some protection against running it unloaded


    >> Nope, it just doesnt start that way.


    >>> - in which case I don't consider that actually running unloaded at all.


    >> There is no PROTECTION, it just doesnt start unloaded.


    >>>>> But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.


    >>>> There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power
    >>>> supply. Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at
    >>>> all unloaded.


    >>> If it doesn't start unloaded, then that's protection
    >>> against running non-stable, due to it being unloaded.


    >> Wrong, as always. There is no protection, it just doesnt start
    >> unloaded because of how its designed, the design needs a load
    >> to start because thats the cheapest way to design a switcher.


    >> IT COST MORE TO DESIGN THE POWER SUPPLY TO START UNLOADED.


    > Even when power is switched on an off by a hard wired switch?


    Yep.

    > Even some AT supplies won't stay on without a load.


    YEP, BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE TO HAVE
    THE POWER SUPPLY START UNLOADED.

    > The one I have that will not stay on unless I at least have a hard drive
    > or two connected to it is an AT supply. Again, how is this cheaper?


    You clearly know nothing about how switchers of that size are designed.

    Or anything else at all either.

    >>>>>>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    >>>>>>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    >>>>>>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?


    >>>>>>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    >>>>>>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.


    >>>>>>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    >>>>>>> whether or not there is a load during start up?


    >>>>>> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.


    >>>>> Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    >>>>> switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the
    >>>>> switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?


    >>>> Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start unloaded.


    >>>>>>>>> and correct the problem long before
    >>>>>>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.


    >>>>>>>> You may not notice that one channel
    >>>>>>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.


    >>>>>>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts,
    >>>>>>> thank you.


    >>>>>> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.


    >>>>> I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would
    >>>>> notice it.


    >>>> And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    >>>> you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.


    >>> Which never happens in my house.


    >> You and your house are completely and utterly irrelevant.


    >>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.


    >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    >>>>>>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!


    >>>>>>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'


    >>>>>>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.


    >>>>>>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.


    >>>>>>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.


    >>>>>> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.


    >>>>>>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.


    >>>>>>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.


    >>>>>> Wrong, as always.


    >>>>> So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?


    >>>> They dont.


    >>> Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.


    >> Wrong, as always. And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.


    > And now you're saying none of them say this,


    No I'm not, you pathological liar.

    > which is wrong.


    Pity I never ever said that.

    >>>>>>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    >>>>>>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,


    >>>>>> Lying, again.


    >>>>> How so? The very people who design them
    >>>>> say it's not good to run them without a load.


    >>>> Plenty dont.


    >>> More of them do.


    >> You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.


    > You give me that same line even when I say some.


    Lying, again.

    >>>>> You on the other hand are saying otherwise.


    >>>> Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    >>>> the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.


    >>> Properly designed as in protection against this condition.
    >>> Again, not the same as running without a load.


    >> Plenty of amps run fine without a load and without protection
    >> cutting in.


    > Just as plenty of them don't.


    Pity you previously claimed ALL.

    >>>>>>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    >>>>>>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    >>>>>>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    >>>>>>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.


    >>>>>>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.


    >>>>>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    >>>>>>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?


    >>>>>> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    >>>>>> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.


    >>>>> Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.


    >>>>> Protection stops this from happening.


    >>>>> How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    >>>>> a load, which is what you said you were doing?


    >>>> I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.


    >>> You said yours ran without a load and that continuing to run
    >>> without one (if a speaker becomes disconnected) wouldn't hurt it.


    >> Yep, and I proved that the amp didnt give a damn when that happened.


    > As I can (and have in the past) proved that a
    > lot of amps do give a damn if this happens.


    Pity you previously claimed ALL.
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 1, 2006
    #48
  9. In article <>,
    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    > David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > > Rod Speed <> wrote
    > >> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > >>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    > >>>> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > >>>>> Rod Speed <> wrote

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    > >>>>>>>>> protection against damage from shorts.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> There. Done.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Nothing like your original.

    >
    > >>>>>>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.

    >
    > >>>>>> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > >>>>> Protection against equipment damage, no.

    >
    > >>>> Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    > >>>> protection against equipment damage.

    >
    > >>> Ok fine. But some isn't always good enough,

    >
    > >> Again, nothing like your original.

    >
    > > And?

    >
    > So you are fooling absolutely no one with your desperate backpeddling.
    >
    > >>> in which case I don't consider the equipment protected.

    >
    > >> Again, nothing like your original.

    >
    > > I said this a couple of times actually.

    >
    > Not in your original you never did.


    This is true. Dunno why you continue to rub that in though, since it's
    been established already.

    > >> Pity that if it does shut down ITS CLEARLY PROTECTED AGAINST
    > >> RUNNING THAT WAY, and if it doesnt shut down IT CANT DAMAGE
    > >> ANYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS CONNECTED TO IS.

    >
    > > How would it damage something that isn't connected to it?

    >
    > Precisely.
    >
    > > Where did that come from?

    >
    > Your stupid claim that it shuts down to protect anything when its unloaded.


    Yes, in this case itself.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.

    >
    > >>>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have ANY
    > >>>>>> protection.

    >
    > >>>>> Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.

    >
    > >>>> It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.

    >
    > >>> And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted
    > >>> rail. Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against equipment
    > >>> damage as well - in this case, the supply itself.

    >
    > >> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    >
    > >> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    > >> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.

    >
    > > uh huh - and the better ones do.

    >
    > No one ever said they didnt.


    All ATX supplies are supposed to have this protection. Yet, I have seen
    cheaper ones that don't.

    >
    > >>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about
    > >>>> whether it has OTHER protection.

    >
    > >>> Took out the mobo when this happened,
    > >>> actually. Not my idea of protection.

    >
    > >> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    >
    > >> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    > >> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.

    >
    > > uh huh - and again, the better ones do.

    >
    > No one ever said they didnt.


    So clearly this was a cheaper design that failed to comply with spec.

    >
    > >>>>> That is what the thread was about.

    >
    > >>>> Lying, again.

    >
    > >>> OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.

    >
    > >> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    >
    > >> No evidence that the OPs power supply damaged anything.

    >
    > > I never said the OP's power supply did damage anything!

    >
    > I never ever said you did.


    Then why did you even bring it up, saying that there was no evidence
    that it DID damage something?

    >
    > > His old PS died so he replaced it. The new one didn't power up
    > > - he had something connection wrong. He fixed the connection
    > > and then his machine booted up fine. Where did I say otherwise?

    >
    > You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.
    >
    > And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that
    > its bad for power supplys to run unloaded.


    Which is why there is protection to keep that from happening.
    >
    > >>>>>>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory to
    > >>>>>>> itself.

    >
    > >>>>>> Lying now.

    >
    > >>>>> Why did you remove the statement this was about?

    >
    > >>>> I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    > >>>> the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.

    >
    > >>> Oh crap.. lol my mistake! I took out your comment along with others
    > >>> in order to keep the message short. Didn't mean to do that. Oops!
    > >>> ^_^

    >
    > >> A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself |-)

    >
    > > Wow... at first I thought you just liked to troll in these
    > > groups to argue and I wasn't going to stoop to your level,

    >
    > Corse you never ever argue yourself, eh ?
    >
    > > but damn.... you really are an ass!

    >
    > That was a JOKE you stupid fuckwit. It even had a
    > smiley on the end for the terminally SOH challenged.


    I didn't think it was at all funny. In fact, it comes across that you
    are a raciest ass is what it does.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> There is no such animal.

    >
    > >>>>>>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.

    >
    > >>>>>> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.

    >
    > >>>>> So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    > >>>>> a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?

    >
    > >>>> Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.

    >
    > >>> If the power supply handles it fine (which they
    > >>> all do to a degree), then it has tolerance.

    >
    > >> Thats not what 'within tolerance' means.

    >
    > >>> It has to, since household current is not always stable. Storms,
    > >>> big motors kicking on and off, etc. Again, voltage regulation.

    >
    > >> THERE IS NO TOLERANCE TO BE WITHIN.

    >
    > > It has to be designed to tolerate normal and unavoidable voltage
    > > fluctuations.

    >
    > Duh. THERE IS STILL NOW SPECIFIED TOLERANCE.


    I know there is NOW specified tolerance.

    >
    > > If the fluctuations are within a certain, threshold they are within
    > > tolerance.

    >
    > THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.


    But a threshold nonetheless.

    >
    > > If input voltage is outside this threshold, the PS will shut down.

    >
    > Wrong again with spikes.


    Shutting down due to under voltage.
    There should still be protection against damage from spikes though.
    Cheaper supplies tend to not have as good protection however.

    Either way, there is a specified range between 100 and 127 volts (or 200
    and 240) in which the power supply should function as normal.

    >
    > > If the input voltage remains within this threshold, it is within tolerance.

    >
    > THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.


    100-127
    or
    200-240 as per ATX spec.

    >
    > > An AC supply is not perfectly 100% stable so therefore,
    > > a PS has to be designed to tolerate this to a point.

    >
    > THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD WITH SPIKES.


    again
    100-127
    or
    200-240 as per ATX spec.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    > >>>>>>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though, this
    > >>>>>>> has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.

    >
    > >>>>>> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    > >>>>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > >>>>> Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.

    >
    > >>>> Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    > >>>> too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.

    >
    > >>> I have one running in this computer that will not stay on
    > >>> if there is nothing connected to the 5v good power line.

    >
    > >> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will
    > >> start up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.

    >
    > >> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    > >> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.

    >
    > > You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    > > and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.

    >
    > No I didnt. You're lying, again.


    quite a while ago I said:
    However, on some power supplies, if there is a power
    surge or any other issue (which can be caused by a
    fried component on the motherboard), "Power Good"
    will also shut down the power supply if it malfunctions.

    To which you said:
    Nope

    Well, I have running in this machine a power supply that will not remain
    on if the Power Good line is not connected to anything. This counts as
    "any other issue".

    >
    > > Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    > > powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.

    >
    > Irrelevant to anything I ever said.


    Me:
    I have quite a few that will shut down if load on PG does not exist.

    You:
    Fantasy. There are quite a few that will shut down if the
    OUTPUT RAILS arent loaded, a different matter entirely.

    >
    > >>>>>>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    > >>>>>>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.

    >
    > >>>>>> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted
    > >>>>>> outputs.

    >
    > >>>>> The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.

    >
    > >>>> Pity you spewed your drivel about
    > >>>> unloaded in your first post in this thread.

    >
    > >>> PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.

    >
    > >> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will
    > >> start up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.

    >
    > >> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    > >> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.

    >
    > > Again....
    > > You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    > > and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.

    >
    > No I didnt. You're lying, again.


    Yes, you did.
    You said that what I was saying about some supplies not remaining
    powered up if the Power Good line is not connected to anything was
    "fantasy".

    >
    > > Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    > > powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.

    >
    > Irrelevant to anything I ever said.


    nope.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.

    >
    > >>>>>> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    > >>>>>> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.

    >
    > >>>>> You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.

    >
    > >>>> Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running
    > >>>> unloaded.

    >
    > >>> Doesn't matter.

    >
    > >> Corse it does.

    >
    > >>> Obviously there is some protection against running it unloaded

    >
    > >> Nope, it just doesnt start that way.

    >
    > >>> - in which case I don't consider that actually running unloaded at all.

    >
    > >> There is no PROTECTION, it just doesnt start unloaded.

    >
    > >>>>> But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.

    >
    > >>>> There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power
    > >>>> supply. Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at
    > >>>> all unloaded.

    >
    > >>> If it doesn't start unloaded, then that's protection
    > >>> against running non-stable, due to it being unloaded.

    >
    > >> Wrong, as always. There is no protection, it just doesnt start
    > >> unloaded because of how its designed, the design needs a load
    > >> to start because thats the cheapest way to design a switcher.

    >
    > >> IT COST MORE TO DESIGN THE POWER SUPPLY TO START UNLOADED.

    >
    > > Even when power is switched on an off by a hard wired switch?

    >
    > Yep.
    >
    > > Even some AT supplies won't stay on without a load.

    >
    > YEP, BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE TO HAVE
    > THE POWER SUPPLY START UNLOADED.
    >
    > > The one I have that will not stay on unless I at least have a hard drive
    > > or two connected to it is an AT supply. Again, how is this cheaper?

    >
    > You clearly know nothing about how switchers of that size are designed.
    >
    > Or anything else at all either.
    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    > >>>>>>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    > >>>>>>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    > >>>>>>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.

    >
    > >>>>>>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    > >>>>>>> whether or not there is a load during start up?

    >
    > >>>>>> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

    >
    > >>>>> Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    > >>>>> switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip the
    > >>>>> switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?

    >
    > >>>> Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start
    > >>>> unloaded.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> and correct the problem long before
    > >>>>>>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> You may not notice that one channel
    > >>>>>>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.

    >
    > >>>>>>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts,
    > >>>>>>> thank you.

    >
    > >>>>>> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the time.

    >
    > >>>>> I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would
    > >>>>> notice it.

    >
    > >>>> And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    > >>>> you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.

    >
    > >>> Which never happens in my house.

    >
    > >> You and your house are completely and utterly irrelevant.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    > >>>>>>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a short!

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.

    >
    > >>>>>>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.

    >
    > >>>>>> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.

    >
    > >>>>>> Wrong, as always.

    >
    > >>>>> So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?

    >
    > >>>> They dont.

    >
    > >>> Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.

    >
    > >> Wrong, as always. And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.

    >
    > > And now you're saying none of them say this,

    >
    > No I'm not, you pathological liar.
    >
    > > which is wrong.

    >
    > Pity I never ever said that.


    See? Even if I say "plenty" which is not "all", you still say they
    don't. And yet, they do.

    >
    > >>>>>>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    > >>>>>>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,

    >
    > >>>>>> Lying, again.

    >
    > >>>>> How so? The very people who design them
    > >>>>> say it's not good to run them without a load.

    >
    > >>>> Plenty dont.

    >
    > >>> More of them do.

    >
    > >> You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.

    >
    > > You give me that same line even when I say some.

    >
    > Lying, again.


    You just did.

    >
    > >>>>> You on the other hand are saying otherwise.

    >
    > >>>> Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    > >>>> the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.

    >
    > >>> Properly designed as in protection against this condition.
    > >>> Again, not the same as running without a load.

    >
    > >> Plenty of amps run fine without a load and without protection
    > >> cutting in.

    >
    > > Just as plenty of them don't.

    >
    > Pity you previously claimed ALL.


    Whether I say "All" or "plenty", you still say it's wrong. So why
    bother.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    > >>>>>>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    > >>>>>>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    > >>>>>>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective, stupid.

    >
    > >>>>>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    > >>>>>>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?

    >
    > >>>>>> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    > >>>>>> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.

    >
    > >>>>> Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.

    >
    > >>>>> Protection stops this from happening.

    >
    > >>>>> How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    > >>>>> a load, which is what you said you were doing?

    >
    > >>>> I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.

    >
    > >>> You said yours ran without a load and that continuing to run
    > >>> without one (if a speaker becomes disconnected) wouldn't hurt it.

    >
    > >> Yep, and I proved that the amp didnt give a damn when that happened.

    >
    > > As I can (and have in the past) proved that a
    > > lot of amps do give a damn if this happens.

    >
    > Pity you previously claimed ALL.


    Oh STFU.
     
    David Matthew Wood, Sep 1, 2006
    #49
  10. .

    Rod Speed Guest

    David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>>>> David Matthew Wood <> wrote
    >>>>>>> Rod Speed <> wrote


    >>>>>>>>>>> Some cheap power supplies don't have adequate
    >>>>>>>>>>> protection against damage from shorts.


    >>>>>>>>>>> There. Done.


    >>>>>>>>>> Nothing like your original.


    >>>>>>>>> In my original, I said cheap power supplies don't have protection.


    >>>>>>>> You actually said they dont have ANY protection.


    >>>>>>> Protection against equipment damage, no.


    >>>>>> Still just plain wrong. They ALL have SOME
    >>>>>> protection against equipment damage.


    >>>>> Ok fine. But some isn't always good enough,


    >>>> Again, nothing like your original.


    >>> And?


    >> So you are fooling absolutely no one with your desperate backpeddling.


    >>>>> in which case I don't consider the equipment protected.


    >>>> Again, nothing like your original.


    >>> I said this a couple of times actually.


    >> Not in your original you never did.


    > This is true. Dunno why you continue to rub that
    > in though, since it's been established already.


    Because you keep attempting to claim that you only ever made
    that comment in context and that is clearly a bare faced lie.

    >>>> Pity that if it does shut down ITS CLEARLY PROTECTED AGAINST
    >>>> RUNNING THAT WAY, and if it doesnt shut down IT CANT DAMAGE
    >>>> ANYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS CONNECTED TO IS.


    >>> How would it damage something that isn't connected to it?


    >> Precisely.


    >>> Where did that come from?


    >> Your stupid claim that it shuts down to protect anything when its unloaded.


    > Yes, in this case itself.


    Still wrong, the supply doesnt need any protection when running unloaded,
    it will either start fine unloaded and wont get damaged or it wont start.

    In spit of your original claim that has always been just plain wrong.

    >>>>>>>>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.


    >>>>>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have
    >>>>>>>> ANY protection.


    >>>>>>> Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.


    >>>>>> It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.


    >>>>> And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted
    >>>>> rail. Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against
    >>>>> equipment damage as well - in this case, the supply itself.


    >>>> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >>>> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >>>> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    >>>> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.


    >>> uh huh - and the better ones do.


    >> No one ever said they didnt.


    > All ATX supplies are supposed to have this protection.
    > Yet, I have seen cheaper ones that don't.


    No news.

    All ATX supplys are supposed to ensure that nothing powered
    from them can be killed if the power supply dies for whatever
    reason too, and there are plenty of examples of cheap supplys
    that have dies and taken some of what is powered from them
    with them when they die.

    That is NOT the same as not having ANY protection.

    >>>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about
    >>>>>> whether it has OTHER protection.


    >>>>> Took out the mobo when this happened,
    >>>>> actually. Not my idea of protection.


    >>>> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >>>> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >>>> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    >>>> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.


    >>> uh huh - and again, the better ones do.


    >> No one ever said they didnt.


    > So clearly this was a cheaper design that failed to comply with spec.


    Duh.

    >>>>>>> That is what the thread was about.


    >>>>>> Lying, again.


    >>>>> OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.


    >>>> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >>>> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >>>> No evidence that the OPs power supply damaged anything.


    >>> I never said the OP's power supply did damage anything!


    >> I never ever said you did.


    > Then why did you even bring it up, saying that there
    > was no evidence that it DID damage something?


    Because you made that stupid pig ignorant claim that
    some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.

    >>> His old PS died so he replaced it. The new one didn't power up
    >>> - he had something connection wrong. He fixed the connection
    >>> and then his machine booted up fine. Where did I say otherwise?


    >> You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    >> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.


    >> And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that
    >> its bad for power supplys to run unloaded.


    > Which is why there is protection to keep that from happening.


    No there isnt. They dont all start unloaded, in fact most dont
    start unloaded BUT THAT IS NOT DUE TO PRETECTION
    THATS BEEN ADDED TO STOP IT STARTING UNLOADED.

    Its because its cheaper to design the supply that way.

    >>>>>>>>> Either way, the statement you just now made is contradictory
    >>>>>>>>> to itself.


    >>>>>>>> Lying now.


    >>>>>>> Why did you remove the statement this was about?


    >>>>>> I didnt remove a thing, you pathological liar. YOU are
    >>>>>> the only one that has deleted anything from these posts.


    >>>>> Oh crap.. lol my mistake! I took out your comment along with
    >>>>> others in order to keep the message short. Didn't mean to do
    >>>>> that. Oops! ^_^


    >>>> A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself |-)


    >>> Wow... at first I thought you just liked to troll in these
    >>> groups to argue and I wasn't going to stoop to your level,


    >> Corse you never ever argue yourself, eh ?


    >>> but damn.... you really are an ass!


    >> That was a JOKE you stupid fuckwit. It even had a
    >> smiley on the end for the terminally SOH challenged.


    > I didn't think it was at all funny.


    You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
    irrelevant. What you may or may not think is funny in spades.

    > In fact, it comes across that you are a raciest ass is what it does.


    It was a JOKE, you stupid fuckwit clown.

    Dont laugh, see if I actually give a flying red **** whether you do or not.

    >>>>>>>>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.


    >>>>>>>>>> There is no such animal.


    >>>>>>>>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.


    >>>>>>>> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.


    >>>>>>> So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    >>>>>>> a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?


    >>>>>> Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.


    >>>>> If the power supply handles it fine (which they
    >>>>> all do to a degree), then it has tolerance.


    >>>> Thats not what 'within tolerance' means.


    >>>>> It has to, since household current is not always stable. Storms,
    >>>>> big motors kicking on and off, etc. Again, voltage regulation.


    >>>> THERE IS NO TOLERANCE TO BE WITHIN.


    >>> It has to be designed to tolerate normal and unavoidable voltage
    >>> fluctuations.


    >> Duh. THERE IS STILL NOW SPECIFIED TOLERANCE.


    > I know there is NOW specified tolerance.


    No you dont.

    >>> If the fluctuations are within a certain, threshold they are within
    >>> tolerance.


    >> THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.


    > But a threshold nonetheless.


    Nope.

    >>> If input voltage is outside this threshold, the PS will shut down.


    >> Wrong again with spikes.


    > Shutting down due to under voltage.


    They dont all do that either.

    > There should still be protection against damage from spikes though.
    > Cheaper supplies tend to not have as good protection however.


    Duh.

    > Either way, there is a specified range between 100 and 127 volts
    > (or 200 and 240) in which the power supply should function as normal.


    Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you made, AGAIN.

    >>> If the input voltage remains within this threshold, it is within tolerance.


    >> THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.


    > 100-127
    > or
    > 200-240 as per ATX spec.


    That aint the SPIKES you were clearly discussing,
    you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

    >>> An AC supply is not perfectly 100% stable so therefore,
    >>> a PS has to be designed to tolerate this to a point.


    >> THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD WITH SPIKES.


    > again
    > 100-127
    > or
    > 200-240 as per ATX spec.


    That aint the SPIKES you were clearly discussing,
    you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

    >>>>>>>>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    >>>>>>>>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.


    >>>>>>>>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though,
    >>>>>>>>> this has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.


    >>>>>>>> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    >>>>>>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    >>>>>>> Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.


    >>>>>> Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    >>>>>> too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.


    >>>>> I have one running in this computer that will not stay on
    >>>>> if there is nothing connected to the 5v good power line.


    >>>> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start
    >>>> up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.


    >>>> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    >>>> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.


    >>> You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    >>> and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.


    >> No I didnt. You're lying, again.


    > quite a while ago I said:
    > However, on some power supplies, if there is a power
    > surge or any other issue (which can be caused by a
    > fried component on the motherboard), "Power Good"
    > will also shut down the power supply if it malfunctions.


    > To which you said:
    > Nope


    Which is nothing like what you lied about me saying.

    > Well, I have running in this machine a power supply that will not
    > remain on if the Power Good line is not connected to anything.
    > This counts as "any other issue".


    Nothing like what you lied about me saying.

    And you are STILL just plain wrong with that original claim
    about the Power Good going down if something is fried on
    the motherboard. The Power Good line is a signal FROM
    THE POWER SUPPLY that its rails are all within spec.

    >>> Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    >>> powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.


    >> Irrelevant to anything I ever said.


    > Me:
    > I have quite a few that will shut down if load on PG does not exist.


    > You:
    > Fantasy. There are quite a few that will shut down if the
    > OUTPUT RAILS arent loaded, a different matter entirely.


    That claim about the power supply shutting
    down if the PG line isnt loaded is pure fantasy.

    And the ATX spec says NOTHING about that happening, let alone requiring that.

    >>>>>>>>> you're the one who brought up voltage spikes to begin with,
    >>>>>>>>> when that again has nothing to do with outputs being shorted.


    >>>>>>>> Pity you never restricted your original stupid claim to shorted
    >>>>>>>> outputs.


    >>>>>>> The thread was talking about shorted outputs. Take it in context.


    >>>>>> Pity you spewed your drivel about
    >>>>>> unloaded in your first post in this thread.


    >>>>> PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.


    >>>> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start
    >>>> up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.


    >>>> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    >>>> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.


    >>> Again....
    >>> You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    >>> and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.


    >> No I didnt. You're lying, again.


    > Yes, you did.


    No I didnt.

    > You said that what I was saying about some supplies not remaining powered
    > up if the Power Good line is not connected to anything was "fantasy".


    And it is. There are two parts to that lie of yours above.

    >>> Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    >>> powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.


    >> Irrelevant to anything I ever said.


    > nope.


    Yep.

    >>>>>>>>> Again, in context with the thread, it should have been assumed.


    >>>>>>>> Nope, not when you went on to make equally stupid claims about
    >>>>>>>> them not having any protection against running unloaded either.


    >>>>>>> You said you were continuing to run it unloaded.


    >>>>>> Only AFTER you made that stupid pig ignorant claim about running
    >>>>>> unloaded.


    >>>>> Doesn't matter.


    >>>> Corse it does.


    >>>>> Obviously there is some protection against running it unloaded


    >>>> Nope, it just doesnt start that way.


    >>>>> - in which case I don't consider that actually running unloaded at all.


    >>>> There is no PROTECTION, it just doesnt start unloaded.


    >>>>>>> But you can't continue to run it unloaded if protection kicks.


    >>>>>> There isnt any protection that kicks in with an unloaded pc power
    >>>>>> supply. Its either happy to start unloaded or it doesnt start at
    >>>>>> all unloaded.


    >>>>> If it doesn't start unloaded, then that's protection
    >>>>> against running non-stable, due to it being unloaded.


    >>>> Wrong, as always. There is no protection, it just doesnt start
    >>>> unloaded because of how its designed, the design needs a load
    >>>> to start because thats the cheapest way to design a switcher.


    >>>> IT COST MORE TO DESIGN THE POWER SUPPLY TO START UNLOADED.


    >>> Even when power is switched on an off by a hard wired switch?


    >> Yep.


    >>> Even some AT supplies won't stay on without a load.


    >> YEP, BECAUSE IT COSTS MORE TO HAVE
    >> THE POWER SUPPLY START UNLOADED.


    >>> The one I have that will not stay on unless I at least have a hard drive
    >>> or two connected to it is an AT supply. Again, how is this cheaper?


    >> You clearly know nothing about how switchers of that size are designed.


    >> Or anything else at all either.


    >>>>>>>>>>> Ok, so now you're saying is OK for ALL power
    >>>>>>>>>>> supplies to run WITHOUT a load - and yet, some
    >>>>>>>>>>> won't even power up without a load. Why is that?


    >>>>>>>>>> Basically because its cheaper to design it
    >>>>>>>>>> so that it needs some load to start properly.


    >>>>>>>>> How is it cheaper to add circuitry that senses
    >>>>>>>>> whether or not there is a load during start up?


    >>>>>>>> Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything
    >>>>>>>> like that.


    >>>>>>> Ok then, I have two power supplies, both with hard wired power
    >>>>>>> switches. One of them will fire up without a load when I flip
    >>>>>>> the switch. The other one will not. Why is the latter cheaper?


    >>>>>> Because it costs more to design a power supply so it will start
    >>>>>> unloaded.


    >>>>>>>>>>> and correct the problem long before
    >>>>>>>>>>> it has any chance to do any damage.


    >>>>>>>>>> You may not notice that one channel
    >>>>>>>>>> has died if you arent relatively close to it.


    >>>>>>>>> I notice it quite easily when my entire sound stage shifts,
    >>>>>>>>> thank you.


    >>>>>>>> You may not notice that if you arent even in that room at the
    >>>>>>>> time.


    >>>>>>> I'm in the room when I turned it on, and that's when I would
    >>>>>>> notice it.


    >>>>>> And if it becomes unloaded after you've turned it on,
    >>>>>> you may not be in the room when it becomes unloaded.


    >>>>> Which never happens in my house.


    >>>> You and your house are completely and utterly irrelevant.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny that. They're there for a reason.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, to prevent damage to the output transformers from
    >>>>>>>>>>>> attempting to run it without a load - or in the case of a
    >>>>>>>>>>>> short!


    >>>>>>>>>>>> There are no 'output transformers'


    >>>>>>>>>>> Then you're not using tube amps. Ok then.


    >>>>>>>>>> You never restricted your original claim to tube amps.


    >>>>>>>>> You never restricted your claim to solid state amps either.


    >>>>>>>> I never made any claim about amps, YOU did.


    >>>>>>>>>> And those care least about no speakers anyway.


    >>>>>>>>> Again, very bad for the output transformers.


    >>>>>>>> Wrong, as always.


    >>>>>>> So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?


    >>>>>> They dont.


    >>>>> Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.


    >>>> Wrong, as always. And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.


    >>> And now you're saying none of them say this,


    >> No I'm not, you pathological liar.


    >>> which is wrong.


    >> Pity I never ever said that.


    > See? Even if I say "plenty" which is not "all", you still say they don't.


    Lying, as always.

    > And yet, they do.


    Pity I never ever said that.

    >>>>>>>>> But hey since you continue to say you know better than
    >>>>>>>>> the very people who designed the amps in the first place,


    >>>>>>>> Lying, again.


    >>>>>>> How so? The very people who design them
    >>>>>>> say it's not good to run them without a load.


    >>>>>> Plenty dont.


    >>>>> More of them do.


    >>>> You stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.


    >>> You give me that same line even when I say some.


    >> Lying, again.


    > You just did.


    Lying, as always.

    >>>>>>> You on the other hand are saying otherwise.


    >>>>>> Lying, again. I JUST said that it doesnt necessarily kill
    >>>>>> the amp, most obviously when its properly designed.


    >>>>> Properly designed as in protection against this condition.
    >>>>> Again, not the same as running without a load.


    >>>> Plenty of amps run fine without a load and without protection
    >>>> cutting in.


    >>> Just as plenty of them don't.


    >> Pity you previously claimed ALL.


    > Whether I say "All" or "plenty", you still say it's wrong.


    Lying, as always.

    > So why bother.


    So why lie ?

    >>>>>>>>>>> And in better designs, the amp is shut down so that the
    >>>>>>>>>>> amp is now NOT running without a proper load, which
    >>>>>>>>>>> is the exact opposite of your claim that you've been
    >>>>>>>>>>> running your amps on high power with no speaker attached.


    >>>>>>>>>> No its not. It just means that the protection was effective,
    >>>>>>>>>> stupid.


    >>>>>>>> Effective protection shutting an amp down under this condition
    >>>>>>>>> is not exactly you running an amp without a load, now is it?


    >>>>>>>> Pity you only tried to run that line after your nose was rubbed
    >>>>>>>> in the terminal stupidity of your original claim about amps.


    >>>>>>> Amp is switched on and run at high power with no load.


    >>>>>>> Protection stops this from happening.


    >>>>>>> How is this CONTINUING to run said amp without
    >>>>>>> a load, which is what you said you were doing?


    >>>>>> I didnt say that I did it like that, liar.


    >>>>> You said yours ran without a load and that continuing to run
    >>>>> without one (if a speaker becomes disconnected) wouldn't hurt it.


    >>>> Yep, and I proved that the amp didnt give a damn when that
    >>>> happened.


    >>> As I can (and have in the past) proved that a
    >>> lot of amps do give a damn if this happens.


    >> Pity you previously claimed ALL.


    > Oh STFU.


    FTRES
     
    Rod Speed, Sep 2, 2006
    #50
  11. In article
    <44f8ce4e$0$26775$>,
    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    > >>>>> in which case I don't consider the equipment protected.

    >
    > >>>> Again, nothing like your original.

    >
    > >>> I said this a couple of times actually.

    >
    > >> Not in your original you never did.

    >
    > > This is true. Dunno why you continue to rub that
    > > in though, since it's been established already.

    >
    > Because you keep attempting to claim that you only ever made
    > that comment in context and that is clearly a bare faced lie.


    In context of the original poster's problem.

    >
    > >>>> Pity that if it does shut down ITS CLEARLY PROTECTED AGAINST
    > >>>> RUNNING THAT WAY, and if it doesnt shut down IT CANT DAMAGE
    > >>>> ANYTHING BECAUSE NOTHING IS CONNECTED TO IS.

    >
    > >>> How would it damage something that isn't connected to it?

    >
    > >> Precisely.

    >
    > >>> Where did that come from?

    >
    > >> Your stupid claim that it shuts down to protect anything when its
    > >> unloaded.

    >
    > > Yes, in this case itself.

    >
    > Still wrong, the supply doesnt need any protection when running unloaded,
    > it will either start fine unloaded and wont get damaged or it wont start.
    >
    > In spit of your original claim that has always been just plain wrong.


    My original claim is that some won't stay on if they don't see a load on
    power good. I have one of them in this computer. If I take away power
    good, it will shut off.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Case in point, power supply that smoked when it was shorted.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about whether it didnt have
    > >>>>>>>> ANY protection.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Protection against damage, no it obviously did not.

    >
    > >>>>>> It just didnt have protection AGAINST A SHORTED RAIL.

    >
    > >>>>> And therefore didn't have equipment protection against a shorted
    > >>>>> rail. Yes. Well, I also consider this protection against
    > >>>>> equipment damage as well - in this case, the supply itself.

    >
    > >>>> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > >>>> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    >
    > >>>> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    > >>>> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.

    >
    > >>> uh huh - and the better ones do.

    >
    > >> No one ever said they didnt.

    >
    > > All ATX supplies are supposed to have this protection.
    > > Yet, I have seen cheaper ones that don't.

    >
    > No news.


    Which is what I meant by "don't have any protection". Again, in context
    to the original post in this thread.

    >
    > All ATX supplys are supposed to ensure that nothing powered
    > from them can be killed if the power supply dies for whatever
    > reason too, and there are plenty of examples of cheap supplys
    > that have dies and taken some of what is powered from them
    > with them when they die.
    >
    > That is NOT the same as not having ANY protection.


    Well they certainly don't have protection against shorted rails, which
    they are all supposed to! Therefore, I don't consider this protection!
    If it's not up to spec, it's not what I consider protection.

    >
    > >>>>>> Says nothing useful what so ever about
    > >>>>>> whether it has OTHER protection.

    >
    > >>>>> Took out the mobo when this happened,
    > >>>>> actually. Not my idea of protection.

    >
    > >>>> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > >>>> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    >
    > >>>> ALL THAT SHOWS IS THAT THOSE DONT HAVE
    > >>>> PROTECTION AGAINST A SHORTED OUTPUT.

    >
    > >>> uh huh - and again, the better ones do.

    >
    > >> No one ever said they didnt.

    >
    > > So clearly this was a cheaper design that failed to comply with spec.

    >
    > Duh.
    >
    > >>>>>>> That is what the thread was about.

    >
    > >>>>>> Lying, again.

    >
    > >>>>> OP said it didn't power up because a cable was not connected correctly.

    >
    > >>>> Pity you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed that SOME CHEAP
    > >>>> POWER SUPPLYS DONT HAVE ANY PROTECTION.

    >
    > >>>> No evidence that the OPs power supply damaged anything.

    >
    > >>> I never said the OP's power supply did damage anything!

    >
    > >> I never ever said you did.

    >
    > > Then why did you even bring it up, saying that there
    > > was no evidence that it DID damage something?

    >
    > Because you made that stupid pig ignorant claim that
    > some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.


    If their protection isn't up to spec, I don't consider it protection.

    > >> That was a JOKE you stupid fuckwit. It even had a
    > >> smiley on the end for the terminally SOH challenged.

    >
    > > I didn't think it was at all funny.

    >
    > You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
    > irrelevant. What you may or may not think is funny in spades.


    Whether or not that was a joke is also irrelevant. Either way though,
    it shows you're a raciest. That's too bad, really.

    >
    > > In fact, it comes across that you are a raciest ass is what it does.

    >
    > It was a JOKE, you stupid fuckwit clown.


    A joke a raciest would make.

    > Dont laugh, see if I actually give a flying red **** whether you do or not.


    DAMN! Someone's got something shoved up his ass, and it's not me.

    > >>>>>>>>>>> The spikes are within tolerance.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>>> There is no such animal.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> You must have some reallllyyyyy cleeeaaaaaaaannnnn power then.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Nope, I'm just saying that there is no TOLERANCE to be within.

    >
    > >>>>>>> So you're basically saying that the voltage you get from a household
    > >>>>>>> a/c outlet is a CONSTANT 120, and NEVER fluctuates at all?

    >
    > >>>>>> Nope, THAT THERE IS NO TOLERANCE SPECIFIED WITH SPIKES.

    >
    > >>>>> If the power supply handles it fine (which they
    > >>>>> all do to a degree), then it has tolerance.

    >
    > >>>> Thats not what 'within tolerance' means.

    >
    > >>>>> It has to, since household current is not always stable. Storms,
    > >>>>> big motors kicking on and off, etc. Again, voltage regulation.

    >
    > >>>> THERE IS NO TOLERANCE TO BE WITHIN.

    >
    > >>> It has to be designed to tolerate normal and unavoidable voltage
    > >>> fluctuations.

    >
    > >> Duh. THERE IS STILL NOW SPECIFIED TOLERANCE.

    >
    > > I know there is NOW specified tolerance.

    >
    > No you dont.


    You said "THERE IS STILL NOW SPECIFIED TOLERANCE". And yes, there is.

    >
    > >>> If the fluctuations are within a certain, threshold they are within
    > >>> tolerance.

    >
    > >> THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.

    >
    > > But a threshold nonetheless.

    >
    > Nope.


    So then you're saying that a power supply will fail to work if input
    voltages changes just by a couple of volts? Glad I don't have any such
    beast here.

    > >>> If input voltage is outside this threshold, the PS will shut down.

    >
    > >> Wrong again with spikes.

    >
    > > Shutting down due to under voltage.

    >
    > They dont all do that either.


    Then they're not up to ATX spec. What kind of protection is that?

    > > There should still be protection against damage from spikes though.
    > > Cheaper supplies tend to not have as good protection however.

    >
    > Duh.
    >
    > > Either way, there is a specified range between 100 and 127 volts
    > > (or 200 and 240) in which the power supply should function as normal.

    >
    > Irrelevant to that stupid pig ignorant claim you made, AGAIN.
    >
    > >>> If the input voltage remains within this threshold, it is within
    > >>> tolerance.

    >
    > >> THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD.

    >
    > > 100-127
    > > or
    > > 200-240 as per ATX spec.

    >
    > That aint the SPIKES you were clearly discussing,
    > you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.


    A spike can refer to any short period of overvoltage condition. If a
    supply is rated for 110 and it gets a spike of 127, that is within
    spec'ed tolerance and the supply is not supposed to have a problem with
    this. 127 may not be a damaging spike, but it is still a spike
    nonetheless.

    > >>> An AC supply is not perfectly 100% stable so therefore,
    > >>> a PS has to be designed to tolerate this to a point.

    >
    > >> THERE IS NO SPECIFIED THRESHOLD WITH SPIKES.

    >
    > > again
    > > 100-127
    > > or
    > > 200-240 as per ATX spec.

    >
    > That aint the SPIKES you were clearly discussing,
    > you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.


    I wasn't discussing spikes! I only mentioned the word spike - which can
    refer to any short period of overvoltage. A power supply is supposed to
    handle this quite happily up to 127 - quite a bit above the juice you
    are supposed to be getting from a power outlet.

    > >>>>>>>>>> And there has to be protection against mains spikes, otherwise
    > >>>>>>>>>> no power supply thats used on the mains will last very long.

    >
    > >>>>>>>>> Yes, that is why we have voltage regulators. Again though,
    > >>>>>>>>> this has nothing to do with the output of the supply being shorted.

    >
    > >>>>>>>> Has everything to do with your original stupid claim that
    > >>>>>>>> some cheap power supplys dont have ANY protection.

    >
    > >>>>>>> Protection against shorts. Again, context of the thread.

    >
    > >>>>>> Again, pity YOU also raved on mindlessly about unloaded
    > >>>>>> too IN YOUR FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD.

    >
    > >>>>> I have one running in this computer that will not stay on
    > >>>>> if there is nothing connected to the 5v good power line.

    >
    > >>>> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start
    > >>>> up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.

    >
    > >>>> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    > >>>> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.

    >
    > >>> You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    > >>> and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.

    >
    > >> No I didnt. You're lying, again.

    >
    > > quite a while ago I said:
    > > However, on some power supplies, if there is a power
    > > surge or any other issue (which can be caused by a
    > > fried component on the motherboard), "Power Good"
    > > will also shut down the power supply if it malfunctions.

    >
    > > To which you said:
    > > Nope

    >
    > Which is nothing like what you lied about me saying.


    You said that in several posts back. I have a power supply running in
    this computer that will indeed shut down if I cut "power good"! PERIOD.

    > >>> Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    > >>> powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.

    >
    > >> Irrelevant to anything I ever said.

    >
    > > Me:
    > > I have quite a few that will shut down if load on PG does not exist.

    >
    > > You:
    > > Fantasy. There are quite a few that will shut down if the
    > > OUTPUT RAILS arent loaded, a different matter entirely.

    >
    > That claim about the power supply shutting
    > down if the PG line isnt loaded is pure fantasy.


    I have one right here, running my computer. If I cut PG, it WILL turn
    off!

    > And the ATX spec says NOTHING about that happening, let alone requiring that.


    But some still do. I have one!

    > >>>>> PG, yes. I have such a beast running in this machine.

    >
    > >>>> No surprises there, its more common than power supplys that will start
    > >>>> up fine unloaded. BECAUSE ITS CHEAPER TO DESIGN THEM LIKE THAT.

    >
    > >>>> Doesnt say anything useful ABOUT ANYTHING GETTING DAMAGED
    > >>>> IN THAT CONFIG. THE SUPPLY JUST FAILS TO START.

    >
    > >>> Again....
    > >>> You said in an earlier post that ALL power supplies start up fine
    > >>> and stay running without the 5v Power Good line being connected.

    >
    > >> No I didnt. You're lying, again.

    >
    > > Yes, you did.

    >
    > No I didnt.
    >
    > > You said that what I was saying about some supplies not remaining powered
    > > up if the Power Good line is not connected to anything was "fantasy".

    >
    > And it is. There are two parts to that lie of yours above.


    First you say there is not a load on power good. Then you say it's
    cheaper to design a supply that will not turn on if there is no load on
    power good. THEN you say the lack of a load on power good does not turn
    off a supply....now you're saying it does. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

    >
    > >>> Yet, I have one in this machine that does not stay
    > >>> powered if the 5v Power Good line is not connected.

    >
    > >> Irrelevant to anything I ever said.

    >
    > > nope.

    >
    > Yep.


    How? Yon contradicted your own statement about power good a couple of
    times just a few lines above this one!

    > >>>>>>> So why do all amp manufacturers say to never run without a load?

    >
    > >>>>>> They dont.

    >
    > >>>>> Plenty of them do - even for tube amps.

    >
    > >>>> Wrong, as always. And you stupidly pig ignorantly claimed ALL.

    >
    > >>> And now you're saying none of them say this,

    >
    > >> No I'm not, you pathological liar.

    >
    > >>> which is wrong.

    >
    > >> Pity I never ever said that.

    >
    > > See? Even if I say "plenty" which is not "all", you still say they don't.

    >
    > Lying, as always.
    >
    > > And yet, they do.

    >
    > Pity I never ever said that.


    You just did, by telling me I was wrong when I said plenty of them warn
    you not to run an amp without a load!
     
    David Matthew Wood, Sep 2, 2006
    #51
  12. .

    Guest

    .. wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Unplug everything except the motherboard
    > > and see if the cpu fan comes on and stays on.
    > >
    > > If it does, plug the hard drive in and see if it will boot
    > > with just the motherboard and hard drive connected etc.

    >
    > Thanks to you and all who responded.
    >
    > My original post asserted that I wasn't an engineer. True. But I
    > solved the problem with your advice above, thinking systematically like
    > an engineer. I disconnected the power supply and connected everything
    > one by one, and the computer is now fully functional. From a little
    > research I did, I think my issue was that I'd connected the 3.5" floppy
    > power incorrectly or partially.


    Missed a pin huh? :) From the sounds of it, it was probably not a hot
    wire... Good thing, smoke a floppy drive otherwise. :)

    > I also appreciate everyone's point about not being cheap. In 15+ years
    > of heavy computer use, i've never had a PSU go bad on me. But given all
    > the heartache this burnout caused, I'll from now on spend the extra
    > money for an Antec or other name brand supply. If I'd lost something
    > really important and known that an extra $40-50 would have averted the
    > disaster, I'd have been kicking myself.


    Do yourself a big favor, plan a disaster recovery situation now, while
    you can. IE: Backups. :) Backup the data your concerned with. PSU unit
    failures are a common thing, regardless of the name stamped on the PSU
    unit. All PSU's will eventually fail, that's life. The idea is, your
    data doesn't go down with the machine. :)
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #52
  13. .

    Guest

    Dave C. wrote:

    > Poor quality power supplies have two very nasty habits:


    I've seen an Antec and a Seatronic (neither are considered, poor
    quality) both die, and both took out the cpu/mainboard. You could still
    boot the cpu on another board, but diagnostics with hotcpu test would
    indicate bad l2 cache on the processor. You could verify this later by
    failed windows installations.

    > 1) They die early (that is GUARANTEED, btw), often shortly after leaving
    > the factory


    Really depends on several factors... Power line conditions to your
    home, weather conditions outside your home, whether or not your home
    has a good electrical ground to earth...

    > 2) With no built-in component protection, they often take other components
    > with them, when they die. In other words, cheap power supplies kill


    A power surge strong enough is going to pass most/all PSU units and
    toast other hardware.

    > motherboards, hard drives, CPUs, RAM, etc.
    >
    > Your post is about TWO poor quality power supplies. I suspect that the
    > first one died ungracefully, taking the motherboard out with it. The second
    > one can't even power itself, apparently.


    Nah....It really depends. I agree, he's being cheap, but.. :)

    > It's your money, but people don't seem to understand that often spending an
    > extra 40 bucks or so on a GOOD power supply can save a complete rebuild,
    > costing hundreds of bucks. -Dave


    Tell that to emachine. :) Best Tec strikes again should have been it's
    selling logo.. hehe

    The standby voltage on a bad best tec, will jump to 6+ volts, toasting
    the poor mainboard. Emachine knew of this problem for several years. I
    wonder how many emachine owners replaced a power supply, only to find
    the board/cpu were bad too? heh.
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #53
  14. .

    Guest

    wrote:

    > It lasted about three weeks, or the first power fluctuation - Lost the
    > power supply and mother board.


    And while your forking out the hard earned cash on a good PSU, get a
    good UPS as well. What's the point of a nice PSU if you have dirty
    power coming into it? :(

    > Just agreeing with you, One should not scrimp on the power supply, buy
    > the best.


    And don't be a cheap bastard when it comes to protecting it, either.

    Tripplite/APC are your friends, get a UPS, be a happy person. No power
    flucuations. The nicer ones always run your box on an isolated circuit
    actually fed by the battery. A true square wave is what you want to
    shoot for.
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #54
  15. .

    Guest

    David Matthew Wood wrote:


    > Yes, and while it doesn't directly have anything to do with Power Good,
    > such power supplies don't provide any protection either. If you try to
    > fire up a GOOD supply and it doesn't observe the correct loads (either
    > from not being properly connected or from something that is shorting),
    > it will shut down in order to prevent damage since it is bad for a power
    > supply to run without a load. Same goes with amps. If you power up an


    Who told you such nonsense? A power supply isn't like an Amplifier,
    well, it sort of is electronically, but running one without a load
    isn't going to hurt it. Your not increasing voltage, your dropping it!

    > amp and crank the volume without speakers attached, it will either a, go
    > into thermal shut down, or b, self-destruct.


    Not the same concept... And this mainly applies to radio equipment and
    some poor quality amplifiers. It's the SWR I think that your talking
    about. Firing up a cb radio for example with no antenna and
    transmitting can damage the finals (transistors...)... but, for
    receive, it doesn't hurt anything. Just don't key the mic. :)
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #55
  16. .

    Guest

    David Matthew Wood wrote:

    > What, that cheap POS power supplies don't shut down right away if
    > something is shorting? Well lets see. I have some sitting around that


    Some power supplies shut down when the voltage request goes too high;
    IE: ground out condition, sure. Some do not, some will fight by
    increasing available amps until something gives.. These power supplies
    think your just requesting more power.

    > will not power up at all because something in the machine shorted them
    > out. I have others sitting around that still power up and work just
    > fine after being shorted out, because they shut down right away before
    > damage was done.


    I suspect if you pop the case on a bad one and go probing, you'll find
    a blown diode is causing the power supply to play dead.

    > Shutting down before damage is done you mean. I've witnessed both.


    Damage with electronics can happen the instant power is applied. No
    circuit in the world can protect for every situation.

    > A, something will short out and PS will smoke.
    > or
    > B, something will short out and PS will turn off. In which case, after
    > dealing with whatever caused the short, the power supply will come to
    > life and work just fine.


    Or option C, the power supply has a safety diode, in the event
    something is wired up reverse, the diode blows before anything else
    does.

    > Oh really? Why don't you try it then. Force a cheap power supply on
    > and let it run for a while without a load. See what happens.


    Not a damn thing is going to happen. Do you know why? Because the power
    supply is a glorified step down transformer, ac/dc converter and
    partial noise filter, nothing more, nothing less. No "load" damage to
    speak of. If this nonsense were true, people plugging in nintendos,
    ataris, etc, (coleco anyone?) would have torched their PSU a long time
    ago. :)


    Power supplies do not increase current, they do not have final output
    transistors, they do not get signal reflection.. IE: a no load
    condition is not going to hurt them in the least bit.

    Want to run it for awhile with no load to see for yourself? (Btw, the
    power supply has a cooling fan, so it's already got a load on power
    up...) Take a paperclip, find the thin purple wire, short it against
    one of the black wires (doesn't really matter which, they're all
    ground, all goto the same place in the PSU too), and it'll power up and
    remain on so long as the paperclip is in place.

    You can even take voltage readings from the psu unit in this state,
    without any worry that you risk harming the rest of the computer in the
    event the psu is unstable.

    > Again...oh really? Take a high current amplifier, give it an audio
    > feed, disconnect anything that will create a load on the outputs, crank
    > the levels, and see what happens.


    This isn't the same. You get signal reflection, the load is necessary
    to absorb most of it. A power supply doesn't have any signal
    reflection, it's not amplifying anything. It's taking 120volts AC,
    converting it to 12+, 5+, 7.5+, 12-, 5- volts dc current..

    Your confusing a power supply with a radio transmitter..
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #56
  17. .

    Guest

    David Matthew Wood wrote:

    > Um.... no. Many years ago, I overestimated the space between the bottom
    > of a hard drive and the metal frame of the case. Turned machine on,
    > drive control board shorted and smoked. Because of this short, power
    > supply also smoked. How is that an assumption exactly?


    That doesn't mean the power supply had no protection, it means you
    managed to short out the 12 volt and 5volt rails.. Very stupid on your
    part.

    > And again later, I unknowingly had a bad power connector which turned
    > out to be shorted. Fired up the supply, it came on for not even half a


    I suspect if you had shorted both rails as you did previously, said
    power supply might have died a horrible death. It depends on it's
    internal design, of course.

    > second, and turned itself off again. Short was cleared, power was fired
    > up again, and all was well.


    Did you get an amp reading? If not, you can't be sure the power supply
    was okay. You also can't be sure the initial short didn't cause some
    components to become weak, and shorten the life of the power supply.


    > I had one smoke due to this.


    One rail, probably not, both rails to ground (which ehh, is what you
    obviously did) might/can kill a power supply.

    > Yes, and the better designed supplies shut down before this happens -
    > just as the better designs shut off in time to save themselves if they
    > are shorted.


    Not always. :)


    > Then why do the manufacturers of these very supplies advise against this?


    Do you have a url for a psu manufacturer who advises against running
    them with no load? (note this isn't actually possible, the psu itself
    places a load on some of it's own components, so really it is under
    load the entire time..)

    > high power, it will eventually kill the amp - if it doesn't trip the
    > protection circuits first!


    An amp isn't the same as a psu in your computer. Your amp is taking a
    small electrical signal and boosting it, possibly cleaning it up, and
    sending it on thru. Your power supply isn't boosting anything, it's
    reducing and converting, and if it's a really good one, doing some
    fairly nice square wave filtering.

    > Well since you seem to know more than the people who made these amps,
    > all of whom say NEVER run an amp without a load...


    A linear amplifier, shouldn't be run without a load, you will hurt it,
    The SWR will blow the finals.. A stereo amplifier isn't the same idea.
    I had big amps in the 80s when I was growing up, big stereo amps, from
    the old school stereo systems. Didn't hurt them a bit to fire it up
    with no speakers attached. I've got two peaveys here that don't mind
    either. :)

    > And while these speakers are being over driven, you are still driving
    > them and thus the amp is seeing a load! How long after completely
    > melting the speaker coils, have you run this amp exactly? How long have
    > you let it run under constant high power without a load? Do you
    > actually test this by turning the volume up higher and higher AFTER you
    > manage to blow the speakers?


    You do realize, unless you have a load on the amp, nothing is using any
    amplified signal right? Your not transmitting via an antenna, Your
    amplifyer isn't actually having to work unless/until a speaker is
    connected, regardless of your volume setting.

    I've blown several sets of car speakers using car amps, household amps,
    etc etc etc, left one running all night when I passed out once. :) I
    awoke to burned up speakers, but the amp was perfectly fine, connected
    new speakers, walla, tunes blaring again.

    A stereo amplifier isn't the same as a radio amplifier, such as a
    linear for ham/cb rig. The reason those will blow is due to the SWR,
    it's a signal reflection from the finals, Without a load (dummy load or
    antenna) the RF energy comes back to the finals, toasting them in the
    process. A car/home/house/guitar amp doesn't work like this.
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #57
  18. .

    Guest

    Rod Speed wrote:

    > There are no 'output transformers'


    Output transistors :) They do the real work inside the amp.. hehe.

    > There are no 'output transformers'


    Maybe he's talking about the little coil that sorta looks like a small
    transformer? :)
    (it's only purpose is to keep the signal cleaner.. heh)

    You know, if the guy was talking about an amplifier for a radio
    transmitter, he'd be right in the sense it shouldn't be run without a
    load, but an audio amplifier doesn't generate RF....
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #58
  19. .

    Guest

    Rod Speed wrote:

    > Basically because its cheaper to design it
    > so that it needs some load to start properly.


    Aye.. It is cheaper. It saves them a few capacitors... Hence the need
    for a load; You'd think they'd settle for the cooling fan.. but ah
    well.

    > And those care least about no speakers anyway.


    Tube amps are extremely forgiving as compared to the transistorized
    brothers.

    Tube amps is a really bad example for claiming no load kills them. They
    are hard to kill... very hard. He was better off trying to claim
    transistorized amps would die without a load.. It was more belivable.
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #59
  20. .

    Guest

    Plato wrote:
    > Lookout wrote:
    > >
    > > If all you hook up to the power supply is the MOBO (no RAM or CPU) and
    > > you can't even get to post (a beep, no beeps at all) then your problem
    > > is probably (98%) a fried MOBO. Just hope it didn't go any further.

    >
    > There are generally two things that cause a major smell when they burn
    > out:
    >
    > 1. Monitor
    > 2. The Case Power Supply


    You forgot two.. off the top of my head. A lightning striked NIC card
    and modem, god awful smell. :)
     
    , Sep 2, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paminifarm

    Fried Another Power Supply Box

    Paminifarm, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    631
    Duck ducking
    Nov 25, 2004
  2. jeff
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    831
  3. Mark

    Fried a Power Supply

    Mark, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    1,675
  4. TeeJay1952

    Re: Power Supply Fried???

    TeeJay1952, Dec 15, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    616
    TeeJay1952
    Dec 15, 2009
  5. udz2002

    Replaced power supply now computer won't boot

    udz2002, Sep 23, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    7,575
    Patrick
    Sep 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page