A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » The Basics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old November 13th 06, 01:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Pappion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

I only wanted to know if I should keep my Zone Alarm operating when I have
XP Pro, and a DSL firewall in the modem--it was turned on by going to my IE
browser and entering my IP address, and clicking "ON." That's all I needed.

the only time I've had a fried situation was after leaving home for a week,
and returning I had no Internet. It was really the phone cord (I'd forgotten
to unplug it from the wall outlet), and it was a 50' cord that had to go
from my office, over the doorways, into another room, and it was fried. My
modem did have to be replaced, but nothing else was affected, except my
pride.
thank you.
"Leythos" wrote in message
. ..
In article .com,
says...
Leythos wrote:
interesting to see that you've changed your message to state "sub-$100"
instead of just UPS, as it appears you learned from your mistake in the
past.


I have not changed anything. We were always discussing what DanS has
now described as a sub-$100 UPS - also known as a computer grade UPS or
what most everyone has when they use UPSes. This was always defined as
different from other UPSes such as the building wide UPS that may do
power conditioning AND that has that dedicated earthing wire. But
computer users typically use the sub-$100 UPS - which is what was
discussed previously, These UPSes connect AC mains directly to
appliance. So where is this power conditioning? It exists in urban
myths.


And my SU2200 and SU3000 and even the APC Su700 and Backup ES700 units
have protected MANY devices from protective surges that damaged devices
connected to the same AC circuit.

We (myself and others) listed the above devices and you refused to reply
back about them, but, the fact is that no matter what you say, what you
type, those devices, in my experience, have clearly shown to protect
devices against surges while other unprotected equipment of the same
protected type has been damaged.

--


remove 999 in order to email me



Ads
  #47  
Old November 13th 06, 01:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

"Pappion" wrote in
:

I only wanted to know if I should keep my Zone Alarm operating when I
have XP Pro, and a DSL firewall in the modem--it was turned on by
going to my IE browser and entering my IP address, and clicking "ON."
That's all I needed.



Sometimes the topic gets a little off-track.
  #48  
Old November 13th 06, 02:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Let's make this clear but again. Does not matter if everything is
connected to same AC line. The circuit even involves things sometimes
considered non-conductive; that are conductive to surges.

Let's make this clear but again. To make your assumptions valid,
then explain why all those devices not on surge protectors were not
damaged. IOW you have no idea what was and was not protected by
plug-in protectors.

Let's make this clear but again - VCR and TV connected to same AC
wall receptacle. Neither on a surge protector. One damaged. The
other not. Why? Is one connected to the invisible surge protector?
No. Leythos makes assumptions as to how surges damage electronics.
His speculations cannot explain why only one of two appliances in same
wall receptacle are damaged because his assumptions ignore the most
critical component in surge protection: earthing.

Let's make this clear but again. Where do those protectors even
claim to provide protection for each type of surge. Where are the
numbers? Why are various surges not listed in numerical specs?
Because one would learn a protector designed for one type of surge does
not protect from a typically destructive surge. Plug-in protectors
manufacture hope you will assume as you have done ... and forget about
so many other undamaged devices apparently on 'invisible' protectors.

Leythos cannot explain why so many other unprotected devices were not
damaged because he ignores the complete circuit and ignored the most
critical protection component - earthing. It's called learning
details before assuming blanket conclusions.

IEEE Standards make it obvious. Protection is about earthing. Those
plug-in protectors have no earthing connections that routine in
effective protectors. No earth ground means no effective protection -
as was well understood even 70+ years ago.

70 years ago, they also did not use invisible protectors. 70 years
ago, Ham radio operators eliminated damage by earthing incoming antenna
wires. Same principle well proven that long ago.

Your examples tell us nothing useful because other relevant circuit
components (wires inside walls, location of earth ground electrodes,
incoming utility wires, what was the incoming and outgoing surge path,
etc) have not been provided. Therefore we can only speculate. What
do we know from well proven papers even from 1930s Westinghouse and GE?
Protection is about earthing. Protectors without that essential earth
ground connection are not effective. Without a protection 'system',
then protection even inside a DSL modem may be overwhelmed.

Leythos concludes only from observations, without first learning the
surge circuits, and by denying well proven engineering principles about
earthing. This is how junk science is also promoted. No earth ground
means no effective protection. No way around that well established
fact - as even stated in IEEE standards and routinely demonstrated in
virtually every town every year.

Leythos wrote:
Let's make this clear, again, for you:

1) Same AC line in a building
2) Same outlet used for two computer/monitors (different cubes)
3) One user connected to APC UPS their computer and all connected parts
4) One user used outlet with a power strip (no surge protection)

5) Electrical Storms in area, lights flicker, power goes on/off several
times, then off for 30 minutes.

When power returns we have the following results:

6) protected devices, even by cheap surge protection, were undamaged and
worked, came back online.

7) Computer in #4 above would not POST, no sign of life, found PSU and
motherboard dead, monitor would not work in anything except 800x600 mode
for some reason. Replaced parts, computer works, drives fine.

8) Lost a microwave, couple personal radios, and misc other devices that
were not connected to UPS devices.

I've seen this SAME situation over a dozen times in the last 10 years,
and it's always been the same, protected devices remain undamaged, and
there are always at least one unprotected device that's damaged.

Nothing Invisible about it - UPS devices DO protect, it's proven by
field testing, as shown above.


  #49  
Old November 13th 06, 02:31 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

"w_tom" wrote in news:1163380661.424079.232070
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:



Leythos concludes only from observations, without first learning the
surge circuits, and by denying well proven engineering principles about
earthing. This is how junk science is also promoted. No earth ground
means no effective protection. No way around that well established
fact - as even stated in IEEE standards and routinely demonstrated in
virtually every town every year.


OK, now, you have hit the name on the head.

"Leythos concludes only from observations...."

Science IS observation.

What you speak of is pure electrical theory.

Noone is disputing that earth grounding is important. You are disputing
the fact that surge suppressors (especially contained within UPS's) do
not work, and can not work based on pure theory.

If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type, and 50
w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the 50 NON-
protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are not damaged,
based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to conclude that the surge
suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected items does it not ?

Now if you OBSERVE these same results over 10 events, and each time it is
only the non-protected items that are fried, it is COMPLETELY SAFE to
believe that the surge protectors did their job.





  #50  
Old November 13th 06, 02:59 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Leythos wrote in news:j0Q5h.27047$pq4.13179
@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

In article 42,
says...
If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type, and 50
w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the 50 NON-
protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are not damaged,
based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to conclude that the surge
suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected items does it not ?


That last part should have been "...suppressors saved 100% of the 50
protected items..."



Well, that was just going according to tom's logic, that suppressors
don't work.

If 50% of the unprotected devices fried, that gives a 50% failure, by
that ratio and t-Logic, 50% of the protected devices would have been fine
on their own because they are protected by some 'invisible' surge
supressor put in place on many devices by the 'surge supressor
fairy'....I've never seen her......


  #51  
Old November 13th 06, 03:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Leythos wrote in
:

In article 42,
says...
Leythos wrote in news:j0Q5h.27047$pq4.13179
@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

In article 42,
says...
If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type,
and 50 w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the
50 NON- protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are
not damaged, based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to
conclude that the surge suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected
items does it not ?

That last part should have been "...suppressors saved 100% of the
50 protected items..."



Well, that was just going according to tom's logic, that suppressors
don't work.

If 50% of the unprotected devices fried, that gives a 50% failure, by
that ratio and t-Logic, 50% of the protected devices would have been
fine on their own because they are protected by some 'invisible'
surge supressor put in place on many devices by the 'surge supressor
fairy'....I've never seen her......


LOL, I see why I missed it, I wasn't thinking like w_tom


It was kind of a lame joke anyway


I have an old experience with a guy that was a EE when I was fresh out
of high-school, I was running an electrical design shop and had about
20 college kids going for their EE working for me (don't ask, it's
just the way life has always worked for me).

I was designing a UART based system that would transmit 64 sets of BCD
across two wires for a distance of 10,000 feet. I had worked on the
design for about a week, build the prototype, but I could not get the
current circuit down and I could only get about 1000 feet. I had hired
a EE a few weeks before that and let him have a go at it - this guy
was sharp as a tack when it came to theory and he figured out my
problem and solution in a couple hours. This same chap was unable to
diagnose any problems in the field, unable to solder anything, unable
to explain why things that didn't follow theory worked time and time
again, etc...


That's it, theory is just theory. It's a starting point for a design.

As with your EE, that happens time and time again. I've had to deal with
a lot of EE's in my time (believe me, NONE of them can solder), and to
me, many of them, while _extremely_ intelligent within their field, lack
quite a bit other qualities/skills.

One EE, possibly the most book and theory intelligent EE I know (well,
knew as he has passed) could have been considered brilliant, and he
seriously lacked any type of personal hygiene and people skills.




  #52  
Old November 13th 06, 04:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Leythos wrote in
:

I'm (hopefully) bowing out of this thread, but an interesting point
regarding w_tom.....

According to a Google Groups search, he has posted thousands of messages
preaching his surge suppressor theories starting in mid-2001. That seems
to be his main interest, and is called an idiot, moron, and almost every
other derogatory name in the book on threads just like this one that go
on and on about lightning protection insisting that evryone knows nothing
and he is the surge suppressor god.

Funny thing. Posts from years back saying the exact same things of this
post, like a cut & paste. He's apparently had that 200 V square-wave UPS
since 2001. Just go to show you that technology changes, Usenet kooks
don't.

I wish I would have seen it earlier.

Apparently, w_tom is to surge supression as _______ is to Windows
licensing.

I apologize to you and all following this thread. And to 'you-know-who'
for the licensing remark.

DanS









  #53  
Old November 13th 06, 11:41 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Pappion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default CHANGE THIS SUBJECT LINE! Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

PLEASE!
"w_tom" wrote in message
ups.com...
Let's make this clear but again. Does not matter if everything is
connected to same AC line. The circuit even involves things sometimes
considered non-conductive; that are conductive to surges.

Let's make this clear but again. To make your assumptions valid,
then explain why all those devices not on surge protectors were not
damaged. IOW you have no idea what was and was not protected by
plug-in protectors.

Let's make this clear but again - VCR and TV connected to same AC
wall receptacle. Neither on a surge protector. One damaged. The
other not. Why? Is one connected to the invisible surge protector?
No. Leythos makes assumptions as to how surges damage electronics.
His speculations cannot explain why only one of two appliances in same
wall receptacle are damaged because his assumptions ignore the most
critical component in surge protection: earthing.

Let's make this clear but again. Where do those protectors even
claim to provide protection for each type of surge. Where are the
numbers? Why are various surges not listed in numerical specs?
Because one would learn a protector designed for one type of surge does
not protect from a typically destructive surge. Plug-in protectors
manufacture hope you will assume as you have done ... and forget about
so many other undamaged devices apparently on 'invisible' protectors.

Leythos cannot explain why so many other unprotected devices were not
damaged because he ignores the complete circuit and ignored the most
critical protection component - earthing. It's called learning
details before assuming blanket conclusions.

IEEE Standards make it obvious. Protection is about earthing. Those
plug-in protectors have no earthing connections that routine in
effective protectors. No earth ground means no effective protection -
as was well understood even 70+ years ago.

70 years ago, they also did not use invisible protectors. 70 years
ago, Ham radio operators eliminated damage by earthing incoming antenna
wires. Same principle well proven that long ago.

Your examples tell us nothing useful because other relevant circuit
components (wires inside walls, location of earth ground electrodes,
incoming utility wires, what was the incoming and outgoing surge path,
etc) have not been provided. Therefore we can only speculate. What
do we know from well proven papers even from 1930s Westinghouse and GE?
Protection is about earthing. Protectors without that essential earth
ground connection are not effective. Without a protection 'system',
then protection even inside a DSL modem may be overwhelmed.

Leythos concludes only from observations, without first learning the
surge circuits, and by denying well proven engineering principles about
earthing. This is how junk science is also promoted. No earth ground
means no effective protection. No way around that well established
fact - as even stated in IEEE standards and routinely demonstrated in
virtually every town every year.

Leythos wrote:
Let's make this clear, again, for you:

1) Same AC line in a building
2) Same outlet used for two computer/monitors (different cubes)
3) One user connected to APC UPS their computer and all connected parts
4) One user used outlet with a power strip (no surge protection)

5) Electrical Storms in area, lights flicker, power goes on/off several
times, then off for 30 minutes.

When power returns we have the following results:

6) protected devices, even by cheap surge protection, were undamaged and
worked, came back online.

7) Computer in #4 above would not POST, no sign of life, found PSU and
motherboard dead, monitor would not work in anything except 800x600 mode
for some reason. Replaced parts, computer works, drives fine.

8) Lost a microwave, couple personal radios, and misc other devices that
were not connected to UPS devices.

I've seen this SAME situation over a dozen times in the last 10 years,
and it's always been the same, protected devices remain undamaged, and
there are always at least one unprotected device that's damaged.

Nothing Invisible about it - UPS devices DO protect, it's proven by
field testing, as shown above.




  #54  
Old November 13th 06, 11:44 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Pappion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Will you two please change the Subject line? I don't want to be responsible
for this tirade between you two. It never fails, mention electricity to a
man, and a fight ensues based on their early education. Come on, you two,
give it over, or use email.
"Leythos" wrote in message
. ..
In article 42,
says...
Leythos wrote in news:j0Q5h.27047$pq4.13179
@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

In article 42,
says...
If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type, and 50
w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the 50 NON-
protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are not damaged,
based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to conclude that the surge
suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected items does it not ?

That last part should have been "...suppressors saved 100% of the 50
protected items..."



Well, that was just going according to tom's logic, that suppressors
don't work.

If 50% of the unprotected devices fried, that gives a 50% failure, by
that ratio and t-Logic, 50% of the protected devices would have been fine
on their own because they are protected by some 'invisible' surge
supressor put in place on many devices by the 'surge supressor
fairy'....I've never seen her......


LOL, I see why I missed it, I wasn't thinking like w_tom

I have an old experience with a guy that was a EE when I was fresh out
of high-school, I was running an electrical design shop and had about 20
college kids going for their EE working for me (don't ask, it's just the
way life has always worked for me).

I was designing a UART based system that would transmit 64 sets of BCD
across two wires for a distance of 10,000 feet. I had worked on the
design for about a week, build the prototype, but I could not get the
current circuit down and I could only get about 1000 feet. I had hired a
EE a few weeks before that and let him have a go at it - this guy was
sharp as a tack when it came to theory and he figured out my problem and
solution in a couple hours. This same chap was unable to diagnose any
problems in the field, unable to solder anything, unable to explain why
things that didn't follow theory worked time and time again, etc...

The problem is that while we may not always be able to find mathematical
solutions to why things work, we can show a repeatable history that they
still work, and I'm convinced that, based on years of history, that a
quality UPS device does indeed protect devices connected to it.

--


remove 999 in order to email me



  #55  
Old November 13th 06, 04:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Leythos wrote:
In almost every thread I've seen where ANYONE brings up UPS or POWER or
SURGE, he's there within hours, almost like he used Google Groups to
find those words and then posts ONLY about those subjects.


He does not post only there. For example a previous post is about
hardware damage - on a point that others don't fully grasp - apparently
don't have sufficient design experience. w_tom posts only when half
truths or myths are not challeneged. If it is a well accepted
comment, then w_tom does not respond. Others can just as easily answer
that question. But myths posted by Leythos and some others ill
informed regulars get an immediate reply. There is no excuse for myths
promoted in direct contradiction to 70+ year proven technology. Surge
protectors are promoted mostly by myths. Therefore even 'invisible'
surge protectors get challenged with long posts chock full of numbers,
citations, and contempt for junk science reasoning based in
soundbytes..

Leythos has a house full of 'invisible' surge protectors - which is
the only way he can claim his 'visible' protectors did protection.
Leythos will selectively strip down his data - ignore the exceptions -
so he can claim hardware without protectors were damaged and claim
hardware with protectors were not damaged. He ignores the exceptions.
Leythos selectively samples his data. Notice dishwasher, bathroom
GFCIs, furnace controls, dimmer switches, smoke detectors, etc not on
'visible' surge protectors were not damaged. Either these are on
'invisible' surge protectors OR appliances with and without plug-in
surge protectors protected themselves. Yes, all appliances already
contain internal protection. Since Leythos cannot dispute this, then
Leythos must attack (insult) the messenger.

Since w_tom takes on such myth purveyors, then he is used to being
insulted. Insult is the only way myth purveyors cannot reply since
even the manufacturer does not claim what Leythos, et al post. Leythos
posted junk science reasoning (selective data sampling) to prove his
plug-in protectors did something useful. I routinely expect him to
'attack the messenger' when he cannot challenge the science.

Number of insults demonstrates how often w_tom goes after junk
science promoters. Anyone can answer questions on how to reload a
BIOS. w_tom does not reply to such questions. Leythos somehow knows
that plug-in protectors saved his appliances using junk science
reasoning. Leythos has both 'visible' and 'invisible' protectors
protecting household appliances - or he is using junk science reasoning
(selective data sampling). His only defense is to attack this
messenger. Others do same when their junk science reasoning is
challenged.

Another classic myth: power cycling damages incandescant light bulbs.
Just another topic that, when challenged, results in personal attacks
rather than manufacturer specs. Many will post insults only because
junk science reasoning rationalized power cycling of bulbs as
destructive. Just another example of when w_tom goes after urban myth
purveyors - and then gets insulted. When the myth purveyor can neither
challenge nor provide science numbers, then he will resort to insults.

His 'invisible' surge protectors and his selective data sampling will
remain challenged when he can explain why appliances without surge
protectors were not damaged - and therefore ignores those undamaged
appliances.

  #56  
Old November 13th 06, 04:57 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
bud--
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?



On Nov 12, 2:46 pm, "w_tom" wrote:
If one represents interests of plug-in protector manufacturers, then
one must deceive.

To quote w_: "It is an old political trick. When facts cannot be
challenged technically, then attack the messenger." I haveno economic
interests in surge protection.


Those six engineers note how a plug-in protector can
even put a TV at 8000 volts - damage the TV - which is why the
standards don't recommend plug-in protectors.

Anyone with minimal reading skills can determine 8kV is part of a
description of how Surge Reference Equalizers work

Even a kid connecting
an Xbox to a TV can compromise plug-in protector protection -
contribute to TV damage.

A kid with an Xbox can read the IEEE and NIST guides and understand
them. Sorry about your disability.

Bud hopes you ignore what they say about a
protector without proper earthing.

The IEEE and NIST guides do not share your religious views on earthing.
Both say plug--in suppressors are effective.


Profits are too great.

The political trick again.

He hopes
you don't learn: no earth ground means no effective protection.

The statement of religious belief again.


Bud spins a technical discussion into a recommendation.

You have to be stupid to think IEEE and NIST guides intended for the
general public would waste a lot of space on "technical discussion'"
about a device the guides don't recommend.

The IEEE guide, chapter 6, "SPECIFIC PROTECTION EXAMPLES" shows 2
examples of surge protection. Both use SREs. You have to be stupid to
say the IEEE guide does not recommend SREs.

But
recommendations are instead found in Standards such as IEEE Red Book
(IEEE Std 141):....

You also have to be stupid to say the IEEE guide, released to the
general public, would conflict with the IEEE color books.

No religion. Protection has always been about earthing.

And religious belief again. Clearly described, for those who can read,
in the IEEE guide - plug-in surge suppressors work primarily by
clamping the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common
ground at the surge suppressor. Earthing is secondary.

Oh yes. He hopes you will ignore these scary pictures:

If you have no valid technical arguments maybe you could try pathetic
scare tactics.

http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554

For those who can read, this link specifically references a revised UL
standard, effective in 1998, that requires thermal disconnect as a fix
for overheating MOVs.

http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm

These links are the same. Both give guidelines for using plug-in
suppressors

None of these links say the damaged suppressor had a UL label. None of
them say plug-in suppressors are not effective or that they should not
be used or that there is a problem under the current UL standard.

http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

This link is for ZeroSurge, and is to push their plug-in suppressor
technology using series mode protection, which you say doesn't work.


UL1449 standards were created 25 years ago. Bud will try to claim
these failures did not meet UL1449.

It si not stated any of the suppressors were listed UL1449. But anyone
who can read the hanford link can determine UL1449 was modified,
(effective 1998), to require overheating MOVs be disconnected. w_
can't understand his own links.

But then he must say something to
protect those he represents.

The political trick again.


The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
And add your horror pictiure sites
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
still zero
43,782,942 internet sites run by crackpots and not even they agree with
you?

--
bud--

  #57  
Old November 13th 06, 05:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Pappion wrote:
Will you two please change the Subject line? I don't want to be responsible
for this tirade between you two. It never fails, mention electricity to a
man, and a fight ensues based on their early education. Come on, you two,
give it over, or use email.


I challenged, without apologies, those who would promote myths.
Accurate facts are always more important than personal emotions.
Observation must not be rebranded as a science fact. Leythos posts
this one observation as fact repeatedly. He knows only from what was
observed. He did not provide professional citations, underlying
reasons, numbers, and manufacturer numerical specs. Those other
prerequisites are required to convert an observation into fact.
Leythos even ignores undamaged appliances. No way around that
defective logic. E-mail would not solve this problem. Leythos even
uses selective data sampling. Error in his logic should be obvious to
anyone with science grasp - how to make a fact. Leythos rebrands only
an observation - without other prerequisites such as theory, numbers
manufacturer datasheets, etc. When challenged, he cannot admit his
obvious logical error.

Meanwhile the OP (Pappion) need not turn off DSL to protect software
(ie from viruses) and hardware (from transients). A most common source
of DSL damage is incoming transients on AC mains. Phone line already
(should) have a properly earthed 'whole house' protector. Plug-in
UPS does not protect that DSL. Details provided repeatedly above -
even with industry numbers and a list of responsible manufacturers.
Listed is how, for example, the telco protects their hardware. Telco
do not use expensive plug-in protectors. Provided are reams of reasons
why 'whole house' and earthing solution is so effective. Cited
protection is especially important for DSL modems as defined by
previous technical reasons: how surges damage electronics and why
'whole house' protectors are so effective.

The OP (Pappion) should ignore incendiary claims from those promoting
plug-in solutions. The discussion is about protecting his DSL modem.
Effective and less expensive solution is what was installed even before
WWII. Effective is protector making a short ('less than 10 foot')
connection to earth. Alternative means even a powered off DSL can be
damaged (except those with 'invisible' protectors).

  #58  
Old November 13th 06, 05:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
bud--
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?



On Nov 12, 12:37 pm, DanS
wrote:
"w_tom" wrote roups.com:

You are talking about surges. That is lightning. We install surge
protection for a typically destructive surge - lightning. Other surges
made irrelevant by same protection


NO, you install a lightning protector to protect against lightning.

I do agree with w_ that surge suppressors can protect against
lightning, depending on suppressor rating, surge rating and where the
hit occurrs. They may not protect from an unlikely direct hit to a
house, but can protect from surges coming in on power and signal
wiring. (You may be talking about direct strikes and lightning rods. Or
tower antennas.)


Well, I have provided you with numbers...the APC one, claiming around 900
joules, and I looked up the Monster item you keep speaking about. That
indicates 1600 joules. But apparently you do not read entire posts. Or
you just ignore anything you don't like.

So....let's do the math.

1 Watt = 1 Joule / one second

1000 joules = 1000 watts/one second.

A 10 ms surge = 100,000 watts.

A 5 ms surge = 200,000 watts.

A 1 ms surge = 1,000,000 watts.

Therefore, your 12,000 volts at 100 amps for 1ms figures to be 1.2
millions watts. So, the Monster (suprisingly) would, IN THEORY, absorb
this, depending on how long it lasts. And let's face it, this is ALL
theory.


Reading ahead I know you don't necessarily see these as realistic
numbers, but some comments. The energy dissipation in a MOV is based on
the clamping voltage across it. A surge suppressor may have a rated
clamp voltage of 400V, and the voltage across the MOV will go up to
maybe 500 or 600V with tens of thousands of amps in a service panel
protector. Wiring impedance significantly lowers the current for
plug-in suppressors unless very near the service panel. The clamp
voltage (400-600V here) determines the energy hit the MOV receives. The
most severe surges are typically lightning derived. A stroke is on the
order of 100 microseconds (but there may be multiple strokes).

If you had a 10,000A surge lasting 100 microseconds to a MOV that
clamped at 600V the device would dissipate 600J.

--
bud--

  #59  
Old November 13th 06, 06:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default [OT] Surge suppression

"w_tom" wrote in
oups.com:


I challenged, without apologies, those who would promote myths.
Accurate facts are always more important than personal emotions.
Observation must not be rebranded as a science fact. Leythos posts
this one observation as fact repeatedly. He knows only from what was
observed. He did not provide professional citations, underlying
reasons, numbers, and manufacturer numerical specs. Those other
prerequisites are required to convert an observation into fact.
Leythos even ignores undamaged appliances. No way around that
defective logic. E-mail would not solve this problem. Leythos even
uses selective data sampling. Error in his logic should be obvious to
anyone with science grasp - how to make a fact. Leythos rebrands only
an observation - without other prerequisites such as theory, numbers
manufacturer datasheets, etc. When challenged, he cannot admit his
obvious logical error.


Not personal emotions.

If is fact.

Fact, that in his experience, no items connected through plug-in surge
suppressors had been damaged while other item may have been, even
connected thru the same AC outlet.

It is NOT an opinion that they were not damaged. It is fact. Do they
still function ? Yes, fact, and, anyone that uses them will sate the same
thing, fact.

The real problem here, and with MANY, MANY people that think they are
smarter than eveyone else, is that you fail to realize that theory is
just that, theory, and once you apply that theory to REAL WORLD
situations, that theory may or may not pan out to be an exact science in
the REAL application.





  #60  
Old November 14th 06, 02:15 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Appliances with better internal protection were not damaged.
Apparently a few with protection compromised by 'how transient found
earth ground' were damaged. Far more appliances survived even without
surge protectors. Leythos did 'selective data sampling' to ignore
those unprotected and undamaged appliances. For his conclusion to be
accurate, those other undamaged appliances must have 'invisible'
protectors. But then this has been posted to Leyhos tens of times. I
don't expect Leythos to acknowledge any of this. This post again
demonstrated how junk science recommends plug-in protectors.

Leythos claims protectors did what they don't even claim to do. Wild
speculation is not based in junior high school science principles.
Leythos observed something, ignored other undamaged appliances, and
then made a classic junk science decree. Based upon Leythos
conclusion, we have just proved the existence of 'invisible'
protectors.

Simple answer and it requires no electrical knowledge: either
'invisible' protectors have been discovered , or Leythos has
performed classic junk science reasoning using 'selective data
sampling'. Leythos insists those plug-in protectors performed what
even numerical specifications do not claim. Leythos demonstrates why
some recommend ineffective protection for that DSL modem. Some just
know - using observation, 'selective data sampling', and 'invisible'
protectors. Using junk science, anything becomes simple. Reality
requires more than a soundbyte. Protection requires earth ground.

Leythos wrote:
It's simple w_tom, it's not junk science, as it's factual, it's
repeatable, it's easy to see the results. So, now explain why two of the
same device (actually more than two in most cases) one protected and one
not protected, why the protected devices don't get damaged when there is
damage to the unprotected devices.

I await your simple answer.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.