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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
formatting link
An electrical failure in an overloaded power strip in an elementary
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:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
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.
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:
formatting link
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.
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.)
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?
Relatively small distances between conductors compared to a table dontya think?
The IEEE and NIST both say plug-in surge protectors are effective. They are usually installed inside buildings.
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.
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.
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:
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:
No attack, just cogent comments, instead of rambling rants.
I didn't accuse you or anyone else of spouting insults,.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.