Re: [LAU] thunderstorm

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, June 22, 2009 - 1:13 am

Dave, very sorry to hear that!

Are surge protectors insufficient to protect sensitive audio equipment?  We
have started to use surge protectors to connect all our electronics to
outlets, and they seem to have helped immensely.  they have something like
$75,000 equipment warranties but i don't want to take chances with replacing
or repairing my audio equipment (what a hassle!) if something does happen. 
on the other hand, i don't care if my tv gets fried :)

ethan

Sorry Dave to hear about your trouble! Hope all is well otherwise...

In theory, surge protectors should help. However, if a lighting strikes
close enough to your home, the sheer strength of the spike usually fuses
surge protector's connections before it can actually do its thing. I had my
share of fried equipment using surge protectors, some of which were in my
opinion quite benign, and can attest that while they help, they are not
end-all solutions. I heard somewhere that UPS ought to be able to absorb
massive voltage spike but am yet to see that in action (on a second thought,
I would rather pass on that experience, particularly given consumer UPSs rep
as great home fire-starters).

As for the $75,000 insurance. Sure, you can try to claim that, but like most
such schemes, by the time you have jumped through all the hoops (usually
they require original receipts of items and then pro-rate the equipment
value based on their age, etc.) you may realize that the time you spent on
filing your claim will end-up being more valuable than the compensation
you'll get in return. Still, there is no doubt that having a surge protector
is a lot better than having nothing.

Best wishes,

Ico

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, ethan a young, (Sun Jun 21, 7:38 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Ivica Ico Bukvic, (Mon Jun 22, 1:13 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, david, (Sun Jun 21, 10:09 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, TheOther, (Tue Jun 23, 12:44 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, nescivi, (Tue Jun 23, 3:20 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Q, (Tue Jun 23, 5:51 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, david, (Tue Jun 23, 8:15 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Tracey Hytry, (Tue Jun 23, 6:21 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, david, (Tue Jun 23, 8:18 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, TheOther, (Tue Jun 23, 1:11 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, david, (Wed Jun 24, 6:48 am)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, TheOther, (Wed Jun 24, 1:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Fons Adriaensen, (Tue Jun 23, 1:34 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, TheOther, (Wed Jun 24, 12:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Folderol, (Wed Jun 24, 6:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Bob van der Poel, (Tue Jun 23, 4:59 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, nescivi, (Tue Jun 23, 5:41 pm)
Re: [LAU] thunderstorm, Jonathan Gazeley, (Wed Jun 24, 12:03 pm)