Surge suppressors (not wiring)

David Mathog mathog at
Mon Nov 4 10:48:17 PST 2002

> Jim Lux wrote:

> >Good luck though finding a review on something like an EDCO AC-RACK:
> >
> >
> >
> >Which is pretty close to my desired products specs (except
> >joules, which seems low at 900) and does have the "remove
> >load on suppression failure" feature.  So on paper it looks good.
> >Be a bit more comforting if some independent group had tested
> >it though!
> The fact that it is UL1449 listed means that some NRTL (Nationally 
> Recognized Testing Laboratory) has tested it, and you should be able
to get 
> the test report from the MFR...
> Interestingly, that page cites IEEE 584, and I can't find IEEE 584

The UL standards generally mean "this device will not burn your house
down".  When a UL standard requires some level of functionality
it is usually set so low that the poorest exemplar of any given
device will pass.

IEEE 584 appears to be a typo for IEEE 587 (currently
known as  ANSI/IEEE C62.41).  The other EDCO devices refer to
IEEE 587.

> so they can 
> advertise it as "fully designed to meet the intent of IEEE and ANSI 
> standard xyz", which is almost meaningless, but sounds real good to a 
> unsophisticated buyer)

It's particularly meaningless because almost without exception one
cannot obtain such standards without sending a check for $100 x small
factor to the relevant organization.  Which is just ridiculous
for a "standard" but that rant belongs in another thread.


David Mathog
mathog at
Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech

More information about the Beowulf mailing list