Searching \ for '[EE] Internal Wall Wart?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=internal+wall+wart
Search entire site for: 'Internal Wall Wart?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Internal Wall Wart?'
2008\02\14@155507 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
It SEEMS that we end up spending thousands of dollars to get UL safety
testing on the following:

1. A UL listed power supply
2. A UL listed power switch
3. A UL listed power inlet
4. A few pieces of wire and a ground lug


It SEEMS that it should be possible to avoid all this if there were
something like the old PC power supplies that had the inlet, power switch,
etc. all enclosed in a box with just the DC outputs coming out of the box.
We'd shove the power supply up against our rear panel and have no line
connected circuitry in our product other than that "pre-approved" box. I
think this is similar to using an external low voltage power supply.

So.. does the group think this would reduce or eliminate UL safety testing
costs? Does anyone know of any power supplies like this?

THANKS!

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\02\14@161032 by David VanHorn

picon face
> It SEEMS that it should be possible to avoid all this if there were
> something like the old PC power supplies that had the inlet, power switch,
> etc. all enclosed in a box with just the DC outputs coming out of the box.
> We'd shove the power supply up against our rear panel and have no line
> connected circuitry in our product other than that "pre-approved" box. I
> think this is similar to using an external low voltage power supply.

Isn't that what UL approved supplies and wall-warts are for?

2008\02\14@162324 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Harold Hallikainen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

You are unable to purchase already-tested wall warts?

UL will be happy if the UL number is valid.
But be careful, many aren't.

Jameco sells tested UL-certified wall-warts.

--Bob

2008\02\14@162334 by Rob Robson

flavicon
face
I've used 1U ATX-style units from Sparkle Power
http://www.sparklepower.com/proPCPS_Micro.html.  As long as you can meet the
minimum load requirements, they're a lot of power supply for the money
(approx. US$40).  I've never had one fail (out of approx. 200 pieces), and
they're considerably more affordable than open-frame OEM supplies which
typically have fewer outputs.

RR

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\14@165414 by alan smith

picon face
Somewhere I've seen a table top supply with a switch.  Take a look at XP Power as well.

Harold Hallikainen <spam_OUTharoldTakeThisOuTspamhallikainen.org> wrote:  It SEEMS that we end up spending thousands of dollars to get UL safety
testing on the following:

1. A UL listed power supply
2. A UL listed power switch
3. A UL listed power inlet
4. A few pieces of wire and a ground lug


It SEEMS that it should be possible to avoid all this if there were
something like the old PC power supplies that had the inlet, power switch,
etc. all enclosed in a box with just the DC outputs coming out of the box.
We'd shove the power supply up against our rear panel and have no line
connected circuitry in our product other than that "pre-approved" box. I
think this is similar to using an external low voltage power supply.

So.. does the group think this would reduce or eliminate UL safety testing
costs? Does anyone know of any power supplies like this?

THANKS!

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\02\14@180921 by Matt Pobursky

flavicon
face
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:54:35 -0800 (PST), Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> It SEEMS that we end up spending thousands of dollars to get UL safety
> testing on the following:
>
> 1. A UL listed power supply
> 2. A UL listed power switch
> 3. A UL listed power inlet
> 4. A few pieces of wire and a ground lug
>
>
> It SEEMS that it should be possible to avoid all this if there were
> something like the old PC power supplies that had the inlet, power
> switch, etc. all enclosed in a box with just the DC outputs coming out of
> the box. We'd shove the power supply up against our rear panel and have
> no line connected circuitry in our product other than that "pre-approved"
> box.
>
> I think this is similar to using an external low voltage power
> supply.

No, there is actually quite a large difference in U.L.'s eyes -- using a
wall wart no high voltage is contained inside your enclosure, only isolated
low voltage via your power cable. In the case of an enclosed AC mains
operated supply inside your box you are also introducing mains voltage
inside your box. Yeah, it's in a can but it's still there and stuff
happens. That's how U.L. will look at it, even if it's a U.L. listed power
supply module.

> So.. does the group think this would reduce or eliminate UL safety
> testing costs? Does anyone know of any power supplies like this?

It depends on the specification you're trying to meet and what the target
industry expects. In the industries I design for (medical devices, fire
alarm and detection systems and industrial controls) I would expect to
actually have more U.L. safety tests because AC mains voltage is now inside
the box.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

2008\02\14@184007 by Marc Nicholas

picon face
What about a device with, say, a soid state relay that switched AC?

-marc



On 2/14/08, Matt Pobursky <.....piclistKILLspamspam@spam@mps-design.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\14@184100 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> You are unable to purchase already-tested wall warts?
>
> UL will be happy if the UL number is valid.
> But be careful, many aren't.
>
> Jameco sells tested UL-certified wall-warts.
>
> --Bob


The problem is that our customers don't like wall warts, so I'd like to
stick it in the box and have a standard AC inlet. From another comment on
the thread, it appears UL would still charge us thousands of dollars to
look at the power supply because AC is entering our box...

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\02\14@191343 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>> You are unable to purchase already-tested wall warts?
>>
>> UL will be happy if the UL number is valid.
>> But be careful, many aren't.
>>
>> Jameco sells tested UL-certified wall-warts.
>>
>> --Bob
>>    
>
>
> The problem is that our customers don't like wall warts, so I'd like to
> stick it in the box and have a standard AC inlet. From another comment on
> the thread, it appears UL would still charge us thousands of dollars to
> look at the power supply because AC is entering our box...
>
> Harold
>
>  
Yep, that's right. UL-met wall warts solve a lot of costs, but they
aren't "slick".

Look at it like this... UL simply wants to see if the product will cause
a fire.  If
you use a wall wart , all the fire-susceptible stuff is in an
already-tested box, and
you are golden (as long as your product is within the rating of the
wall-wart). UL
doesn't care if it even WORKS, they ONLY care if it causes or sustains a
fire.

It is your job to design a safe product FIRST. That's what an engineer
does, in the eyes of the public, and the legal system.

Imagine being at a jury trial between your client and a user whose home
burned down.
What will you say when the user's lawyer asks you whether your product
was approved
as fire-safe by UL? If UL passed your product, you can rest easy- it's a
cakewalk.
Without the UL mark, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to win a jury trial,
because juries
cannot make complex technical judgments.

I've been hammered by clients, too, but you must convince them to make
safe decisions
FIRST. They will later be glad you stood your ground.

--Bob Axtell





2008\02\14@193949 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 07:13 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:

>Yep, that's right. UL-met wall warts solve a lot of costs, but they
>aren't "slick".
>
>Look at it like this... UL simply wants to see if the product will cause
>a fire.  If
>you use a wall wart , all the fire-susceptible stuff is in an
>already-tested box, and
>you are golden (as long as your product is within the rating of the
>wall-wart). UL
>doesn't care if it even WORKS, they ONLY care if it causes or sustains a
>fire.

You sure about that? I bet I could cause a real fire with a UL-approved
12V 1.5A wall wart, and not once exceed the ratings.... any takers?

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffspamKILLspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2008\02\14@195114 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
How about taking an external wall wart and attaching it
to the outside of your wonderbox ?  Does that make the customers
happier ?  Then snake the DC cable inside. Or plug it in right next
to the wart.  Maybe the wart could have fins* on it so it looks cool.

Cedric      ( * like on a cadillac       http://oh-god.com/cadillac )


On Feb 14, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:

Harold Hallikainen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\02\14@195248 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Yeah
Do it !
Cedric



2008\02\14@200348 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> At 07:13 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
>
>  
>> Yep, that's right. UL-met wall warts solve a lot of costs, but they
>> aren't "slick".
>>
>> Look at it like this... UL simply wants to see if the product will cause
>> a fire.  If
>> you use a wall wart , all the fire-susceptible stuff is in an
>> already-tested box, and
>> you are golden (as long as your product is within the rating of the
>> wall-wart). UL
>> doesn't care if it even WORKS, they ONLY care if it causes or sustains a
>> fire.
>>    
>
> You sure about that? I bet I could cause a real fire with a UL-approved
> 12V 1.5A wall wart, and not once exceed the ratings.... any takers?
>
>  
Of course you can, Spehro. But I'll bet the fire won't break out in the
wall wart.

--Bob
> Best regards,
>
> Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
> EraseMEspeffspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
> Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
>
>
>
>  

2008\02\14@202435 by Marc Nicholas

picon face
Nobody wants to comment on my SSR question? ;)

I'm actually worried about the product I just designed. CSA/UL is
outside my budget.

-marc



On 2/14/08, Bob Axtell <engineerspamspam_OUTcotse.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\14@221157 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> You sure about that? I bet I could cause a real fire with
>> a UL-approved
>> 12V 1.5A wall wart, and not once exceed the ratings....
>> any takers?

> Of course you can, Spehro. But I'll bet the fire won't
> break out in the
> wall wart.

This could be a challenge.
If you hold the output current at JUST below fusing /
trip-out current what is the dissipation in the psu. Hold
mains input at worst case point - probably at maximum
allowed value.
If the wall wart does not specify how it is allowed to be
"housed" them encase it in Perlite :-).

eg
Place wall wart in mains distribution board (what you call
them there I don't know.
Load to worst case point.
Power at worst case mains.
Tape thermocouple probe to box.
Pour 100 kg (50 lb) bag of Perlite over wart and dis box and
all and observe the fun.
:-)


       Russell




2008\02\14@222452 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Bob Axtell <KILLspamengineerKILLspamspamcotse.net> wrote:
> Imagine being at a jury trial between your client and a user whose home
> burned down.
> What will you say when the user's lawyer asks you whether your product
> was approved
> as fire-safe by UL? If UL passed your product, you can rest easy- it's a
> cakewalk.
> Without the UL mark, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to win a jury trial,
> because juries
> cannot make complex technical judgments.
>


Is that really true? I would have thought that there is a significant
danger of you losing the suit even if you DO have UL cert. If your
product caused the fire (or if the plaintiff can make it look like it
might have), then you AND UL are at fault, right?

Sean

2008\02\14@224100 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Spehro Pefhany <RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com> wrote:
> At 07:13 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
>
>  >Yep, that's right. UL-met wall warts solve a lot of costs, but they
>  >aren't "slick".
>  >
>  >Look at it like this... UL simply wants to see if the product will cause
>  >a fire.  If
>  >you use a wall wart , all the fire-susceptible stuff is in an
>  >already-tested box, and
>  >you are golden (as long as your product is within the rating of the
>  >wall-wart). UL
>  >doesn't care if it even WORKS, they ONLY care if it causes or sustains a
>  >fire.
>
>  You sure about that? I bet I could cause a real fire with a UL-approved
>  12V 1.5A wall wart, and not once exceed the ratings.... any takers?
>

Sure, I've seen it done with a 6.3V, 1A wart.  Just "trickle" charge a
li-ion battery.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
spamBeGonemarkragesspamBeGonespammidwesttelecine.com

2008\02\14@231057 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 10:40 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

LOL. Even without a Li-ion cell...

I used a rather puny 1.25A 12V SMPS wall-wart sold by CUI. Measured out
about 12' of AWG 39 wire, calculated to give a current of about 1.2A at
20°C (dropping as the temperature rises). I was a little generous with the
wire and the resistance measured 10.6 ohms, for a current of 1.13A.

First attempt failed-- too spread out. I wound it on a toilet paper tube--
it got hot, but not hot enough.

Second test had the same length and gauge of wire in a much smaller volume,
and it succeeded in creating smoke, and then open flames, within a total
time of less than 10 minutes.

So, if you use an approved adapter but your factory uses a non-fire-retardant
grade of plastic for the housing moldings, for example, you *could* be putting
lives in danger.

Test 1
server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test1s.jpg
http://server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test1.jpg

Test 2
server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test2s.jpg
server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test2sm.jpg
http://server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test2f.jpg


Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffspamTakeThisOuTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2008\02\15@032213 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

I would expect the transformer in a UL approved wart to contain a fairly
low rated temperature thermal fuse that makes such experiments and
exercise in futility!

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2008\02\15@044245 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> Place wall wart in mains distribution board (what you
>> call
>> them there I don't know.
>> Load to worst case point.
>> Power at worst case mains.
>> Tape thermocouple probe to box.
>> Pour 100 kg (50 lb) bag of Perlite over wart and dis box
>> and
>> all and observe the fun.
>> :-)

> I would expect the transformer in a UL approved wart to
> contain a fairly
> low rated temperature thermal fuse that makes such
> experiments and
> exercise in futility!

Think of it as an Edison experiment.
Even if it "fails" you learn something useful.

There must be *some* way to fry them ;-)

I just noted my radical kg/lbs conversion factor :-).
I'd be able to get a job at NASA any day.



       Russell




2008\02\15@063727 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

> Pour 100 kg (50 lb) bag of Perlite over wart

Ouch... :)

Gerhard

2008\02\15@070016 by Jinx

face picon face
> > Pour 100 kg (50 lb) bag of Perlite over wart
>
> Ouch... :)

Quite. 100kg = 50lb made me wince too

2008\02\15@071158 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
> http://server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test1.jpg

There is the problem - you put it outside in the snow, no wonder it didn't
get hot enough to ignite ... ;)))

2008\02\15@071618 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 03:23 AM 2/15/2008, you wrote:


>I would expect the transformer in a UL approved wart to contain a fairly
>low rated temperature thermal fuse that makes such experiments and
>exercise in futility!
>
>Mike

Yes, they may survive or (safely) self-destruct, but they should not
be the cause of a fire. However, if your product fails badly, leading
to the Ta around the adapter increasing hundreds of Kelvins, that
would also likely cause failure.

http://server2.hostingplex.com/~zstoretr/test2f.jpg

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffEraseMEspamEraseMEinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2008\02\15@081840 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> Pour 100 kg (50 lb) bag of Perlite over wart
>
> Ouch... :)

Been there, seen that, sent the corrigendum ... :-)




2008\02\15@094352 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Marc Nicholas <RemoveMEgeekythingspam_OUTspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody wants to comment on my SSR question? ;)
>
> I'm actually worried about the product I just designed. CSA/UL is
> outside my budget.
>

Then you have a problem in North American market (at least in USA
and Canada).

Xiaofan

2008\02\15@094753 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Sean Breheny <RemoveMEshb7TakeThisOuTspamspamcornell.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Bob Axtell <EraseMEengineerspamspamspamBeGonecotse.net> wrote:
> > Imagine being at a jury trial between your client and a user whose home
> > burned down.
> > What will you say when the user's lawyer asks you whether your product
> > was approved as fire-safe by UL? If UL passed your product, you
> > can rest easy- it's a cakewalk.

I believe this is not true.

> > Without the UL mark, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to win a jury trial,
> > because juries cannot make complex technical judgments.
> >
>
> Is that really true? I would have thought that there is a significant
> danger of you losing the suit even if you DO have UL cert. If your
> product caused the fire (or if the plaintiff can make it look like it
> might have), then you AND UL are at fault, right?
>

I think Sean is correct. I went through a two day UL seminar
given by UL India in January. The UL guys told us that UL
will investigate the incidents and UL certificates could be
revoked. You will still be held liable for the damage.

Xiaofan

2008\02\15@112426 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Apptech wrote:

>>> Pour 100 kg (50 lb) bag of Perlite over wart
>>
>> Ouch... :)
>
> Been there, seen that, sent the corrigendum ... :-)

We're all glad that this wasn't part of the calculations for sending a
satellite into orbit (to cross-reference another thread...)

It would be so nice if we all could live happily ever after with the SI :)

Gerhard

2008\02\15@115406 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 15, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Apptech wrote:
>>
>
> Think of it as an Edison experiment.
> Even if it "fails" you learn something useful.
>
> There must be *some* way to fry them ;-)
>
> I just noted my radical kg/lbs conversion factor :-).
> I'd be able to get a job at NASA any day.
>
>
>
>         Russell
>


NASA is full of experts.  Will you be one of them ?
I doubt you could be.
Cedric

2008\02\15@115850 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

On what basis can the certificate be revoked ?  Because you committed
fraud during the UL testing ?   Because you modified the UL approved
design ?   Or because they are in a CYA mode ?
Cedric

2008\02\15@120021 by alan smith

picon face
There was a house that burned down due to a toaster that malfunctioned.  The homeowners won.

Sean Breheny <spamBeGoneshb7STOPspamspamEraseMEcornell.edu> wrote:  On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:
> Imagine being at a jury trial between your client and a user whose home
> burned down.
> What will you say when the user's lawyer asks you whether your product
> was approved
> as fire-safe by UL? If UL passed your product, you can rest easy- it's a
> cakewalk.
> Without the UL mark, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to win a jury trial,
> because juries
> cannot make complex technical judgments.
>


Is that really true? I would have thought that there is a significant
danger of you losing the suit even if you DO have UL cert. If your
product caused the fire (or if the plaintiff can make it look like it
might have), then you AND UL are at fault, right?

Sean

2008\02\15@122834 by sergio masci

flavicon
face


On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Cedric Chang wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Give me a break Cedric. NASA is like any other big organisation. It has
some very good people and some not so good people who get by because of
the very good ones.

You know nothing about Russell or how well he might fit into a place like
NASA so kindly keep these kinds of comments to yourself.

Regards
Sergio Masci

2008\02\15@123006 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
Does this mean they did not have insurance coverage ?
Cedric

{Quote hidden}

2008\02\15@125240 by alan smith

picon face
They did have insurance, believe it was the insurance company that took the mfg to court over it.  It was years ago, so i don't recall the details.

Cedric Chang <EraseMEccspamEraseMEnope9.com> wrote:  Does this mean they did not have insurance coverage ?
Cedric

{Quote hidden}

2008\02\15@130833 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
alan smith wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I have worked with UL and their testing-lab affiliates, I respect these
guys very much.
American juries see UL as the ultimate authority on fires.

What I was saying was that if you have met UL specs, and have a UL
certificate, it means
that you are trying to make a safe product, and care about safety. If
you don't have a UL
cert, juries can be easily persuaded that your design is faulty by a
windy lawyer.Of course,
juries can still be convinced that your product caused the fire. But it
is somewhat less unlikely
because of the UL cert.

I can't remember a case where anyone in the USA sued UL and won.

--Bob

2008\02\15@131501 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
sergio masci wrote:
{Quote hidden}

In my opinion, Russell would fit in quite well at NASA.
Russell is a VERY bright person.

--Bob

2008\02\15@133323 by David VanHorn

picon face
I had to take a design back to UL for a change to be put in.
Our manufacturing guy had this change he was trying to ramrod thru UL,
and had been unable to get any motion on it for weeks.  They were
telling me how many months backlog it was, and basically the CEO
handed it to me and told me to SIT on it and not come back till it was
DONE!

So I drove up to UL in SF, and was back the next day. CEO was
disbelieving, but UL became very cooperative once I explained that the
mod was because the existing UL approved design would burst into
flames in some conditions.


:)

2008\02\15@135447 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Have you hear about the story: Stop NASA, every single family in the USA will become a millionaire family?
So the best thing to do for most of the US family is: vote a president who stops NASA, distribute all the NASA budget to every single family, and everybody gets rich.

Why shall we spend all the money and take all the risk go to the poor-environment Moon/ or Mars? Is it fair to scarify everybody's daily happiness  and wealthy for a few NASA fan's "stupid/crazy" idea? Scientist in Princeton University is still working on how to bury CO2 under the sea to solve the global warming issue (My opinion, this won't solve the issue at all but leave the trouble to next, next generation of human beings). Why won't we spend all the money to take good care of earth?

Just kidding.

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, New Bedford, MA, http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com



{Original Message removed}

2008\02\15@162905 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > I just noted my radical kg/lbs conversion factor :-).
>> > I'd be able to get a job at NASA any day.

In case it was missed, that was meant as a joke, of sorts,
relating to incorrect unit conversions. NASA was unlucky
enough to lose a spacecraft (maybe 2)(maybe none) due to
this - I just get laughed at for a typo :-).

>> NASA is full of experts.  Will you be one of them ?
>> I doubt you could be.

I'll assume that was meant to be a positive statement :-).

> Give me a break Cedric. NASA is like any other big
> organisation. It has
> some very good people and some not so good people who get
> by because of
> the very good ones.
>
> You know nothing about Russell or how well he might fit
> into a place like
> NASA so kindly keep these kinds of comments to yourself.

Thanks for the defence. But I'm happy to accept some light
hearted ribbing for my typo - and to assume that anything
said is intended to be light hearted. It's usually easier
that way :-).



       Russell



2008\02\15@164500 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
>
> On Feb 15, 2008, at 11:33 AM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
> I had to take a design back to UL for a change to be put in.
> Our manufacturing guy had this change he was trying to ramrod thru UL,
> and had been unable to get any motion on it for weeks.  They were
> telling me how many months backlog it was, and basically the CEO
> handed it to me and told me to SIT on it and not come back till it was
> DONE!
>
> So I drove up to UL in SF, and was back the next day. CEO was
> disbelieving, but UL became very cooperative once I explained that the
> mod was because the existing UL approved design would burst into
> flames in some conditions.
>
>
> :)

Ha ha very good

2008\02\15@165039 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Funny NYPD wrote:

> Have you hear about the story: Stop NASA, every single
> family in the USA will become a millionaire family?

Really?  I know some people think NASA a waste of money, but I'd  
never heard such quantitatively bogus arguments.  NASAs 2007 budget  
was about $16e9.  Aside from being a drop-in-the bucket compared to  
the overall federal budget (0.5% of 2.77e12), and aside from the  
circular nature of government spending, $16e9 works out to about $50  
(no exponents there) per person.

BillW


2008\02\15@171611 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 13:50 -0800, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> Really?  I know some people think NASA a waste of money, but I'd  
> never heard such quantitatively bogus arguments.  NASAs 2007 budget  
> was about $16e9.  Aside from being a drop-in-the bucket compared to  
> the overall federal budget (0.5% of 2.77e12), and aside from the  
> circular nature of government spending,

This here is the point most people seem to either not know, or ignore
when related to government spending.

A question that might illuminate some is this: this money the government
spends on NASA, where does it go?

In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the taxpayers, in the
forms of wages, dividends, increase in stock price, etc. Yes, some of
this money will leave the country, but the majority will end up right
back in the pockets of the tax payer.

I'm not saying this is an excuse to spend, but to think that billions of
dollars are being spent and that they money just "dissappears" is just
wrong.

TTYL

2008\02\15@172632 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>> > I just noted my radical kg/lbs conversion factor :-).
>>> > I'd be able to get a job at NASA any day.

> In case it was missed, that was meant as a joke, of sorts,
> relating to incorrect unit conversions. NASA was unlucky
> enough to lose a spacecraft (maybe 2)(maybe none) due to
> this - I just get laughed at for a typo :-).

>>> NASA is full of experts.  Will you be one of them ?

For all sorts of good reasons I'll never work for NASA but
FWIW (and to me it will only be worth satisfaction) some
day, possibly not too soon, a certain class of rockets will
go to orbit using a propellant pump design that I
'invented'. The "Pistonless piston Pump" which is
intuitively trivially obvious once you see it properly
described, emulates a conventional piston pump but has NO
pistons and no crankshaft and uses nothing but gas and
valves to pump rocket propellant - or Margaritas in a
Flometrics' demo version.

It also happens that Lockheed Martin, unknown to me, or
anyone else in the rocketry community,  patented a design
based on the same general idea 4 years before I described
the principle on a mailing list. And it also happen that I
surprised  Flometrics, a specialist rocket (and other) pump
design company that was secretly working on the identical
concept when I crassly public domained what they were doing
behind closed doors without their having publicly told
anyone. Since then they have gained a number of related
patents beyond what LockMart had. They are also kind enough
to send me the occasional update email to keep me informed
on progress on "my" pump. So one of these days (don't hold
your breath) NASA may yet use some of my ideas - even if
they were "invented" in parallel by several people. It steam
engines come steam engine time. Except that, the first ever
British engineering patent, over 200 years ago, was for a
mine pump which in its most general principle used the same
idea as "my" 'pistonless piston pump.' I have a habit of
inventing things years to decades to centuries too late.

Here's "my pump"

   Web page

   http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/rocketpump.htm

   Paper
   Fig 1 is functionally identical to the idea that I
public-domained.

       http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~sharring/pistonlesspumpresponsivespace.pdf

< Pistonless Rocket Fuel Pump
The pistonless pump that Flometrics has developed is more
intrinsically safe and reliable than a turbopump It is also
90% less expensive than a turbopump, at comparable weight..
It offers 80-90% weight savings over a pressure fed system
with a minimal increase in complexity.


   Russell


2008\02\15@182747 by Jinx

face picon face
> A question that might illuminate some is this: this money the
> government spends on NASA, where does it go?
>
> In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the taxpayers,
> in the forms of wages, dividends, increase in stock price, etc

That's been my (possibly charitable) view on welfare spending.
Beneficiaries aren't known for their enormous savings accounts
and the money passes quickly through their hands and straight
back into the general economy. It may take a little time to filter
through retailers etc (who are part of keeping an economy stable),
but it's still there. Even if it was all spent on crack, the dealer
will buy an OTT SUV, half-a-ton of hideous bling and a mansion

If you built a shuttle and it never flew, money hasn't been wasted.
Labour and effort has (albeit at the gain of a lot of knowledge and
experience), but not money. Money didn't disappear. Somebody
in the heirachy has it (nothing wrong with a healthy savings balance
and investment portfolio) or is spending it


2008\02\15@184429 by olin piclist

face picon face
Apptech wrote:
> Here's "my pump"
>
>     Web page
>
>     http://www.flometrics.com/rockets/rocket_pump/rocketpump.htm

Interesting, but I'm surprised a tiny bit of the hot gasses aren't bled off
to warm the high pressure reservoir to make it more efficient, or possibly
position it to that it gets warmed without any deliberate bleed off.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\02\15@185111 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 15, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:

>> circular nature of government spending,
>
> This here is the point most people seem to either not know, or ignore
> when related to government spending.
>
> this money the government spends on NASA, where does it go?
>
> In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the taxpayers

Exactly.  Of course, the flip side of this is that some supposedly  
worthwhile causes turn out to be more along the lines of employment  
programs for someone's favorite businesses.  NASA has been accused  
along those lines, "road improvement" is always supported by assorted  
construction lobbies, and I'm inclined to suspect that a lot of  
"school upgrades" are there too.  The anti-school-bond folk add up  
the dollars per classroom spent on "necessary improvements" and get  
impressive numbers.

Sigh.
BillW

2008\02\15@190334 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

For those of you who buy into the above argument, please send me
23% of your earnings.  I promise to pass it back into the economy  
immediately.
I promise to share all my knowledge.
Your willing monetary pipeline.
Cedric

2008\02\15@191027 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> A question that might illuminate some is this: this money
>> the
>> government spends on NASA, where does it go?
>>
>> In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the
>> taxpayers,
>> in the forms of wages, dividends, increase in stock
>> price, etc

A very small part of it is currently (still) wandering
around the surface of Mars.


       Russell


2008\02\15@192706 by Jinx

face picon face
> > experience), but not money. Money didn't disappear. Somebody
> > in the heirachy has it (nothing wrong with a healthy savings balance
> > and investment portfolio) or is spending it
>
> For those of you who buy into the above argument, please send me
> 23% of your earnings.  I promise to pass it back into the economy  
> immediately.

A Tea Party and then an October Revolution anyone ?

Depending on which ideological model you subscribe to, the line
between *pure* communism/socialism and capitalism can be blurry

Very broadly speaking, both are intended to benefit the population
in general, by sharing or trickle-down. But intentions do have a habit
of going awry when the human factor is involved don't they

2008\02\15@193155 by Jinx

face picon face
> > A question that might illuminate some is this: this money
> > the government spends on NASA, where does it go?
> >
> > In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the taxpayers,
> > in the forms of wages, dividends, increase in stock price, etc
>
> A very small part of it is currently (still) wandering
> around the surface of Mars.

The _results_ of the expenditure have left the building, but the
expenditure itself is still here. If the Rover was actually made of
money (apart from the gold - but is that money or a commodity?),
then that money would be out of circulation. I don't think we'll
be seeing papier mache spacecraft any time soon. Unless NASA
is working on that too

2008\02\15@201738 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Yes, but isn't money just a placeholder to make it easier to trade
goods and services?

If I pay you $1000 for a ton of raw materials and $2000 for a two
weeks of your labor, and then I take the item you produced and let it
sit doing nothing, we still wasted a ton of raw materials and two
weeks of your labor which could have been used for something more
useful to other people. $3000 of value WAS wasted. The fact that $3000
of money is now in your pocket to spend just gives you the right to
that much value from other people.

Sean


On Feb 15, 2008 6:26 PM, Jinx <spamBeGonejoecolquittspamKILLspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\02\15@204650 by Jinx

face picon face
> we still wasted a ton of raw materials and two weeks of your
> labor which could have been used for something more useful

Yes Sean, quite true, and I accept your point. Ideally you would
have funds available to do all the things you want *at the time you
wanted to do them*. Although money generally doesn't leave the
system, it is taken out of circulation. You might argue that in the
long term, NASA projects will be a benefit to society (due to the
filtering process of money and technology I proposed before),
whereas funding hospitals now or buying swish water-proof card-
board boxes for the homeless is an immediate benefit. Or
altruistically assigning all the would-have-been NASA employees
to fix problems in (insert state) or (insert 3rd World country), like
VSA on a monster scale. But let's not forget NASA's political
roots from the Cold War and WW2. Given the climate of the
time, a body like NASA was an inevitability. For better or worse,
depending on whether you want technology in that area to advance,
or whether you think it's just boys playing with things that look
like big penises (a common feminist phallusy) and the money could
be spent better elsewhere, as above


2008\02\15@211631 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Jinx,

Actually, I was just trying to make a point about economics (that
"conservation of money" wasn't the same as "conservation of value").
I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the priority of NASA funding, but I
lean towards thinking they are quite valuable.

Sean


On Feb 15, 2008 8:45 PM, Jinx <.....joecolquittspam_OUTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\02\15@223106 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 12:58 +1300, Apptech wrote:
> >> A question that might illuminate some is this: this money
> >> the
> >> government spends on NASA, where does it go?
> >>
> >> In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the
> >> taxpayers,
> >> in the forms of wages, dividends, increase in stock
> >> price, etc
>
> A very small part of it is currently (still) wandering
> around the surface of Mars.

I'm confused. Do the rovers have $100 bills stashed inside them?

About the only thing that one could consider "lost" would be the
precious metals contained in the rovers, but given the cost of the
mission that's so small as to be in the background noise IMHO.

TTYL

2008\02\15@230309 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > A question that might illuminate some is this: this
>> > money
>> > the government spends on NASA, where does it go?

>> > In the end it ends up (mostly) in the pockets of the
>> > taxpayers,
>> > in the forms of wages, dividends, increase in stock
>> > price, etc

>> A very small part of it is currently (still) wandering
>> around the surface of Mars.
>
> The _results_ of the expenditure have left the building,
> but the
> expenditure itself is still here.

For sale - one Mars rover. Low mileage. Recent model. Worth
far more than it's recycle value. As is ****WHERE**** is.

       R

:-)

2008\02\15@235217 by James Newton

face picon face
Jinx is talking about "trickle UP economics"? :)

But I have 1 major problem with the idea of welfare spending filtering into
the economy in general: It filters through stupid, or at the very least,
uneducated, hands.

This brings me back to my "con artists are good" argument:

1. We all know that who ever has the money runs the show

2. Stupid people spend their money stupidly.

3. Stupidly spend money builds a stupid word.

4. Therefore, smart people separating stupid people from their money before
they have a chance to influence the world with it is not only a good thing,
it should be the right and civic duty of every one. It isn't: We have
"consumer protection" laws. Since when is a "consumer" something you should
protect? I want "producer" protection laws, but I live in the asylum so I
follow the rules.

Give out welfare money and the people who make processed foods, credit
cards, low MPG cars, and porn run the world. Suddenly you start seeing laws
that make it hard to grow anything but wheat and GM corn ("farmer Percy").
States that try to regulate air quality by mandating emissions control can't
get the laws passed ("CA").

Kids with 5 brothers and sisters and no dad are told never to have sex then
bombarded with dang near porn to get them to buy things they can't afford.

Welfare should be an unlimited supply of green vegetables, bicycles, glass
houses, and work programs that pay tuition and barter instead of cash. Wait
a sec... That was the heartland during the great depression wasn't it?

Ok, I've done my worthwhile 10% for the day.

--
James.

{Original Message removed}

2008\02\16@002035 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 15, 2008, at 8:53 PM, James Newton wrote:

> This brings me back to my "con artists are good" argument:
>    :
> 4. Therefore, smart people separating stupid people from their  
> money before they have a chance to influence the world with it

You know, I was trying to keep this vaguely belonging in [EE]...

What makes you think that "con artists" fall into the "smart people"  
category?  I would have rated them like crackers and spammers: the  
large majority are using tools and techniques developed by a mere  
few.  You're also equating "trusting" with "stupid", and while that  
may be the way to play your cards in the real world, I certainly  
prefer to think of it as a separate dimension.  It's not like the  
majority of the people conned are greedy jerks expecting to walk away  
with half of some Nigerian's legacy that they don't deserve.  Most  
are people accepting "reasonable" sounding deals from the wrong people.

And what makes you think that making con-men wealthy isn't  
"influencing the world" (and in an unproductive direction, at that.)

BillW

2008\02\16@033744 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Feb 16, 2008 2:33 AM, David VanHorn <TakeThisOuTmicrobrix.....spamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> I had to take a design back to UL for a change to be put in.
> Our manufacturing guy had this change he was trying to ramrod thru UL,
> and had been unable to get any motion on it for weeks.  They were
> telling me how many months backlog it was, and basically the CEO
> handed it to me and told me to SIT on it and not come back till it was
> DONE!
>
> So I drove up to UL in SF, and was back the next day. CEO was
> disbelieving, but UL became very cooperative once I explained that the
> mod was because the existing UL approved design would burst into
> flames in some conditions.
>
> :)
>

Interesting story. Thanks for the sharing.

>From what I learnt, UL has the review mechanism, one case handler
and one reviewer. So I am not surprised that they will not be able to
exhaust all the corner cases. And UL cert does not cover all the
safety aspect. The emphasis of UL safety has something to do
with the US situations. The emphasis of EU safety regulations has
something to do with the EU situations. Then there are countries
outside US and EU.

Xiaofan

2008\02\16@162141 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
I can tell you that Telex takes an interesting approach with their
BTR-800 wireless intercom base station: its a commercial line-lump
type switch mode power supply (24Vdc 2.5A) butted right up to the
rear panel of the 1RU enclosure.  Its held in place with a 4-sided
metal box (front, sides, top) that totally encloses the plastic
case.  The front of the box has a slit that the DC output cord exits from.

Its pretty tidy - the power supply has the standard IEC power
connector that lines up with a matching hole in the rear of the 1RU
enclosure.  The DC output cable has a large Ferrite bead, then
solders to the main PCB.  The system power switch is in series with
the DC output of the supply.

I'm guessing that Telex chose to enclose the whole power supply in
metal to reduce RF interference within their enclosure (I did mention
this is a wireless intercom system).

dwayne


At 01:54 PM 2/14/2008, Harold Hallikainen wrote:

>It SEEMS that it should be possible to avoid all this if there were
>something like the old PC power supplies that had the inlet, power switch,
>etc. all enclosed in a box with just the DC outputs coming out of the box.
>We'd shove the power supply up against our rear panel and have no line
>connected circuitry in our product other than that "pre-approved" box. I
>think this is similar to using an external low voltage power supply.


--
Dwayne Reid   <TakeThisOuTdwaynerKILLspamspamspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2008\02\16@192112 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> I can tell you that Telex takes an interesting approach with their
> BTR-800 wireless intercom base station: its a commercial line-lump
> type switch mode power supply (24Vdc 2.5A) butted right up to the
> rear panel of the 1RU enclosure.  Its held in place with a 4-sided
> metal box (front, sides, top) that totally encloses the plastic
> case.  The front of the box has a slit that the DC output cord exits from.
>
> Its pretty tidy - the power supply has the standard IEC power
> connector that lines up with a matching hole in the rear of the 1RU
> enclosure.  The DC output cable has a large Ferrite bead, then
> solders to the main PCB.  The system power switch is in series with
> the DC output of the supply.
>
> I'm guessing that Telex chose to enclose the whole power supply in
> metal to reduce RF interference within their enclosure (I did mention
> this is a wireless intercom system).
>
> dwayne

That is pretty neat. I wonder if they surrounded it by metal because it
perhaps has no mounting holes. All you can do is trap the thing in place.
I also wonder if enclosing it interferes with the convection cooling,
perhaps raising UL issues. Finally, I wonder if cutting the DC cable and
connector off to make it short enough and have it soldered directly to the
board would be an unauthorized modification voiding the UL listing of the
supply itself. I assume the Telex box is UL listed. Wouldn't it be nice if
the AC inlet had a couple screw holes that allowed it to be screwed to the
rear panel? Of course, someone would put in screws that were too long and
mess things up.

Thanks for the info!

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\02\16@204143 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Bob Axtell wrote:
{Quote hidden}

He's SO bright, his parents called him "sun".

2008\02\16@225157 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 08:41 PM 2/16/2008, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

However, his utter inability to glide silently through the forest led to his
given name..

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
.....speffspamRemoveMEinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2008\02\17@050222 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> > In my opinion, Russell would fit in quite well at NASA.
>> > Russell is a VERY bright person.

>>He's SO bright, his parents called him "sun".

> However, his utter inability to glide silently through the
> forest led to his
> given name..

While that may perhaps be true enough, in actual fact, if
that were so then here was the forest

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-35.26188&lon=174.123859&z=14&l=0&m=a&v=2

And this is my favourite small island visually - just
offshore from the above town.

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-35.232492&lon=174.167161&z=16&l=0&m=a&v=2

Look what happens here at high tide

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-35.232527&lon=174.168813&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2

Another interesting NZ Island.
Not many people die there

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-37.523477&lon=177.181664&z=11&l=0&m=a&v=2

While on the subject of NZ islands.
Subsubtropical paradise a few hours by boat from Auckland.

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.213809&lon=175.413895&z=11&l=0&m=a&v=2






               Rustle.


2008\02\17@184410 by Peter Todd

picon face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 10:52:16PM -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> > > In my opinion, Russell would fit in quite well at NASA.
> > > Russell is a VERY bright person.
> > >
> > > --Bob
> > >
> >He's SO bright, his parents called him "sun".
>
> However, his utter inability to glide silently through the forest led to his
> given name..

The mental imagery I'm having would more lead to a name like "crackle"
or "smokey" or perhaps even, "Public enemy #1 of the New Zealand Forestry Service"

- --
http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHuMZc3bMhDbI9xWQRAiQbAJ4mBgc9/5D0oLQfXI/OBW1YTIylwwCePFeA
bnlEnjxkbWXimUjOsMvCvGI=
=8R1S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2008\02\17@191438 by olin piclist

face picon face
> The mental imagery I'm having would more lead to a name like "crackle"
> or "smokey" or perhaps even, "Public enemy #1 of the New Zealand
> Forestry Service"

I had assumed his parents expected him to join the family business of
liberating livestock from its previous owners ;-)


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\02\17@212433 by Jinx

face picon face
> I had assumed his parents expected him to join the family
> business of

communists ?

"Russell" means red (russett, rust, etc and coincidentally Russian)

I have a job imagining Russell as a baby. Probably much as
some people struggle to imagine me as a grown-up

2008\02\18@074340 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> The mental imagery I'm having would more lead to a name like "crackle"
>> or "smokey" or perhaps even, "Public enemy #1 of the New Zealand
>> Forestry Service"
>
>I had assumed his parents expected him to join the family business of
>liberating livestock from its previous owners ;-)

nah, not enough room for livestock around where he lives ...

http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.839756&lon=174.651718&z=15&l=0&m=a&v=2

More room for that out where I used to live.

http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.868446&lon=174.590038&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2

dang , they have put the road through under the railway bridge - would have
saved a few accidents where the roundabout now is if they had done that a
few years ago ... Always knew the road was planned, and the bridge had been
built to take it, just never happened while I was there.

Quite interesting to see the changes in the ten years since we left.


2008\02\18@082812 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>> The mental imagery I'm having would more lead to a name
>>> like "crackle"
>>> or "smokey" or perhaps even, "Public enemy #1 of the New
>>> Zealand
>>> Forestry Service"

>>I had assumed his parents expected him to join the family
>>business of
>>liberating livestock from its previous owners ;-)

> nah, not enough room for livestock around where he lives
> ...
>
> http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.839756&lon=174.651718&z=15&l=0&m=a&v=2

That's slightly too north.
I'm actually here
(Or enter Russell Valerie in the search box to find us from
anywhere on the map)

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.866446&lon=174.648478&z=14&l=0&m=a&v=2

Note there is a moderate amount of room for livestock just
north of me.

The yachts and power boats in the river are but a small
sample of Auckland's fare.
A few zillion more here

       www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.837798&lon=174.747248&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.820674&lon=174.765294&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.854214&lon=174.801579&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.879535&lon=174.900375&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.823942&lon=174.75464&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.810771&lon=174.647266&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.789663&lon=174.67648&z=16&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
    www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.905036&lon=174.866552&z=16&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
    www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.881105&lon=174.889802&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
       www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.8749&lon=174.903384&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2
and here
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.889197&lon=174.987638&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2
almost forgot
   www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.620901&lon=174.788189&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2
Always a few around here
   http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.416966&lon=174.843292&z=15&l=0&m=a&v=2


and probably a few more

Someone manages to get a keeler in about here (not in this
photo) which I always thought was clever

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.858772&lon=174.708999&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2


And irrelevantly
The crater of one of Auckland's 50 volcanoes.

       http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=-36.78028&lon=174.765873&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2










2008\02\18@134953 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Funny,
I'd expected to see more craters in your backyard!.

RP :-)

On 19/02/2008, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechspamspamBeGoneparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...