Re: brown-out

• Previous message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
• In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: brown-out"
• Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: brown-out"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:28:32 -0500

  A claim that some appliances were protected by a UPS. For
that claim to be valid, then all other appliances without UPS
must be damaged. As stated so many times previously, with or
without the UPS, that appliance still may not be damaged.
Science first asks which appliance makes a good path to earth
ground. Earth ground - what the UPS manufacturer does not
even discuss. Missing earth ground - which defines a plug-in
UPS as ineffective protection.

  What does the plug-in UPS do? Connects appliance directly
to AC mains when not in battery backup mode. What inside that
UPS was going to stop, block, or absorb a destructive
transient? A relay? Really? No effective UPS protection
exists. That appliance was connected directly to same AC
mains; whether plugged into wall receptacle or connected via
UPS. Appliance most likely protected itself - just like smoke
detector, GFCI, dimmer switch, and furnace controls.

  To prove that UPS provided any protection, one must also
demonstrate every other appliance, not connected via a UPS,
was
damaged. You cannot have it both ways - except by claiming
"Invisible UPSes".

  According to the claim, then either all other non-UPSed
appliances are damaged OR appliances are also protected by the
"Invisible UPS". No way around the logic.

  Then we review manufacturer specs. The manufacture also
does not claim to protect from that type of transient. The
manufacturer does not support Leythos' claims.

  Only way one can claim a UPS protected anything is if
everything else in the building was damaged. And then we have
a hypothesis.
 
  Observations were never sufficient to prove a fact. Again
lessons from junior high school science - and parameters
necessary to obtain a fact. Your eyes are only sufficient to
justify a speculation.

  As for the quality of that SU2200, well, I am still waiting
for a long list of manufacturer numerical specifications.
Funny how they make these numbers so hard to obtain. Without
numbers, how does one know it is quality? From the price?
Where is that UPS spec that claims this protection? Still
waiting for numbers that claim effective protection.

Leythos wrote:
> Never made any claims about devices being protected without the UPS. In
> fact, I've clearly said that I've seen devices on the same AC line
> damaged when the UPS protected devices (on the same AC line) were
> protected by the UPS.
>
> No "invisible" about it, nothing of the sort was claimed. The only claim
> I've ever made is that a quality UPS does protect against suggest - and
> the proof I've seen is that devices not protected, but on the same ac
> line, were damaged, but devices behind the UPS were not (none of them,
> ever, not at any time in all the years I've been using UPS's).
>
> So, go an explain away what I've seen with my own eyes - stop with the
> BS and explain it.
>
> You make claims all over Usenet that the UPS can not protect the devices
> it claims to protect - and you are wrong, at least when it comes to
> quality UPS units like the SU2200.

• Previous message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: [OT] Silly (copyright?) claim by "Galen"."
• In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: brown-out"
• Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: brown-out"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]