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
  #31  
Old November 12th 06, 05:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Pappion
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

alas

--
The information contained in this electronic message is privilege and/or
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above, or on a blind-copy list. If the reader of this message
is not familiar with the subject matter, recipients, or an employee or agent
responsible to deliver this message to intended recipient (s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the
communication is neither allowed nor intended. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail (Reply) and
delete the message. Thank you.
"DanS" wrote in message
. 97.142...
"w_tom" wrote in
ups.com:


Meanwhile, where are numbers for this EMI and RFI protection
afforded
by Monster Cable? It is an old and well proven trend. No numbers is
how to promote myths as fact. Where are numbers for this EMI and RFI
protection? What problem does that solve? Somehow those details are
forgotten when promoting Monster Cable and UPSes.


Regardless of what your opinion is, why do you keep going back to the
Monster product I mentioned ? Everyone agrees it's a marketing ploy. And
why did the subject get to 'whole house' systems ? We were discussing
$100'ish dollar UPS's.

It sounds like you're expecting to find whitepaper like articles about
tests results of each model.......your not going to find that.



Ads
  #32  
Old November 12th 06, 08:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Why do you recommend an ineffective solution that also costs about
twice as much as an effective 'whole house' protector? Protection in
that sub-$100 UPS and in the Monster Cable product are equivalent
circuits. Why then would UPS be effective when it uses same circuits
in that ineffective Monster Cable product?

These are not opinions. It is called numerical specifications. Post
them. Similar specs for both the Monster Cable product and for the
sub-$100 UPS. And neither claims to protect from the typically
destructive transient. Obviously. Both use same protector circuit.
Neither has that necessary and essential dedicated earthing wire.
Nothing mysterious about technology well proven and routinely installed
even long before WWII. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Neither sub-$100 UPS nor Monster Cable product has that necessary
earthing.

DanS wrote:
Regardless of what your opinion is, why do you keep going back to the
Monster product I mentioned ? Everyone agrees it's a marketing ploy. And
why did the subject get to 'whole house' systems ? We were discussing
$100'ish dollar UPS's.

It sounds like you're expecting to find whitepaper like articles about
tests results of each model.......your not going to find that.


  #33  
Old November 12th 06, 04:34 PM 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:1163314975.073150.173260
@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Why do you recommend an ineffective solution that also costs about
twice as much as an effective 'whole house' protector? Protection in
that sub-$100 UPS and in the Monster Cable product are equivalent
circuits. Why then would UPS be effective when it uses same circuits
in that ineffective Monster Cable product?

These are not opinions. It is called numerical specifications. Post
them. Similar specs for both the Monster Cable product and for the
sub-$100 UPS. And neither claims to protect from the typically
destructive transient. Obviously. Both use same protector circuit.
Neither has that necessary and essential dedicated earthing wire.
Nothing mysterious about technology well proven and routinely installed
even long before WWII. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Neither sub-$100 UPS nor Monster Cable product has that necessary
earthing.


OK. How do YOU know they are the same ? Have you see schematics ? Have you
done independant testing ? YOU prove to ME that they are the same.

What is this typically destructive transient you speak of ? If you are
speaking of lightning, I never claimed anything about lightning protection.
You asked me for specs and I posted specs for you for an APC model.

I NEVER SAID lightning protection....my OP was exactly.. 'They will protect
as a surge protector as well as act as a line 'conditioner'.' (With line
conditioner meaning filtering of the AC.)

Nor did I ever say anything about RECOMMENDING ANYTHING over a whole house
solution. YOU are the one making the connection between the two.

While it's more than 10 feet from the panel, these devices are earth-
grounded as well through the house wiring. If you examine inside you
breaker box, you will probably see that all of the AC lines 'ground' wire
AND neutrals go back to the ground bar inside, which is tied to earth
ground thru the grounding rod outside the home at the point of power entry.
So indeed, MOV/GDT protected devices do discharge to earth ground when
necessary, that is, if your home does have 3 wire AC.

AND AGAIN, NOT SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT LIGHTNING.







  #34  
Old November 12th 06, 06:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
bud--
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Earthgrounding



On Nov 11, 3:33 pm, "Pappion" wrote:
Is the answer then to literally unplug the surge suppressor from the wall
outlet???


Depends on the suppressor ratings and what it gets hit with. A realy
close lightning hit could kill a suppressor, and previous unpluging
could provide protection. But everything, including phone lines, that
connects in has to be disconnected. Short of a close hit, a good
suppressor should handle what it is likely see. But ratings vary
widely.

The IEEE guide at:
http://www.mikeholt.com/files/PDF/Li...ion_May051.pdf
has a rather long discussion of connecting a protected load across the
MOVs, so the load is disconnected if the MOVs fail and are disconnected
vs. the common practice of suppressors connecting the load so it stays
on if the MOVs are disconnected.

---
bud--

  #35  
Old November 12th 06, 06:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

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.

How do I know they are equivalent circuits? There is this little
thing called decades of experience. Meanwhile, how do YOU know they
are same? Post those numerical specifications for each unit. Answer
becomes obvious.

How do we know the sub-$100 UPS also is not a line conditioner?
Again, a few decades of experience, the price, and some basic design
experience. However, do YOU know there is no significant line
conditioning? Again, where are those spec numbers?

Your technical knowledge remains insufficient. You have assumed wire
is a perfect conductor. You have assumed there is no difference
between earthing at the electrode and earthing at a wall receptacle.
More numbers. A 50 foot wire connection from wall receptacle may
measure less than 0.2 ohms resistance, but be 130 ohms impedance during
a 100 amp surge. Do the math. That is a 12,000 volt difference which
is why effective surge protector manufacturers want a short connection
to earth with no sharp bends, no splices, earthing wire separate from
non-earthing wires, etc. How does that wall receptacle safety ground
connect to earth without bends, no splices, etc? It does not. With
technical knowledge, one understands why that earthing connection must
meet those electrical parameters. Earthing is surge protection.

A sub-$100 UPS does not provide numerically significant line
conditioning. But again, where are your numbers. Learn from numbers
and basic electrical principles why that earthing connection must be
short. How many joules on that sub-$100 UPS? Where are your numbers
- which must be provided to believe subjective claims? How do you know
anything you have assumed if you don't have these numbers?

You said:
Many people don't realize that a quality UPS, ... will protect as a surge
protector as well as act as a line 'conditioner'. You know, like the $150
Monster surge protector/conditioners ...


Right in your early statement - that is you talking about lightning
protection. Back then you discussed 'quality UPS'. Why now are you
discussing a sub-$100 UPS? Apparently you are confused as to what is
'quality' and what are typically destructive surges. But again, where
are your numbers so this confusion can be rectified? Why do you not
post numerical specifications from those manufacturers? If you knew
your statements to be true, then you also have those numbers.

DanS wrote:
OK. How do YOU know they are the same ? Have you see schematics ? Have you
done independant testing ? YOU prove to ME that they are the same.

What is this typically destructive transient you speak of ? If you are
speaking of lightning, I never claimed anything about lightning protection.
You asked me for specs and I posted specs for you for an APC model.

I NEVER SAID lightning protection....my OP was exactly.. 'They will protect
as a surge protector as well as act as a line 'conditioner'.' (With line
conditioner meaning filtering of the AC.)

Nor did I ever say anything about RECOMMENDING ANYTHING over a whole house
solution. YOU are the one making the connection between the two.

While it's more than 10 feet from the panel, these devices are earth-
grounded as well through the house wiring. If you examine inside you
breaker box, you will probably see that all of the AC lines 'ground' wire
AND neutrals go back to the ground bar inside, which is tied to earth
ground thru the grounding rod outside the home at the point of power entry.
So indeed, MOV/GDT protected devices do discharge to earth ground when
necessary, that is, if your home does have 3 wire AC.

AND AGAIN, NOT SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT LIGHTNING.


  #36  
Old November 12th 06, 06:33 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, 1:02 am, "w_tom" wrote:

These are not opinions. It is called numerical specifications. Post
them.

I havn't particularly looked at UPS ratings. But a UPS can be connected
to a plug-in surge suppressor, and surge suppression ratings are
readily available for plug-in suppressors. Plug-in suppressors are
available from junk to very high ratings. I presume that applies to
UPSs as well.

And neither claims to protect from the typically
destructive transient.

You have never provided specs for different surge modes for any
suppressor. Still a red herring.

Both use same protector circuit.

Your omniscience is impressive.

Neither has that necessary and essential dedicated earthing wire.
Nothing mysterious about technology well proven and routinely installed
even long before WWII. No earth ground means no effective protection.
Neither sub-$100 UPS nor Monster Cable product has that necessary
earthing.

Your religious views prevent you from understanding how plug-in
suppressors work. The IEEE guide clearly describes action as clamping
the voltage on all wires (power and signal) to the common ground at the
suppressor. Earthing is secondary.


The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
always zero

--
bud--

  #37  
Old November 12th 06, 06:46 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, 11:20 am, "w_tom" wrote:

Your technical knowledge remains insufficient. You have assumed wire
is a perfect conductor. You have assumed there is no difference
between earthing at the electrode and earthing at a wall receptacle.
More numbers. A 50 foot wire connection from wall receptacle may
measure less than 0.2 ohms resistance, but be 130 ohms impedance during
a 100 amp surge. Do the math. ....

Your religious views interferre with technical knowledge. The IEEE
describes plug-in suppressor action as clamping the voltage on all
wires to the common ground at the suppressor. Earthing is secondary.

With
technical knowledge, one understands why that earthing connection must
meet those electrical parameters.

Sorry, the 6 electrical engineers that wrote the IEEE and NIST guides
have a lot more technical knowledge than you. The NIST guide was writen
by the surge guru for the NIST who wrote numerous published technical
papers on surges, a number of which you have distorted to suport your
opinions.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
zero, zip, nada

--
bud--

  #38  
Old November 12th 06, 07:35 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
DanS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 327
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

"bud--" wrote in news:1163353603.978262.108710
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

bud-, Thanks for trying to help out here, but w_tom seems to ignore ALL
posts other than mine and also ignores points made by me in my posts that
are relevant.

He will not read the links you posted, nor ever believe anyone's view's but
his own, regardless of the qualifications the authors.

Regards,

DanS




On Nov 12, 11:20 am, "w_tom" wrote:

Your technical knowledge remains insufficient. You have assumed wire
is a perfect conductor. You have assumed there is no difference
between earthing at the electrode and earthing at a wall receptacle.
More numbers. A 50 foot wire connection from wall receptacle may
measure less than 0.2 ohms resistance, but be 130 ohms impedance during
a 100 amp surge. Do the math. ....

Your religious views interferre with technical knowledge. The IEEE
describes plug-in suppressor action as clamping the voltage on all
wires to the common ground at the suppressor. Earthing is secondary.

With
technical knowledge, one understands why that earthing connection must
meet those electrical parameters.

Sorry, the 6 electrical engineers that wrote the IEEE and NIST guides
have a lot more technical knowledge than you. The NIST guide was writen
by the surge guru for the NIST who wrote numerous published technical
papers on surges, a number of which you have distorted to suport your
opinions.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
zero, zip, nada

--
bud--



  #39  
Old November 12th 06, 07:37 PM 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
ups.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.


How do I know they are equivalent circuits? There is this little
thing called decades of experience. Meanwhile, how do YOU know they
are same? Post those numerical specifications for each unit. Answer
becomes obvious.


Yes, decades of experience on my part also, 20+ years of wireless
communications experience.....with actual lightning
ATTRACTORS....antennas.


How do we know the sub-$100 UPS also is not a line conditioner?
Again, a few decades of experience, the price, and some basic design
experience. However, do YOU know there is no significant line
conditioning? Again, where are those spec numbers?

Your technical knowledge remains insufficient. You have assumed
wire
is a perfect conductor. You have assumed there is no difference
between earthing at the electrode and earthing at a wall receptacle.
More numbers. A 50 foot wire connection from wall receptacle may
measure less than 0.2 ohms resistance, but be 130 ohms impedance
during a 100 amp surge. Do the math. That is a 12,000 volt
difference which is why effective surge protector manufacturers want a
short connection to earth with no sharp bends, no splices, earthing
wire separate from non-earthing wires, etc. How does that wall
receptacle safety ground connect to earth without bends, no splices,
etc? It does not. With technical knowledge, one understands why
that earthing connection must meet those electrical parameters.
Earthing is surge protection.


No, I have not assumes that copper is an ideal conductor. AND, the DC
resistance of that will not change during a surge, what you are referring
to is most likely reactive inductance. Just like what happens when a
large motor is energized.


A sub-$100 UPS does not provide numerically significant line
conditioning. But again, where are your numbers. Learn from numbers
and basic electrical principles why that earthing connection must be
short. How many joules on that sub-$100 UPS? Where are your numbers
- which must be provided to believe subjective claims? How do you
know anything you have assumed if you don't have these numbers?


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.


You said:
Many people don't realize that a quality UPS, ... will protect as a
surge protector as well as act as a line 'conditioner'. You know,
like the $150 Monster surge protector/conditioners ...


Right in your early statement - that is you talking about lightning
protection. Back then you discussed 'quality UPS'. Why now are you
discussing a sub-$100 UPS? Apparently you are confused as to what is
'quality' and what are typically destructive surges.


No, you are assuming that lightning arrestor = surge suppressor, which is
obviously not the case.

These terms are NOT interchangable.




  #40  
Old November 12th 06, 09:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Somehow DanS assumes a 900 joule or 1600 joule MOV protector will
absorb what three miles of sky could not. DanS has so little grasp as
to assume a 100 amp transient is a typical surge. Surges are on the
order of 10,000 amps. Cited was a tiny 100 amp surge that wall
receptacle wire could not conduct DanS had little knowledge and then
assumed that was a good earthing ground. It could not even conduct a
tiny 100 amp surge which DanS assumed is a typical surge.

Somehow, DanS confuses 12,000 volts on 50 feet of wire inside wall
with 12,000 volts across a protector. Apparently done to deceive the
lurker. Electronics charged to 12,000 volts will simply leak
electricity destructively through other paths to earth ground because
that wall receptacle ground wire is too long, too many bends, bundled
with other wires, etc. A protector will not absorb voltage to earth
because protector has no connection to earth. Why? Wire is at 12,000
volts.

But again, DanS assumes that APC's undersized 900 joules will somehow
stop what three miles of sky could not. DanS does not even know what
'joules' measure. And yet he is an expert on surge protection?

DanS - both Monster Cable and sub-$100 protector use equivalent MOV
circuits in direct contradiction to what you have posted. Same circuit
as defined by numbers provided by you. Did you have insufficient
technical knowledge to understand the significance of those numbers?

Let's start by teaching what a surge protector does - Surge
Protector 101:
http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm
Conceptually, lightning protection devices are switches to ground.
Once a threatening surge is detected, a lightning protection device
grounds the incoming signal connection point of the equipment
being protected. Thus, redirecting the threatening surge on a
path-of-least resistance (impedance) to ground where it is
absorbed.
Any lightning protection device must be composed of two
"subsystems," a switch which is essentially some type of switching
circuitry and a good ground connection-to allow dissipation of the
surge energy.


Notice that surge and lightning protection are same thing. DanS
posted:
No, you are assuming that lightning arrestor = surge suppressor,
which is obviously not the case.

But as this industry professional demonstrates, surge protection is
about lightning protection - in direct contradiction to what DanS
posts.

So lightning of 50,000 amps dissipates maybe one million volts in
earth. That is maybe 1.5 million joules. How does a 900 joule
protector absorb that surge? It does not as taught in Surge Protector
101. Meanwhile effective 'whole house' protectors with short earthing
connections are rated for 50,000 amps - to remain functional. Don't
take my word for it. Learn about effective protectors. Read from boxes
in Lowes and Home Depot, or read internet posted specifications from
GE, Siemens, Cutler Hammer, Square D, Intermatic, and Leviton. DanS -
learn some facts before reiterating half truths from store shelves. You
did not even know a '900 joules' number until forcefully challenged.
You still don't know that 900 joules in that APC is woefully
undersized.

What do effective protectors provide? A dedicated wire for a 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth. What does your sub-$100 UPS and
Monster Cable both not discuss since neither even claims such
protection? Earthing.

Meanwhile DanS has just passively conceding that his recommendations
do not provide EMI / RFI protection. Concedes that the Monster Cable
and sub-$100 UPS have same protector circuit. Slowly he is being moved
to reality.

We should spend $100 to protect only one appliance? If not for
lightning, then what are we spending so much money to protect from?
DanS still will not say. Somehow there is this other mystery surge that
he will not define. Somehow spec numbers, literally based on timing
of lightning surges, are not really for lightning protection? But
again, we catch DanS speculating because he did not first learn spec
numbers.

Dan also believes a shunt mode protector will somehow operate in
series - to absorb surge energy. Again he is assuming without first
learning what MOVs do. They are shunt mode devices. Better MOVs that
conduct to earth are better shunt mode protection. They work by
shunting - not absorbing. Somehow DanS even assumes a protector will
somehow absorb 12,000 volts out of the 50 feet AC wire; confusing
voltage across a protector with voltage to earth ground.

If DanS really knew antennas, then he knew what industry
professionals say:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html
Well I assert, from personal and broadcast experience spanning
30 years, that you can design a system that will handle
*direct lightning strikes* on a routine basis. It takes some
planning and careful layout, but it's not hard, nor is it overly
expensive. At WXIA-TV, my other job, we take direct lightning
strikes nearly every time there's a thunderstorm. Our downtime
from such strikes is almost non-existant. The last time we went
down from a strike, it was due to a strike on the power
company's lines knocking *them* out, ...
Since my disasterous strike, I've been campaigning vigorously
to educate amateurs that you *can* avoid damage from direct
strikes. The belief that there's no protection from direct strike
damage is *myth*. ...
The keys to effective lightning protection are surprisingly simple,
and surprisingly less than obvious. Of course you *must* have
a single point ground system that eliminates all ground loops.
And you must present a low *impedance* path for the energy
to go. That's most generally a low *inductance* path rather than
just a low ohm DC path.


The lurker is cautioned about junk science experts who could not
bother to first learn the numbers, what numbers mean, and how a
protector really works (it shunts). DanS would have us believe shunt
mode protectors operate in series mode. That these devices do EMI/RFI
protection when their own numerical specs don't even make that claim.

Instead, protection is about earthing. Effective 'whole house'
protectors with responsible brand names also make that 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth. Somehow APC's undersized 900 joules will
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what DanS
claims. Be wary of 'experts' who could not even cite manufacturer's
numerical specifications and who did not know what numbers measured -
but somehow know that it works.

DanS wrote:
...
NO, you install a lightning protector to protect against lightning.
...

Yes, decades of experience on my part also, 20+ years of wireless
communications experience.....with actual lightning
ATTRACTORS....antennas.
...

No, I have not assumes that copper is an ideal conductor. AND, the DC
resistance of that will not change during a surge, what you are referring
to is most likely reactive inductance. Just like what happens when a
large motor is energized.
...

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.
...
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.
...

No, you are assuming that lightning arrestor = surge suppressor, which is
obviously not the case.

These terms are NOT interchangable.


  #41  
Old November 12th 06, 09:40 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:
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.

  #42  
Old November 12th 06, 09:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

If one represents interests of plug-in protector manufacturers, then
one must deceive. 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. Even a kid connecting
an Xbox to a TV can compromise plug-in protector protection -
contribute to TV damage. Bud hopes you ignore what they say about a
protector without proper earthing. Profits are too great. He hopes
you don't learn: no earth ground means no effective protection.

Bud spins a technical discussion into a recommendation. But
recommendations are instead found in Standards such as IEEE Red Book
(IEEE Std 141):
In actual practice, lightning protection is achieve by the
process of interception of lightning produced surges,
diverting them to ground, and by altering their
associated wave shapes.


No religion. Protection has always been about earthing. Do 911
emergency operators remove headsets as a thunderstorm approaches? Of
course not. Do they use plug-in protectors? Absolutely not.
Protection is same solution installed even in the 1930s - earthing.
Protector makes a short connection to earthing where wire enters the
building.

Bud intentional half truth lies and distortions were exposed six times
over:
1) Bud does not provide numerical specs for his recommendation.
2) Those profits are too outrageously high to be fully honest.
3) He intentionally misrepresents a technical discussion as a
recommendation - ignoring the TV charged to 8000 volts by a
plug-in protector.. 4) He routinely ignores IEEE recommendations
from the Red Book and Green Book - recommendations are made
in standards. 5) He hopes you will ignore that fire risk. And this
is most damning. 6) He completely ignores the need for earthing.


Oh yes. He hopes you will ignore these scary pictures:
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.ddxg.net/old/surge_protectors.htm
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html

UL1449 standards were created 25 years ago. Bud will try to claim
these failures did not meet UL1449. But then he must say something to
protect those he represents.

bud-- wrote:
...
Your religious views interferre with technical knowledge. The IEEE
describes plug-in suppressor action as clamping the voltage on all
wires to the common ground at the suppressor. Earthing is secondary.
...

Sorry, the 6 electrical engineers that wrote the IEEE and NIST guides
have a lot more technical knowledge than you. The NIST guide was writen
by the surge guru for the NIST who wrote numerous published technical
papers on surges, a number of which you have distorted to suport your
opinions.

The IEEE and NIST guides both say that plug-in suppressors are
effective.
Links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are effective: 2
Your links to sites that say plug-in suppressors are not effective:
zero, zip, nada


  #43  
Old November 12th 06, 10:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
w_tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default Is Zone Alarm necessary with a DSL firewall?

Leythos - we go through this time and again. All those other
appliances also were not damaged. Using your reasoning, then they were
protected by invisible protectors. After all, your repeated assumption
says devices on protectors were not damaged. Those maybe 100 other
appliances - dishwasher, smoke detector, furnace controls, bathroom
GFCI, refrigerator, etc - therefore also must have been protected by a
protector. Therefore they are all on invisible protectors. When you
will stop denying all these invisible protectors that are necessary so
that damage did not occur?

Or maybe protection inside each appliance protected that appliance -
without or without a plug-in protector. Which is it? You are wrong
or invisible protectors did all that protection?

You know they were protected only because you 'feel' they were
protected. You spent so much money. Therefore those devices (like
Monster Cable products) must have done something useful. Money amount
proves it. Ironically the invisible protectors cost less money. Why
do you not give credit to those so many more invisible protectors that
"have clearly shown to protect devices against surges while other
unprotected equipment of the same protected type has been damaged"?

Leythos wrote:
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.


  #44  
Old November 12th 06, 11:03 PM 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
ups.com:


TO ANYONE FOLLOWING THIS THREAD......

I SHOULD HAVE REALIZED IT MANY POSTS BACK, BUT W_TOM IS A GOOGLE GROUPS
POSTER, WHICH EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.


Somehow DanS assumes a 900 joule or 1600 joule MOV protector will
absorb what three miles of sky could not. DanS has so little grasp as
to assume a 100 amp transient is a typical surge. Surges are on the
order of 10,000 amps. Cited was a tiny 100 amp surge that wall
receptacle wire could not conduct DanS had little knowledge and then
assumed that was a good earthing ground. It could not even conduct a
tiny 100 amp surge which DanS assumed is a typical surge.


No......I did math on numbers YOU provided. I am not a moron like you. I
kow that lightning can be thousands of amps and millions of volts. Great,
you are telling me that 12 gauge house wiring couldn't take a 100 amp surge
of ANY length of time ?



Somehow, DanS confuses 12,000 volts on 50 feet of wire inside wall
with 12,000 volts across a protector. Apparently done to deceive the
lurker. Electronics charged to 12,000 volts will simply leak
electricity destructively through other paths to earth ground because
that wall receptacle ground wire is too long, too many bends, bundled
with other wires, etc. A protector will not absorb voltage to earth
because protector has no connection to earth. Why? Wire is at 12,000
volts.
But again, DanS assumes that APC's undersized 900 joules will
somehow
stop what three miles of sky could not. DanS does not even know what
'joules' measure. And yet he is an expert on surge protection?


No a**hole, YOU do not know what a joule measures.

-1 joule equals the work needed to produce one watt of power continuously
for one second.

-A joule is a measurement of energy. It is the amount of energy that is
being consumed when one watt of power works for one second. This is also
known as a wattsecond.

This also scales linearily.


DanS - both Monster Cable and sub-$100 protector use equivalent MOV
circuits in direct contradiction to what you have posted. Same
circuit as defined by numbers provided by you. Did you have
insufficient technical knowledge to understand the significance of
those numbers?


I never said they did not have similar circuitry.. It would be interesting
to see what kind of reading comprehension scores you would get on a test.


Let's start by teaching what a surge protector does - Surge
Protector 101:
http://www.telebyteusa.com/primer/ch6.htm



So lightning of 50,000 amps dissipates maybe one million volts in
earth. That is maybe 1.5 million joules. How does a 900 joule
protector absorb that surge?


No, your math is flawed. 50,000 Amps x 1,000,000 volts = 50,000,000,000
watts. That's 50 billion watts. If that was for 1 ms, it would be
50,000,000 joules. Me thinks YOU don't know what your talking about.

Now, cut & pasted from one of _YOUR_ sources.....

"The first stroke of lightning during a thunderstorm can produce peak
currents ranging from 1,000 to 100,000 Amperes with rise times of 1
microsecond. It is hard to conceive of, let alone protect against, such
enormous magnitudes. Fortunately, such threats only apply to direct hits on
overhead lines. Hopefully, this is a rare phenomenon."

"More common is the induced surge on a buried cable. In one test,
lightning-induced voltages caused by strokes in ground flashes at distances
of about 5 km were measured at both ends of a 448 meter long, unenergized
power distribution line. Typical test results are illustrated in Figure 18.
Notice that the maximum-induced surge exceeds 80 Volts peak-to-peak. This
is more than enough to destroy semiconductor devices and computer related
equipment. Yet, 80 Volts is well within the range of affordable
protection."

So the more violent rarely occurs, and that is direct hit to the above
wiring. the next paragraph goes on to describe the most common hits, and
then says this "well within the range of affordable protection".

It does not as taught in Surge
Protector 101. Meanwhile effective 'whole house' protectors with
short earthing connections are rated for 50,000 amps - to remain
functional. Don't take my word for it. Learn about effective
protectors. Read from boxes in Lowes and Home Depot


So you are learning from advertising literature on product boxes ?

, or read internet
posted specifications from GE, Siemens, Cutler Hammer, Square D,
Intermatic, and Leviton. DanS - learn some facts before reiterating
half truths from store shelves. You did not even know a '900 joules'
number until forcefully challenged. You still don't know that 900
joules in that APC is woefully undersized.


Well geez d*ickhead, I did know that 900 rating, which was contained in the
link to the APC product I mentioned, AND in the body of the post as well.
Again, you are not reading most things.


What do effective protectors provide? A dedicated wire for a 'less
than 10 foot' connection to earth. What does your sub-$100 UPS and
Monster Cable both not discuss since neither even claims such
protection? Earthing.

Meanwhile DanS has just passively conceding that his recommendations
do not provide EMI / RFI protection. Concedes that the Monster Cable
and sub-$100 UPS have same protector circuit. Slowly he is being
moved to reality.


No, I said they DO contain EMI/RFI protection. I have conceded to NOTHING,
other than you are an a**hole.


We should spend $100 to protect only one appliance? If not for
lightning, then what are we spending so much money to protect from?
DanS still will not say. Somehow there is this other mystery surge
that he will not define. Somehow spec numbers, literally based on
timing of lightning surges, are not really for lightning protection?
But again, we catch DanS speculating because he did not first learn
spec numbers.

Dan also believes a shunt mode protector will somehow operate in
series - to absorb surge energy. Again he is assuming without first
learning what MOVs do. They are shunt mode devices. Better MOVs that
conduct to earth are better shunt mode protection. They work by
shunting - not absorbing. Somehow DanS even assumes a protector will
somehow absorb 12,000 volts out of the 50 feet AC wire; confusing
voltage across a protector with voltage to earth ground.


No, I do know what MOV's are and how they operate.


If DanS really knew antennas, then he knew what industry
professionals say:
http://www.harvardrepeater.org/news/lightning.html

The lurker is cautioned about junk science experts who could not
bother to first learn the numbers, what numbers mean, and how a
protector really works (it shunts). DanS would have us believe shunt
mode protectors operate in series mode. That these devices do EMI/RFI
protection when their own numerical specs don't even make that claim.


No, I would NOT have you believe it operates in series. I know what it does
and how it operates. I never claimed that any surge protection offered
EMI/RFI protection. I did say that a not-super-cheap UPS's contain EMI/RFI
protection, which is documented in product literature.



Instead, protection is about earthing. Effective 'whole house'
protectors with responsible brand names also make that 'less than 10
foot' connection to earth. Somehow APC's undersized 900 joules will
stop or absorb what three miles of sky could not? That is what DanS
claims. Be wary of 'experts' who could not even cite manufacturer's
numerical specifications and who did not know what numbers measured -
but somehow know that it works.


NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT DANS CLAIMS.

DanS claims that you are a troll retard loser that when confronted with
articles from learned, experienced people and are supplied product
literature when asked, and presented even more facts, you can do know more
that CHANGE what you are saying I claimed, and try to change the entire
context of what had been said that did not agree with your arguments.



  #45  
Old November 12th 06, 11:35 PM 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:1163364032.185165.292470
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

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.


That is correct, $80 - $100'ish UPS's was the subject, but the subject was
NOT specifically about lighting protection, you turned it into that one and
continue to twist words and fail to acknowledge any counterpoints what-so-
ever, no matter how valid they are.

 




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 08:26 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.