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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?
Leythos wrote in news:j0Q5h.27047$pq4.13179
@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com: In article 42, says... If you have 100 devices, 50 with surge supression of SOME type, and 50 w/o, and there is an event that causes damage to 25 of the 50 NON- protected items (50%), yet all of the protected items are not damaged, based on mathematics, it's COMPLETELY SAFE to conclude that the surge suppressors saved 50% of the 50 protected items does it not ? That last part should have been "...suppressors saved 100% of the 50 protected items..." Well, that was just going according to tom's logic, that suppressors don't work. If 50% of the unprotected devices fried, that gives a 50% failure, by that ratio and t-Logic, 50% of the protected devices would have been fine on their own because they are protected by some 'invisible' surge supressor put in place on many devices by the 'surge supressor fairy'....I've never seen her...... |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?
Leythos wrote in
: In article 42, says... Leythos wrote in news:j0Q5h.27047$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|