1998-03-20 - Re: UPSs

Header Data

From: StanSquncr <StanSquncr@aol.com>
To: mgraffam@mhv.net
Message Hash: 01f3e64c6e27f0bbb7fc0e4028c639a4d26202002247ec747e3dbe3752c7bb55
Message ID: <76f6bc68.3512e4bd@aol.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1998-03-20 21:52:40 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:52:40 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: StanSquncr <StanSquncr@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:52:40 -0800 (PST)
To: mgraffam@mhv.net
Subject: Re: UPSs
Message-ID: <76f6bc68.3512e4bd@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In a message dated 98-03-19 18:29:55 EST, mgraffam@mhv.net writes:

<< >BUT, even the fastest electronics cannot respond fast enough to the
initial
 >spike, if that spike is too high in the first place (if your incoming power
 >lines get hit by lightning, for instance), it's already too late.  My
 >suggestion, don't trust a UPS to eliminate spikes, get it if you
 > anticipate a need for back-up power to shut down your system in case of
 > black-out (and screw the surge protectors, trust the filtering in your
 > power supply to do that for you.)
 
 See.. now.. you're clearly talking about power protection.. but, you see
 we _weren't_ talking about power outages, we were talking about
 compromising emanations being sent through power lines.. and as far
 as the UPS goes, whether or not a UPS would help such muffle such
 emanations. >>

Right.  That's why I pointed out that you shouldn't use a UPS and expect it to
prevent large surges (such as the type that occurs when lightning hits your
incoming power.

So, my statement was NOT stupid, your attack on it was.  :-)

Stan





Thread