> Hello All!
>
>  I was wondering if anyone had a solution to a little problem I have.
>
>  I use off-the-shelf PCs in a machine that my company makes.  We have
>  been using the AT style cases and mother boards up to now.  The ATX
>  cases and mother boards are quickly replacing the AT style systems.
>  The problem is that the PC is embedded and I need to use a single
>  power switch to power up and down the entire machine.  ATX power
>  supplies use a "Soft switch" or a ground going transition to power up
>  the system.  This enables Windows to power itself down when exited.
>  Does anyone know of a non-software way to disable this soft-switch
>  scheme?
>
>  People that run servers or other embedded applications must run into
>  this.
>
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Dave Duley
>

> Hi
>
> Sorry about my email but Need to know. I'm 20 and started with pic
> yesterday.
> Does anyone knows what is Bsc and B.Eng degrees, I mean what abbreviation
> they are?
>
> thank you
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

>
> stumbled across this today.
> http://www.unitednuclear.com/traser.htm
> claims to be capiblle of producing a glow effect that can last for 10 years.
> in something the size of a keyring, using tritium and phosphor.
>
> at last we have a reason to go to the moon to mine that tritium. Novelty
> lights!
>
> theres probbly cheaper places to buy them but i came across these first.
> http://www.unitednuclear.com/traser.htm
> www.cashncarrion.co.uk/?listPos=&productID=71&search=&op=catalogue-pr
> oduct_info-null&prodCategoryID=19
>

>>>Today: Positive / interesting / negative
>>>
>>>1972    Apollo 16 landed on Moon :-)
>>>
>>>1889     Hitler born
>>>
>>>1999    "Columbine"  :-(
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I expect this from you everyday from now on... ;-)  I at least find it
>>interesting.
>>
>>/Ake
>>    
>>
>
>Check out http://www.todayinsci.com/ .  IIRC, Russell suggested it
>to the list, although I may be filling in with conjecture based on
>observed trends to mask a gap in my memory. ;-)
>
>You can sign up for a daily newsletter with a few little trivia questions
>about the birth/death of famous "scientists" (some may be questionable)
>and events (the same applies here- some events go unmentioned).
>
>I'm still on the lookout for a similar site with painfully complete daily
>events in the history of spaceflight.  I bought a "History of Spaceflight"
>wall calender and was distressed to find nary an event on it- just photos
>of 12 "moments" deemed worth of inclusion (many of which are not
>really that special).
>
>Mike H.
>
>  
>

> Robin Bussell wrote:
>
>> I'd love to hear Russell's (or anyone else's for that matter ) take on
>> what these two are doing:
>
>> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/alex9000/the-solar-pocket-factory-an-invention-adventure
>
> Not a lot compared to what other people are offering on ebay  and the
> internet in general  - and in fact less than some others BUT they do
> offer a kitset and some get you going impetus which is helpful to
> some.
>
> I did like their clothespeg instant charger. Very cute
>
>              http://www.instructables.com/id/Five-minute-solar-phone-charger/
>
>
> An area which is vitally crucial (or crucially vital) that they do not
> seem to have come to grips with yet is the range of extremely
> important roles that encapulants play in making a PV panel.
>
> They are currently offering epoxy resin.
> As they correctly observe, epoxy is good for about two years of UV
> exposure - and that depends on which epoxy you happen to use and
> whether you leave the PV panels in the weather all the time or not.
> Epoxy is a very poor material in many ways and was traditionally used
> because it was easy to use, relatively cheap and available. A quick
> skim indicates they do not do vacuum outgassing (can be done with low
> tech equipment if desired) which cam be a major requirement. depending
> on other factors.
>
> I will not go into vast details on what and why an encapsulant should
> be like but a good summary is low modulus (flexible) when set,
> excellent voidless adhesion to PV material, low dissolved water
> content, minimal UV degradation, minimal corrosive degradation
> products with time. Note that water permeability is not the same as
> dissolved water % and that the former  is far less important. For
> detailed reasons why please advise consulting rates paid :-).
>
>
>
>
>              Russell McMahon.

> On 18 September 2012 06:54, Joe Wronski <TakeThisOuTjwronski.....TakeThisOuTstillwatereng.net> wrote:
>> I look into how solar panels are made from time to time.  I formerly
>> concentrated on the soldering and tabbing, but today I found
>> <www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2UxOY_wpFo>.
>> I killed too much of the afternoon watching 3 parts, but learned a bit
>> about encapsulation.  This guy didn't use any TPT backsheet, although he
>> claims he does for better panels.  But the Dow Sylgard 184 encapsulant
>> he used is pretty pricey.  Probably $60 worth to make a single panel.
>
> I haven't watched that yet, but (hopefully) will.
>
> Dow Corning Sylgard 184 is as good a formal PV product as you will
> find on the US market.
> There may be others but if the manufacturer does not specify certain
> essential criteria odds are it will be inferior.
> DC do not disclose details of their magic directly but I discovered
> (while looking for other things) a patent for one aspect of what is
> involved in 184 that makes it especially suitable in this role apart
> from the obvious parameters that you can measure. Not a whisper of
> this in usual DC literature.
>
> Note that as far as environmental protection goes you can probably
> spread 184 as thinly as you can persuade it to go and it will do its
> job. It's role is NOT to keep water vapour out - it is about 10 times
> worse than EVA than that, but to keep liquid water off the surface
> anywhere.
>
> Lack of a backsheet is unwise unless he manages an all over 184
> coating - in which case it is largely just a mechanical issue.
>
> A product which was meant to be superior, also Dow Corning, is their PV-6100.
> It was introduced with considerable promises and promise a few years
> ago, and they were working with an independent company to make
> automated PV production equipment, but I strongly suspect something
> has gang very aglae, as it has vanished quietly off the distributors
> lists and a query I made about a month ago to DC received a "not for
> new customers" response. BUT if you follow up the various leads on
> PV-6100 and what it did and why you'll learn much.
>
> For something from somewhere else that appears to work well so far (5+
> years of use)(not by me) and that seems to have many of the the right
> characteristics, you may need to talk to me privately. Waving $
> sometimes helps :-). (Not always needed). It's not available  to the
> occasional  Western buyer so I'm not just hiding an available product.
> Whether it does as well as it seems it will is as yet tbd.
>
> I have reports somewhere that detail how to use 184 on the latest very
> thin and fragile PV material with good success. In real life PV
> material can sometimes be hard to work with. Cold temperatures are to
> be avoided when manufacturing as it becomes even more brittle. .
>
> For an encapsulant - if you had to use something easily available
> then almost any silicone rubber that works for you will be a quantum
> jump better than any epoxy. Lower modulus helps. Optical clarity will
> need to be good, and this varies widely with formulation.  Epoxy is
> susceptible to UV degradation due to bond energies relative to UV
> energy. Silicone rubbers are inherently stable due to single bonds and
> Si-O rather than C-C structure. A silicone rubber can provide a 20+
> year outdoor life. Epoxy is liable to be dead in 2 to 3 years and much
> less in some places (like NZ with generally high UV levels).
>
>
>
>           Russell McMahon

>
> Any word on EVA vs Tedlar/PVF/TPE vs TPT films as backers? Diminishing
> returns vs cost?  Or is that getting into consultant territory ;) ?
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM, RussellMc <TakeThisOuTapptechnzKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 September 2012 06:54, Joe Wronski <.....jwronskiRemoveMEstillwatereng.net>
> > wrote:
> >> I look into how solar panels are made from time to time.  I formerly
> >> concentrated on the soldering and tabbing, but today I found
> >> <www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2UxOY_wpFo>.
> >> I killed too much of the afternoon watching 3 parts, but learned a bit
> >> about encapsulation.  This guy didn't use any TPT backsheet, although
> >> he
> >> claims he does for better panels.  But the Dow Sylgard 184 encapsulant
> >> he used is pretty pricey.  Probably $60 worth to make a single panel.
> >
> > I haven't watched that yet, but (hopefully) will.
> >
> > Dow Corning Sylgard 184 is as good a formal PV product as you will
> > find on the US market.
> > There may be others but if the manufacturer does not specify certain
> > essential criteria odds are it will be inferior.
> > DC do not disclose details of their magic directly but I discovered
> > (while looking for other things) a patent for one aspect of what is
> > involved in 184 that makes it especially suitable in this role apart
> > from the obvious parameters that you can measure. Not a whisper of
> > this in usual DC literature.
> >
> > Note that as far as environmental protection goes you can probably
> > spread 184 as thinly as you can persuade it to go and it will do its
> > job. It's role is NOT to keep water vapour out - it is about 10 times
> > worse than EVA than that, but to keep liquid water off the surface
> > anywhere.
> >
> > Lack of a backsheet is unwise unless he manages an all over 184
> > coating - in which case it is largely just a mechanical issue.
> >
> > A product which was meant to be superior, also Dow Corning, is their
> > PV-6100.
> > It was introduced with considerable promises and promise a few years
> > ago, and they were working with an independent company to make
> > automated PV production equipment, but I strongly suspect something
> > has gang very aglae, as it has vanished quietly off the distributors
> > lists and a query I made about a month ago to DC received a "not for
> > new customers" response. BUT if you follow up the various leads on
> > PV-6100 and what it did and why you'll learn much.
> >
> > For something from somewhere else that appears to work well so far (5+
> > years of use)(not by me) and that seems to have many of the the right
> > characteristics, you may need to talk to me privately. Waving $
> > sometimes helps :-). (Not always needed). It's not available  to the
> > occasional  Western buyer so I'm not just hiding an available product.
> > Whether it does as well as it seems it will is as yet tbd.
> >
> > I have reports somewhere that detail how to use 184 on the latest very
> > thin and fragile PV material with good success. In real life PV
> > material can sometimes be hard to work with. Cold temperatures are to
> > be avoided when manufacturing as it becomes even more brittle. .
> >
> > For an encapsulant - if you had to use something easily available
> > then almost any silicone rubber that works for you will be a quantum
> > jump better than any epoxy. Lower modulus helps. Optical clarity will
> > need to be good, and this varies widely with formulation.  Epoxy is
> > susceptible to UV degradation due to bond energies relative to UV
> > energy. Silicone rubbers are inherently stable due to single bonds and
> > Si-O rather than C-C structure. A silicone rubber can provide a 20+
> > year outdoor life. Epoxy is liable to be dead in 2 to 3 years and much
> > less in some places (like NZ with generally high UV levels).
> >
> >
> >
> >           Russell McMahon