Surge suppressors (not wiring)

David Mathog mathog at
Mon Nov 4 13:48:17 EST 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
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit

More information about the Beowulf mailing list