Woof, talk about making it up as you go! You've neglected to consider any
of the actual elements that appear to cause wood to conduct, etc.. You've
completely ignored the real components of impedance in the presence of
humidity, chemicals, and any material you mentioned. You look pretty bad
with statements such as these becuase as stated they are incorrect.

w_tom wrote:
Static electric charges can build across shoes. Touch something such
as a door or electronics. How does a circuit conduct electricity from
finger to charges beneath those shoes? Many parts in that circuit are
not conductive? But at those higher voltages, things not considered
conduct become conductive.

Yes, an appliance without a better connection to earth will be less
susceptible to damage. This is why some things are damaged whereas
others are not. Even wall paint may become a conductor at these
voltages. It is not possible to isolate an appliance from destructive
transients. Otherwise lightning could not conduct through the best
insulator - 3 miles of air.

Why does lightning strike a wooden church steeple? Wood is not a
conductor? That is your reasoning. But wood is both a conductor and
a connection to earth. Concrete is not a conductor according to your
reasoning. But concrete is such a good conductor as to be recommended
- Ufer ground.

Protection has always been about earthing transients so that
destructive paths are not found through appliances or through wooden
church steeples.

You are assuming things not conductive when a building is chock full
of conductive paths to earth. Just another reason why every high
reliability building earths before transients enter a building. They
know better. A transient permitted to electronics can find surprise
paths to earth. Best protection which is also less expensive and easy
to implement has always been to earth before a transient can enter a
building. One properly earthed 'whole house' protector is that
effective.

We are not protecting from close lightning strikes. Protection
already inside appliances makes that irrelevant. We are protecting
against a direct strike to AC mains down the strike which is a direct
strike to every household appliance. Only some appliances
destructively earth that direct strike. Which ones? You do not know.
But that answer is irrelevant if the direct strike is earthed before
it enters a building. Some utilities are earthed directly (cable TV
and satellite dish). Others require a 'whole house' protector (AC
electric and telephone). But that protection will only be as good as
a single point earth ground.

Again, this was both a problem and solution well understood way back
in the early 1900s. The technology so effective that your telco
installed it on every phone line. Why would a telephone operator in a
wooden room become a path to earth via non-conductive headphones and a
wooden chair? Those become conductive paths to earth through her
body. Why did that telephone operator not remove her headset when
thunderstorms approached? Even long before WWII, single point
earthing was well proven protection. The need for earthing has been
that well understood for that long. Otherwise lightning could find a
path to earth through that operator. If Pete C's reasoning was
correct, the operator was never at risk. Telcos knew better. Even
those non-conductive headphone and wooden chair could become a
conductive and harmful path to earth.

Protection is about earthing before transients can enter a building.
One 'whole house' protector is defined by the quality of its earthing.

Pete C. wrote:
I already covered that in another reply. A device with no ground
will be unaffected by a common mode surge up to the point of
insulation breakdown through for example, the plastic case of the
device, the wood table it's on, the carpeting under the table, etc.
Basically a very close lightning strike which no affordable
protection device will be able to protect against.

Pop' wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Fires have killed because power strips were daisy chained when,
instead, the solution was sufficient number of wall receptacles.

BS. You can not cite even a single instance of that claim. Do you even
know what "daisy chained" means?

Gee. I'm sorry. That whole kennel of dead dogs when the owner daisy
chained power strips ... well that fire did not really happen? Clearly
insults are now sufficient as technical proof? Lurkers are cautioned:
some will change their identity to post insults without basic technical
grasp.

Meanwhile, reasons for not daisy chaining power strips are accurate
and include the reasons why. Responsible poster don't change their
identities to post personal attacks.

L Ectro wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
clifto wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
w_tom wrote:

Common mode surges are a most typical source of electronics damage.

useless bogus blather deleted

There you go again with your nonsense.

Care to explain how a common mode surge can damage a device that
has no ground connection?

The same way a person that has no ground connection can plug his
finger into the hot and not the neutral or ground contact in a
socket and still get electrocuted. When you say the device has no
ground connection, what you really mean is that it has no *obvious*
ground connection.

And even if your device is a hundred million ohms from ground, it
may be insulated from ground by something that will punch through
when a 5,000 volt common-mode surge hits the device.

--
Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local
fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the
fire. -- Joe Lieberman

I already covered that in another reply. A device with no ground will
be unaffected by a common mode surge up to the point of insulation
breakdown through for example, the plastic case of the device, the
wood table it's on, the carpeting under the table, etc. Basically a
very close lightning strike which no affordable protection device
will be able to protect against.

Pete C.

Actually, switch gaps usually get jumped first.

Example:

A common mode surge comes in along the 2 wire power cord to line lump
powering a laptop computer sitting on a wooden table. The laptop has no
connections to any other device i.e. WiFi network. Unless the surge is
of a large enough magnitutde to punch through the insulation of the
devices in question there should be no damage.

Pete C.

w_tom wrote:
Pop' wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Fires have killed because power strips were daisy chained when,
instead, the solution was sufficient number of wall receptacles.

BS. You can not cite even a single instance of that claim. Do you
even know what "daisy chained" means?

I ask again: Do you know what daisy chaining power strips means?
And can you cite even a single instance of your claim? Because you say so
doesn't make it so, anymore than it makes my e-mail address valid.

Gee. I'm sorry. That whole kennel of dead dogs when the owner daisy
chained power strips ... well that fire did not really happen?

Oh, it probably happened, but not for the reasons you're citing and/or
making up. All I want is a cite; if I'm wrong I'm not afraid to admit it.
But logic tells me I am not wrong about your allegations. Your say so
doesn't make it so.

Clearly insults are now sufficient as technical proof? Lurkers are
cautioned: some will change their identity to post insults without
basic technical grasp.

No, I wouldn't consider your insults of any kind of proof whatsoever. Or
anyone else's for that matter.

Well, where's the cite? Where is there any proof of your allegation?
Where can I find information to support ANY of your claims about the shock
hazard issue?


Meanwhile, reasons for not daisy chaining power strips are accurate

Yes, there sure are reasons: but they are NOT the reasons YOU allege. Your
allegations are BS unless/until you can provide some supporting information.
You appear to be relying on uneducated assumptions, inuendo, misinformation
and egocntricity. Or, you're making it up for your own purposes. Just cite
something supportive.

Provide some backup information. It's certainly not recommended to daisy
chain, but for reasons other than you are claiming.

and include the reasons why. Responsible poster don't change their
identities to post personal attacks.

Hey, I can change my nick to whatever I wish to, and if you noticed, I'm
still:

Regards,

Pop`

FWIW, I change my nick periodically; there's a definite purpose in it which
is far from what you're suggesting, or I'd also change my name from "Pop`"
to something else. A nick is a nick, and a liar is a liar.

L Ectro wrote:
Hey, I can change my nick to whatever I wish to, and if you noticed, I'm
still:
Pop`

An old Rush Limbaugh trick is to attack and accuse so that the others
will not notice the accuser has insufficient technical grasp. Pop'
who also pretends to be L Ectro denies obvious dangers from daisy
chaining power strips. Dangers that anyone with technical knowledge
has long since understood.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...11/ai_n8959523
An electrical failure in an overloaded power strip in an elementary
school classroom ignited a late-night fire that damaged the
structure. Appliances and an extension cord to other power strips
were plugged into the power strip of origin. ...

Investigators found that a series of power strips providing electricity
to several pieces of equipment in a classroom overheated a cord
and ignited wooden cabinets.

Danger from daisy chaining is common knowledge. Daisy chaining power
strip protectors (which was the original question) is even worse
because a plug-in protector does nothing useful while promoted as if it
will stop or absorb surges.

Another has suggested, using word phrasing, that Pop' may also have
posted here under a third name. Purpose? To deceive others. This
time Pop', whose ethics now have no problem posting as if different
people in a same discussion, Pop' got caught.

Meanwhile point-of-use surge suppressors are dangerous when daisy
chained, are undesireable as demonstrated in scary pictures:
http://www.westwhitelandfire.com/Art...Protectors.pdf
http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=556&parent=554
http://www.zerosurge.com/HTML/movs.html
http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs...tectorfire.htm
and are not earthed with or without three wire (safety grounded) wall
receptacles.

Power strip without 'protector' components and with an essential 15
amp circuit breaker only should be used. Effective surge protection
(with two wire or three wire receptacles) is accomplished by a properly
earthed 'whole house' protector. Earthing defines that protection.

Pete C. wrote:
Example:

A common mode surge comes in along the 2 wire power cord to line lump
powering a laptop computer sitting on a wooden table. The laptop has no
connections to any other device i.e. WiFi network. Unless the surge is
of a large enough magnitutde to punch through the insulation of the
devices in question there should be no damage.

Punching through insulation (converting non-conductive material
temporarily into conductive material) is what surges do. Again,
appliances already contain any protection that will work on their power
cord. But a destructive surge creates conductive paths through items
(such as the wooden tabletop or church steeple) normally not considered
conductive.

Another classic example is a dialup modem. How are they damaged? A
most typical path goes into computer on AC mains, through modem via its
off-hook relay, then out to earth ground via telephone line. How does
it make a conductive path to a galvanically isolated phone line? Surge
creates a conductive path from relay's coil, across an isolation
barrier, to relay's wiper. IOW destructive surges are destructive
because they create conductive paths through non-conductive material.

So what is a building owner to do? The building is chock full of
potentially conductive paths to earth ... which is why protection must
earth before transients can enter that building.

A computer connected only to AC mains and using WiFi is less likely
to be damaged - just like the TV adjacent to a VCR might not be damaged
when VCR is destroyed.

Not only is earthing essential - so that protection inside that
laptop is not damaged. The protection is layered. A 'whole house'
protector earthed by a building electrode is secondary protection.
Primary protection must also be inspected:
http://www.tvtower.com/fpl.html

Surge protection is not installed for every transient. Protection
inside all appliances makes most all transients irrelevant - whether
laptop uses WiFi or phone line. But a destructive transient that would
otherwise punch through such protection is why effective protectors are
installed. Such surges occur typically once every seven years - a
number that can vary significantly even within a same town. We earth a
'whole house' protector so that the destructive surge does not punch
through insulation - protection that exists in all electronics.

Anything that a 'plug-in' protector would accomplish is already
inside electronics. Protection that can be overwhelmed by punching
through insulation. Just another reason why money spent on a plug-in
protector is better spent to enhance earthing for a 'whole house'
protector.

w_tom wrote:

Pete C. wrote:

Example:

A common mode surge comes in along the 2 wire power cord to line lump
powering a laptop computer sitting on a wooden table. The laptop has no
connections to any other device i.e. WiFi network. Unless the surge is
of a large enough magnitutde to punch through the insulation of the
devices in question there should be no damage.

Sounds reasonable to me. (Common mode surges coming in on the power line
are substantially converted to transverse mode by the N-G bond in US
services.)


Punching through insulation (converting non-conductive material
temporarily into conductive material) is what surges do. Again,
appliances already contain any protection that will work on their power
cord. But a destructive surge creates conductive paths through items
(such as the wooden tabletop or church steeple) normally not considered
conductive.

Since surges coming in on the powerline produce arc-over in panels and
receptacles at about 6000V, 6000V will conduct through the table top
plus laptop insulation?

Another classic example is a dialup modem. How are they damaged? A
most typical path goes into computer on AC mains, through modem via its
off-hook relay, then out to earth ground via telephone line. How does
it make a conductive path to a galvanically isolated phone line? Surge
creates a conductive path from relay's coil, across an isolation
barrier, to relay's wiper. IOW destructive surges are destructive
because they create conductive paths through non-conductive material.

Relatively small distances between conductors compared to a table dontya
think?

So what is a building owner to do? The building is chock full of
potentially conductive paths to earth ... which is why protection must
earth before transients can enter that building.

The IEEE and NIST both say plug-in surge protectors are effective. They
are usually installed inside buildings.


Anything that a 'plug-in' protector would accomplish is already
inside electronics.
According to you, protection already inside electronics can't work since
it lacks "a short and essential earthing connection".

And the IEEE and NIST do not agree with your rants on plug-in surge
suppressors.

--
bud--

w_tom wrote:
clifto wrote:
Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining suppressor power strips?

Will a power strip protector somehow stops or block what three miles
of sky could not? That is not what a power strip protector does. And
yet that is why some daisy chain power strip protectors on a myth that
more will create a chain of protection - stop or block a surge.

Meanwhile, every power strip must have a 15 amp circuit breaker so
that excessive load does not concentrate on one power strip. Fires
have killed because power strips were daisy chained when, instead, the
solution was sufficient number of wall receptacles.

Okay. I always count total wattage/current before plugging stuff in,
even on a standard wall outlet. Main reason I like to daisy-chain surge
protectors is that the one closest to the outlet takes most of the small
hits and wears out the fastest, protecting the others so they can (1) stay
in use when I replace the closest one and (2) help a little on a somewhat-
more-than-small hit.

--
Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire
department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire.
-- Joe Lieberman

clifto wrote:
w_tom wrote:
clifto wrote:
Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining suppressor power strips?

Will a power strip protector somehow stops or block what three miles
of sky could not? That is not what a power strip protector does. And
yet that is why some daisy chain power strip protectors on a myth that
more will create a chain of protection - stop or block a surge.

Meanwhile, every power strip must have a 15 amp circuit breaker so
that excessive load does not concentrate on one power strip. Fires
have killed because power strips were daisy chained when, instead, the
solution was sufficient number of wall receptacles.

Okay. I always count total wattage/current before plugging stuff in,
even on a standard wall outlet. Main reason I like to daisy-chain surge
protectors is that the one closest to the outlet takes most of the small
hits and wears out the fastest, protecting the others so they can (1) stay
in use when I replace the closest one and (2) help a little on a somewhat-
more-than-small hit.



What the hell does daisy chaining power strips have to do with whether
or not plug in type surge protectors do help protect sensitive
equipment? W_Tom talks about going on the attack to divert attention
from technical issues, yet he's here spewing how daisy chaining power
strips and plugging in endless loads can cause a fire. Good grief!

It seems most of the world is in agreement. Whole house surge
protectors with a proper ground are an excellent idea, as they can
protect the whole house and stop a surge just as it enters the house.
And for those that can't install one, like those living in a rental
property or an apartment, plug in surge protectors are a good idea.
And they are a good idea even if you have a whole house protector. To
argue against it is like saying having a locked bank vault doesn't do
any good, cause the front door is already secure.

And old W Tom rants on about how appliances already have surge
protection built in. Well, which would you rather deal with? A
$2000 Plasma TV that took the hit and blew out the surge protection, or
a $25 surge protector that you can throw away?

Like most here, I've seen plug ins work and believe they are effective,
though not as preferable as a whole house unit. Another factor, many
of the plug ins also offer additonal protection for cable and phone
lines. W Tom, Before you go on a rant about how all that is
unecessary, read the part about the bank.

wrote:
What the hell does daisy chaining power strips have to do with whether
or not plug in type surge protectors do help protect sensitive
equipment? W_Tom talks about going on the attack to divert attention
from technical issues, yet he's here spewing how daisy chaining power
strips and plugging in endless loads can cause a fire. Good grief!
...

Did Trader4 bother to first read the question before spouting insults?
Funny that Trader4 would do what he falsely accuses others of doing.
But to make it easy for him, the question that he forgot to read before
attacking is reposted:
Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining suppressor power strips?

Trader4 - the question is "Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining
suppressor power strips?" Do you think, just once, you could
demonstrate some enough concentration to stay on topic? Surprise us
instead of spewing. Why not chain suppressor power strips?
Again, just so you don't forget the question:
Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining suppressor power strips?

w_tom wrote:
wrote:
What the hell does daisy chaining power strips have to do with whether
or not plug in type surge protectors do help protect sensitive
equipment? W_Tom talks about going on the attack to divert attention
from technical issues, yet he's here spewing how daisy chaining power
strips and plugging in endless loads can cause a fire. Good grief!
...

Did Trader4 bother to first read the question before spouting insults?

No attack, just cogent comments, instead of rambling rants.


Funny that Trader4 would do what he falsely accuses others of doing.

I didn't accuse you or anyone else of spouting insults,.


But to make it easy for him, the question that he forgot to read before
attacking is reposted:
Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining suppressor power strips?

Trader4 - the question is "Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining
suppressor power strips?" Do you think, just once, you could
demonstrate some enough concentration to stay on topic? Surprise us
instead of spewing. Why not chain suppressor power strips?
Again, just so you don't forget the question:
Why do they suggest not daisy-chaining suppressor power strips?


The obvious point, apparent in the above, is how you keep focusing on
"suppressor" power strips. As if endlessly daisy chaining
non-suppressor power strips and plugging in more extension cords
doesn't present safety issues. Or, for that matter, just using those
little cube taps to plug 20 extension cords into one outlet.

wrote:
The obvious point, apparent in the above, is how you keep focusing on
"suppressor" power strips. As if endlessly daisy chaining
non-suppressor power strips and plugging in more extension cords
doesn't present safety issues. Or, for that matter, just using those
little cube taps to plug 20 extension cords into one outlet.

Despite a confused post from trader4, daisy chaining of power strips
and extension cords has again been at the heart of a deadly fi
Friday December 29, 2006 8:01 PM
By KATHY MATHESON
Associated Press Writer
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - An extension cord overloaded with
Christmas decorations may have sparked a fire that swept
through four downtown row houses Friday, killing five people
and injuring several others, officials said.

The holiday decorations had been plugged into a power strip
joined to an extension cord, said Allentown Fire Capt. Robert
Scheirer.

w_tom wrote:
wrote:
The obvious point, apparent in the above, is how you keep focusing on
"suppressor" power strips. As if endlessly daisy chaining
non-suppressor power strips and plugging in more extension cords
doesn't present safety issues. Or, for that matter, just using those
little cube taps to plug 20 extension cords into one outlet.

Despite a confused post from trader4, daisy chaining of power strips
and extension cords has again been at the heart of a deadly fi
Friday December 29, 2006 8:01 PM
By KATHY MATHESON
Associated Press Writer
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - An extension cord overloaded with
Christmas decorations may have sparked a fire that swept
through four downtown row houses Friday, killing five people
and injuring several others, officials said.

The holiday decorations had been plugged into a power strip
joined to an extension cord, said Allentown Fire Capt. Robert
Scheirer.

The only one that appears confused here is you Tom. Thanks for making
my point, which was that endlessly plugging in loads, whether using
surge protector power strips or other means, as happened above, is just
as dangerous.

On 30 Dec 2006 16:33:11 -0800, w_tom wrote:
Despite a confused post from trader4, daisy chaining of power strips
and extension cords has again been at the heart of a deadly fi

Friday December 29, 2006 8:01 PM
By KATHY MATHESON
Associated Press Writer
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - An extension cord overloaded with
Christmas decorations may have sparked a fire that swept
through four downtown row houses Friday, killing five people
and injuring several others, officials said.

The holiday decorations had been plugged into a power strip
joined to an extension cord, said Allentown Fire Capt. Robert
Scheirer.

You seem to be the one confused or trying to mislead. The power strip
seems no more central than the row house itself or the christmas
decorations. The extension cord was "at the heart" of the fire, which
is why the article starts with "An extension cord overloaded..."

A powerstrip has a circuit breaker and its cord is protected by that
breaker. Obviously if you plug a powestrip (safe) into an extension
cord that is too small (not safe) you can have a problem, but so far
I've not seen anything inherant in power strips that would be a problem
"daisy-chained," and apparently neither have you.

sdb

--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com

sylvan butler wrote:
A powerstrip has a circuit breaker and its cord is protected by that
breaker. Obviously if you plug a powestrip (safe) into an extension
cord that is too small (not safe) you can have a problem, but so far
I've not seen anything inherant in power strips that would be a problem
"daisy-chained," and apparently neither have you.

Verb correction. A power strip should have a circuit breaker....
There is no rule and no requirement that a breaker exists. Without a
breaker, it cannot get UL approval. But UL approval is not required.
In many fires, such as the local dog kennel that killed all dogs, at
least some power strips did not have the circuit breaker. You have
assumed all power strips have circuit breakers. I was just looking at
one today (from Archer - a Radio Shack product) that did not.

On 4 Jan 2007 18:02:07 -0800, w_tom wrote:
sylvan butler wrote:
A powerstrip has a circuit breaker and its cord is protected by that
breaker. Obviously if you plug a powestrip (safe) into an extension
cord that is too small (not safe) you can have a problem, but so far
I've not seen anything inherant in power strips that would be a problem
"daisy-chained," and apparently neither have you.

There is no rule and no requirement that a breaker exists. Without a
breaker, it cannot get UL approval. But UL approval is not required.
In many fires, such as the local dog kennel that killed all dogs, at
least some power strips did not have the circuit breaker. You have

Any equipment might be faulty in design or miss-built or broken. How
does that incriminate power strips?

sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com