Can a brownout cause damge to an Iphone while charging?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by SweetMystery, Apr 25, 2015.

  1. SweetMystery macrumors newbie

    SweetMystery

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    #1
    Here in my country brownouts are pretty normal, earlier power has been going on and off while my phone was charging, everytime the power goes out I would unplug the charger just in case it would help from getting any damage. Please help, thanks.:)
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2
    Get a surge protector and you'll be fine.
     
  3. SweetMystery thread starter macrumors newbie

    SweetMystery

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    #3
    Yeah, I'm going to purchase one now that you say it. But do you think that the brownout had already brought damaged to the phone? the power went on and off 4 times with me unplugging it everytime the power goes out.
     
  4. LxHunter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    #4
    How about a small inexpensive UPS?
    Like this APC
    http://www.apc.com/products/family/index.cfm?id=270
     
  5. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #5
    Possibly, but the Apple cube charger has very well engineered electronics that are designed to prevent damage to the phone and the charger in cases such as that.
     
  6. tdale macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    Location:
    Christchurch, N.Z.
    #6
    If the power just went off then on, then no. But, its always possible that when it goes on there is a surge, that could cause damage.
     
  7. ron7624 Contributor

    ron7624

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, Texas area
    #7
    i doubt there has been any damage. the brown out is a loss of power, so no big surge to hurt things, and if you are using your authentic Apple Charger, it has circuts built in that protect the phone as well. You'll be fine.
     
  8. SweetMystery thread starter macrumors newbie

    SweetMystery

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    #8
    Thanks guys for helping, I was getting worried, I guess I am going to purchase a surge protector to save my worries, especially since rainy season is near. (where I live.) I appreciate all your answers.:)
     
  9. westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #9
    Brownouts do not damage any electronics. Voltage can drop so low that incandescent bulbs dim to 50% intensity. That low voltage can be harmful to motorizied appliances (ie refrigerator). And is ideal for electronics.

    Sometimes to increase electronics life expectancy, we include an inrush current limiter to even reduce AC voltage even lower on startup. Because low voltage can even be better for electronics.

    Protector recommendation is also bogus. He recommend a protector for low voltage? A 120 volt protector does nothing until voltage well exceeds 300 volts. A 230 volt protector does nothing until voltage well exceeds 600 volts. Why did he recommend something only for highest voltages as a solution to low voltages? Because many recommend only what the first salesmen told them.

    Chances are you phone even says what voltages are best. Any voltage from 85 to 265 volts. Is your AC power varying that much? The point. Any recommendation without numbers is best considered unreliable at best. Often bogus.

    One final point. A protector adjacent to electronics can sometimes make electronic damage easier. Salesmen also forget to mention that.
     
  10. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #10
    It's not bogus. The idea of a surge protector isn't to protect against brownouts, but power surges, which can also occur in an unstable electrical grid. If the OP uses a surge protector, they don't have to worry about fluctuations in electrical current.
     
  11. westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #12
    You have confused two completely different devices. One is called a surge protector and does not claim to protect from destructive surges. Another is what has done surge protection even 100 years ago. You have no reason to believe a UPS is effective for hardware protection. Especially when its specification numbers do not claim that protection. Also made obvious by a reply that is devoid of numbers that make that claim. A first indication of junk science reasoning is subjective claims.

    Please learn what does and what does not even claim effective protection from each type of anomaly.

    A citation from Titntuff demonstrates protection that has been standard in computers - even the original IBM PC. Protection typically more robust that what is provided by a UPS. But again, numbers make obvious why existing circuits have robust protection AND make most all brownouts irrelevant.

    Brownouts are potentially destructive to motorized appliances. A UPS for brownout protection must be on appliances at risk - such as a refrigerator.
     
  12. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #13
    I'm not confused at all. I know what I said.
    If you're buying a surge protector that doesn't claim to protect against surges, you're buying the wrong product. A good one does, indeed, protect against surges. Like anything, you have to shop to find the right product.
    I didn't say anything about any UPS.
    I know what I'm talking about. Just Google "surge protectors" and you'll find plenty of publicly available information to educate yourself.
     
  13. westom, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015

    westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #14
    Good. Post the numbers from a "good protector" that makes hundreds of thousands of joules irrelevant. Since that is what a 'good protector' does.

    Any recommendation that is subjective is bogus. No numbers is a first indication of junk science reasoning. Since you know what is best, please post your manufacturer specification numbers that demonstrate a 'good protector' for each types of surge. Especially for a typically destructive type.

    Did someone else recommend a UPS? Yes. So the UPS discussion applies completely. Please stop assuming everything is posted only for you. Please be less emotional. Please post spec numbers that demonstrate a 'good protector'. If your Google searches were based in science (and not hearsay), then you can provide facts with numbers. Please provide useful information.

    Also explain why so many protectors are made obsolete by superior protection routinely inside a power supply (ie as demonstrated by numbers provided by Titntuff).
     
  14. poiihy macrumors 68020

    poiihy

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2014
    #15
    You mean a computer power supply or any power supply? Because we're talking about a tiny iPhone charger, not a desktop computer.
     
  15. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #16
    That is false. I suggest you read a bit about joules ratings and the fallacy of depending on such ratings exclusively. There are many good sources, but this should get you started. (And yes, it includes numbers.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surge_protector#Joules_rating
    When you quote only my post and respond to it, anyone reading the thread with a bit of common sense would assume you're referring to the quoted post. If your post includes responses to other posts, quoting them as well would make your response less ambiguous.
    I'm not emotional at all about things posted in an internet forum, and nothing in my posts would suggest otherwise.
     
  16. westom, Apr 29, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2015

    westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #17
    Why does physical size have any relevance? Even that phone charger has similar robust spec numbers. Like a computer with a universal supply, a phone charger also considers perfectly normal any input voltage from 85 to 265 volts. As was an industry standard long before PCs existing, that charger must also withstand transients exceeding 600 volts without damage.

    Useful facts come with spec number. Even tiny GFCIs in wall receptacles are robust. How many times monthly must you replace those electronic devices?
     
  17. westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #18
    Your nasty tone says why you do not understand even the Wikipedia quote. Insufficient technical knowledge and an education only from soundbytes mean you have no ideal what your own citation says. Little hint - author of those paragraphs is syaing you did not understand. Have confused plug-in protectors with something that is completely different - that actually does protection.

    An adjacent protector can only block a surge or absorb it. Your citation accurately says
    So 1) how many joules does your protector absorb? You never say for one simple reason. It joules numbers are near zero hundreds or a thousand joules. Meaning it absorbs even more energy.

    Where is protection from a surge that is hundreds of thousands of joules? Does not exist when a protector is an adjacent type. Even that manufacturer will not discuss where energy absorbs.

    2) A completely different device, called a surge protector, works because it has something to divert to. Where are hundreds of thousands of joules absorbed? Earth ground. Having something to divert to is why an effective protector connects low impedance (ie 'less than 10 feet') to single point earth ground. This completely different device - called a 'whole house' protector - remains functional and does complete protection even after multiple direct lightning strikes. It costs about $1 per protected appliance.

    This concept is proven by over 100 years of experience? Yes. Because your knowledge is based in soundbytes - also called myths. You have assumed a protector that has nothing to divert to will somehow provide protection. Relevant is the question you repeatedly will ignore. "Where do hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate?"

    3) Where does that adjacent protector divert to when it is all but disconnected (excessive impedance) from earth ground? An IEEE figure demonstrates what happens when a protector is too clos to appliances and too far from earth ground. It diverts a surge destructively into some nearby TV - creating 8000 volts damage. Adjacent protector can either block or absorb a surge. That says why your citation is not relevant.

    Any protector adjacent to an appliance that 'diverts' will divert current destructively into nearby appliances. Adjacent protectors can only block a surge or absorb its energy. Now way around that fundamental electrical concept. Destructive surges - the ones we install protectors for - hunt for earth ground. Either harmlessly when earthed BEFORE entering the building. Or destructively if inside. Adjacent protectors even provide more potentially destructive paths through computers.
     
  18. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #19
    My tone isn't nasty. If you take it as such, perhaps you can take your own advice and be less emotional.

    I've only been talking about a surge protector, which doesn't absorb all of a charge, but diverts it. Also, you keep mentioning hundreds of thousands of joules, when clearly that isn't a requirement for the vast majority of situations, since a power surge typically delivers up to around 90 joules.
     
  19. westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #20
    Your tone has clearly been condescending. Now, lets continue with your last paragraph that is technical. A 90 joule surge is often converted by electronic appliances into low voltage DC - to power its semiconductors. Which is a good thing if a power strip protector is 'diverting' a surge. That surge gets diverted into the appliance which, in turn, converts that surge transient into useful DC currents.

    All appliances already have robust protection. Your concern is the rare transient that can overwhelm existing protection. That means hundreds of thousands of joules must dissipate somewhere.

    In one case, a power strip protector did what the IEEE figure demonstrates. It bypassed protection inside a powered off computer. It gave a surge a connection to earth destructively via that and other powered off computers on the network. The review required us to trace the surge path. Even damaged semiconductor in that path was replaces. All computers worked fine afterwards. The reason for damage to that network of powered off computers was no properly earthed 'whole house' protector. An adjacent power strip bypassed internal computer protection making damage easier to everything in that path .. including modems.

    To divert, the protector must have something to divert to ... to absorb hundreds of thousands of joules. Adjacent protectors obviously do not. Adjacent protectors must either block or absorb that energy. Not a near zero 90 joules. Near zero surges are routinely made irrelevant by how electronics work. Protection means one can always say where hundreds of thousands of joules harmlessly dissipate. This means spending tens of times less money for the proven 'whole house' solution. That has what must exist in every protection layer - earth ground.

    Remember, we did this stuff. Even direct lightning strikes without damage ... even to a protector. 90 joules is so near zero as to only damage undersized protectors.
     
  20. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #21
    Again, it's clear you're trying to read an emotional element into my posts that is simply not there. Perhaps you feel overly sensitive or threatened or some other emotional response to those who don't agree with everything you post, but that doesn't mean others can't post without being emotionally involved. What you choose to believe or claim to know has no effect on me, so I'm not concerned with projecting any emotion in my posts. Obviously, surge protectors are useful, despite what you claim, or Apple wouldn't be selling them or suggesting their use.
     
  21. westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #22
    Your tone clearly has been condescending. An informed adult would have posted reasons why a statement is wrong. You never do. Empty denials are also condescending. Your rare post that included a technical number (90 joules) demonstrates why you are posting advertising myths and adversarial denials. And not posting what actually does protection.

    A 90 joule surge is routinely converted to low voltage DC to power electronics semiconductors. A 90 joules surge is easily made irrelevant by what already exists inside appliances.

    Concern is a surge that can overwhelm that existing protection. So one earths a solution that harmlessly dissipates hundreds of thousands of joules outside. If that surge is all but invited inside, it will hunt for connections to earth ground destructively via appliances.

    A technical reality complete with essential numbers (such as a 'less than 10 foot' connection). Fundamental reasons said why a completely different and tens of times less expensive solution is used in facilities that cannot have damage. And why plug-in protectors also need to be protected by this superior and proven solution. More technical numbers. That other solution has been proven by over 100 years of science and experience. And is definitely not found in products from APC or provided by an adjacent UPS.

    That is about surge protection. Brownouts are another anomaly that does not damage electronics.

    Hardware protection is always about a low impedance (ie 'less than 10 foot') connection to single point earth ground. All four words also have electrical significance. A protector is only as effective as its earth ground. Nothing condescending because it discusses technical reality including reasons and numbers why that technical reality, that costs so many times less money, is a best solution.

    Should you have another solution that solves that hundreds of thousands of joules energy, then post the solution with facts and manufacturer spec numbers that justify the recommendation. You have not even posted one manufacturer specification number to justify so many condescending denials. That suggests knowledge only from hearsay and advertising. Some of the greatest sources of junk science reasoning.
     
  22. I7guy macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    What Exit?/Saguaro Country
  23. westom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    #24
    All appliances already have superior protection. For example, ethernet ports must withstand up to 2000 volts without damage. Often a surge too tiny to damage appliances will destroy a grossly undersized protector - rated at (near zero) hundreds of joules. Undersizing gets the naive to recommend an obscenely profitable protector. Put some ten cent protector parts in a $3 power strip. Sell it for $25 or $80. The naive then assume a failed and undersized protector 'sacrificed itself'. A classic example of junk science reasoning that works on the many who just *know* a protector did protection.

    If that protector did protection (as you only assumed), then other unprotected appliances (listed below) are also destroyed. What protected them?

    Your telco CO connects to buildings all over town. It typically suffers 100 surges with each storm. How often is your town without phone service while spending four days replacing that $multi-million computer? Never. Because they spend tens of times less money on the proven solution to make irrelevant hundreds of thousands of joules.

    Read Martzloff's 1979 IEEE paper that shows why hundreds of thousands of joules can be incoming to household appliances. Destructive surges are rare - maybe once every seven years. Incoming wires on the utility telephone pole may be struck once every 400 years. We spend tens of times less money to protect from rare surges - that can overwhelm protection inside appliances.

    Did near zero protectors protect millions of consumers? Then those consumers also suffered damage to every other unprotected appliance including all GFCIs, washing machine, all clocks, oven and refrigerator, all smoke detectors, TV, furnace and air conditioner, dishwasher, recharging mobile phones and flashlights, etc. Why were all those unprotected appliances undamaged? Because all appliances already contain protection often superior to that obscenely profitable and near zero surge protector.

    To claim an adjacent protector did protection means also listing every other unprotected appliance as damaged. The naive ignore those other unprotected and undamaged appliances to 'wish' their expensive (and near zero) protector did protection. That is classic junk science reasoning.
     

Share This Page