He Blows Things Up So You Don't Have To 308
Red Wolf writes "Popular Science reports on what is possibly the world's coolest job. During his 19 years as a laboratory technician for Underwriters Laboratories, Chuck Cramer has set coffeemakers on fire, knocked computers off desks, short-circuited fans, and blown up everything from toasters to curling irons - all in the name of consumer safety."
Sheesh, all that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Interview (Score:5, Interesting)
Question 1> What what the coolest thing you ever got to blow up, and what were the results of that?
Question 2> What was the most dangerous thing you ever tested that made it to market?
yadda yadda...
"popular science reports" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"popular science reports" (Score:2)
Re:"popular science reports" (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not; it's Popular Science. They write in-depth about some new fighter plane or bomber or tank or aircraft carrier with almost every single issue. When they find something actually interesting like this, they write a little blurb, 150 words or less, and stick it somewhere no one will find it unless, like me, they read magazines cover to cover. That's why I'm not going to renew my subscription. (A note for those who will inevitably wonder why I have a subscription: It wasn't always like that.)
Popular War Machines, maybe, or Popular Aggression--they don't deserve the title Popular Science any more.
Re:"popular science reports" (Score:3, Insightful)
More stuff (Score:4, Funny)
His boss didn't want him getting any ideas about testing the soundness of the building.
There is also a standing memo warning passersby not to touch his stapler.
Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. People do stupid things all the time. If you drive a car while drunk, is it the car manufacturer's fault if you drive into a tree and are severely wounded? No. The same goes for household appliances. If a consumer is doing potentially dangerous things with his or her household applicances, it is (at least it should be) his or her own responsibility if something bad happens.
Unfortunately, these things happen all the time. In the netherlands, several thousands of such accidents are reported. Darwin would turn in his grave.
der Joachim
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Funny)
If you drive a car while drunk, is it the car manufacturer's fault if you drive into a tree and are severely wounded?
People would stop driving drunk if there was a massive explosive-backed spike aiming at them - embedded in the steering column. In fact, if all cars had this feature, we'd see much more polite drivers... while we're at it, make the body out of glass, and we'd see an end to road rage as we know it.
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:3)
You give people WAY to much credit.
Do you think the average road-raging asshole driver is thinking "I might get in an accident, but my car will take the damage for me so that's okay"?
People are stupid when they don't think through to the consequences of their actions. Making those consequences more grave isn't going to change the typical stupid person's behavior.
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't simply a matter of changing their behavior. Eliminating them from the road would be fine, too.
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:3, Funny)
We'd also see an end to make-out sessions on Lover's Lane as we know it.
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Interesting)
These guys not only protect from poor manufacturering... they're also in the idiot-proofing business.
Manufacturers these days have to take into account nearly every stupid, "hey guys, watch this!" scenario that anyone can do with a product.... and either improve it, or add a warning label (much of this is driven, of course, by our litigious society, and a cadre of personal injury lawyers happy to help).
As an example, I just got a little fire-truck, sit and scoot/walker thingie for my young son. It came with a bunch of stickers you could apply to it... but by far the largest sticker (already applied by the manufacturer) was the enormous trilingual warning label on the back. Man, was I relieved! After all, without that label I might have let him run the thing off the top of the steps or something. I can take a paternalistic lecture from somebody so Uber-1337 in their field that I have no chance of ever understanding it or reaching their level of expertise... but I wish they'd save the common sense hand-holding advice. Most people resent being treated like idiots, so I don't think I'm beyond the pale on this one.
These guys help the manufacturers... but they also help protect joe citizen who puts waaaay too damn many devices on the power strip (Hmmm... nobody HERE would be guilty of that, would they?)
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Interesting)
then why is there a warning on my Girlfriends curling iron that states "Do not insert this appliance into any bodily orifices.. severe burns will result."
Sorry, but the UL listing requires warnings for the absolutely stupidest people... like toasters with warning to "do not use in a bathtub"
there is a large part of our population that has an IQ under 100.. (Almost all of them in marketing and sales departments.. ohhh it was a cheap shot but it felt sooo good!)
the UL protects the idiots from themselves by requiring certian warning labels.
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:3, Funny)
Most of the warnings are just the manufacturers covering their asses, and most can be directly referenced back to a specific litigation - the famous McDonalds hot coffee case. We have her to thank (whatever the merits or otherwise of that specific claim).
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:2)
Stop the misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
(Taken from http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm [lawandhelp.com])
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
Re:Stop the misinformation (Score:4, Insightful)
I dare you find another product that safe.
Your facts are not in dispute, but here are some others:
1. 700 injuries out of a billion makes McD's coffee safer than crossing the street, getting out of bed or going to the bathroom. How safe does it have to be to make the lawyers happy?
2. McDonald's sold their coffee that hot because that's how the customers want it. Otherwise, why waste the electricity?
3. It's unfortunate that this woman got hurt, but to blame McDonald's for selling her hot coffee is ludicrous. Anything is potentially dangerous and when you sell 10 billion of something, you can guarantee someone somewhere will manage to have something awful happen to them.
Regardless of the verdict, it was a stupid case. Life is dangerous, people get hurt. Why does there always have to be a scapegoat with deep pockets every time someone experiences so much as mild discomfort?
</rant>
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Funny)
>
>DO NOT EAT.
Knew a chick in high school who was anorexic. Can she sue the makers of silica gel for that?
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Funny)
Would that be about 50% per chance?
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:5, Funny)
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Half of them are more stupid than that".
Goblin
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Funny)
Goblin
Re:Protect them from themselves? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, those warning labels protect companies from the lawyers of idiots. Those aren't UL warning labels. People are so willing to look like idiots if they get that fat check. Some only get honorable mention [darwinawards.com]
McDonalds learned - Remember, Coffee == HOT. I can almost see the next one: WARNING! French Fries - HOT! For oral use only. We'll have to see how the appeal comes out though. ;)
He's already saved the life of one person (Score:5, Informative)
Misleading subject (Score:5, Funny)
What?! But I want to blow things up!
Re:Misleading subject (Score:4, Funny)
This is Agent Smith. We've had our eye on you for sometime, Mr. Aardvark..
Re:Misleading subject (Score:5, Funny)
Ignorant Aardvark: Whoaa.
Re:"Funny?" (Score:2)
Re:Misleading subject (Score:3, Interesting)
You can! We blow stuff up all the time. [dnsalias.com]
They'll Never Stop Me. (Score:5, Funny)
It's just too darn fun.
Re:They'll Never Stop Me. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They'll Never Stop Me. (Score:2)
Re:They'll Never Stop Me. (Score:3, Funny)
Can't remember where I heard that...
SB
Coolset job along with... (Score:3, Funny)
So there is someone behind the madness, afterall.. (Score:5, Funny)
So is it him we have to thank for the warning label on my paper shredder that indicates I shouldn't try and shread my tie while it's still around my neck?
Re:So there is someone behind the madness, afteral (Score:3, Funny)
Demolition Man... (Score:5, Funny)
As a matter of fact, this is the job I have always wanted, but I never realized it until today and this Slashdot article.
My day is now ruined. Heck, my entire life is ruined!
I hate you Slashdot, you, you... insensitive clod!
Re:Demolition Man... (Score:2, Informative)
Time for a new poll! (Score:5, Funny)
UL approval means less than it used to (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, UL can be a bad thing for some manufacturers. Many national chains (Wal-Mart etc.) will not carry anything electrical if it doesn't have that UL logo. The testing costs money and takes time which can put small companies at a disadvantage. If your creation is so innovative that UL's quickie lab doesn't quite know what to make of this thing from a company they've never heard of, then it may take a long time (longer than your capital lasts) to get your new widget into national distribution.
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:4, Interesting)
Many national chains (Wal-Mart etc.) will not carry anything electrical if it doesn't have that UL logo. The testing costs money and takes time which can put small companies at a disadvantage. If your creation is so innovative that UL's quickie lab doesn't quite know what to make of this thing from a company they've never heard of, then it may take a long time (longer than your capital lasts) to get your new widget into national distribution.
But *before* that you said:
Now component makers get UL approval for their components (power supply, power cord, etc.) and then a manufacturer buys this component, uses it in some design that the folks at UL never even saw.
I think you just solved your own problem...
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:3, Insightful)
In my second example (a small company with an innovative new widget), I am positing that the widget in question is innovative enough that at least one critical electrical part won't be "off the shelf" and offered by a larger supplier who has al
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:2)
But any non-battery-powered electrical widget (and it's worthwhile to note here that devices that run strictly off of battery do not ha
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah testing costs money, but really, how can you claim your product is safe if you don't test it? The solution is definately not to left people get away without having their products tested.
Product development these days, costs a lot of money. Testing is a necessary part of that develpoment. Think about it this way:
I walk into a store. There's a few automatic coffee pots there on the shelf. One is a band I've never heard of and isn't certified by anybody. The others are well-know brands and are all UL-listed. How the heck an I supposed to know what the story with your small company's product is? Maybe you didn't have the money to get it certified. Maybe you didn't care. Maybe it wouldn't pass, and is dangerous. There's no way for me as consumer to know which possibility it is.
You have to admit that, if I buy your product, I'm taking a gamble in terms of saftey. IMO testing is especially important for small/new companies, because they don't have an established reputation to rely on. I don't know you? I don't trust you. Proove to me that you give a @#$% about building a quality product. Every sticker on that box, is another name I already know, vouching for your product.
Now here's a general good tip on getting things tested:
Send someone to the lab where you're getting your product tested. If you don't do that, some labs will their time (and bill you for it).
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:4, Informative)
1. Listing
2. Recognition
3. Classification
"UL Listing" requires submission of the whole product to UL for testing. What you describe in your first paragraph is a product that uses UL-recognized components, but itself is not UL-listed, nor can it legally claim to be.
In regard to your second point, I personally know a tiny, one-man company who has submitted his product to UL, developed product testing routines and gotten the product UL-listed. It wasn't a nightmare at all.
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:5, Informative)
If you'll look at a product with the UL logo, there should be a File Number listed there with it. I'm looking at the bottom of my keyboard and see "E140034." If I go to the UL website and search [ul.com] by this file number, it brings up details on the component that was approved. If you see a UL logo with no File Number, something's probably wrong.
UL is very strict about using their logo and certifications on a product.
**I worked at a company that bought existing components (including the enclosure) to make motor control centers and PLC cabinets. We were UL "compliant" as long as we used a very specific set of standards handed to us by UL dictating what components we used and how we used them. UL also came and inspected our work occasionally to make sure it was up to snuff. We were not entitled to put a UL stamp on our finished product, however.
Re:UL approval there's two types (Score:2, Interesting)
UL-approved cheap extension cords (Score:2)
Re:UL approval means less than it used to (Score:4, Informative)
The UL label doesn't mean that the product cannot possibly cause harm. Rather it means that the product is safe when used in an appropriate fashion according to the directions. Unlike your assertion, the manufacturer cannot slap the UL logo on a product without UL's permission. That's why there's this little (r) next to the letters UL. Does this hurt the little guy? A little bit, but not nearly as much as a government regulation in the same circumstances. A UL label is voluntary. You can always wholesale your products through outlets other than Wal-Mart. But don't be surprised if no one wants to buy it. I certainly wouldn't buy a power saw without a UL label, would you?
Right now there's this big push to label food differently. People want to know if their tomatoes are organic (as opposed to inorganic), the milk doesn't have hormones, their steak wasn't irradiated, etc. But because calling upon the government is the first resort in this day and age, everyone is looking to the FDA or equivalent to provide these labels.
I wonder how a UL style private system of food testing and labelling would work instead. Currently when I see a label that says "organic" it's meaningless to me. Maybe the state I'm in has incredibly lax standards for organic. Maybe there's no regulations at all, so the producer just slapped their own label on it. Maybe there's really strict regulations that put the small family organic farms out of business. On the other hand, I would trust a food label that says "UL(r) certified organic".
Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey! (Score:2, Funny)
Servertest? (Score:5, Funny)
More testing needed (Score:2)
Cool job (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm affraid though, that consumers won't ever be safe, unless Chuk's lab employ my son and few of his friends. Fresh thinking is always good.
Sounds like my flat mate! (Score:3, Funny)
Even Cooler Job (Score:5, Interesting)
What kind of things do they do to engines? Well...
- firing assorted frozen birds from a cannon at 600 MPH into the engine to see what happens.
- Setting off explosive charges in the engine to make sure that the resulting blizzard of metal ejects out the back of the engine, rather than the sides, where it could wreck mayhem.
The results are filmed for analysis - unfortunately, the films are are confidential.Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:2)
The birds are thawed before being pneumatically propelled into the running engine. It simulates reality better as there are not that many frozen birds cruising up there...
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:2)
They did all kinds of crap to those engines. They wanted to prove that they were so much more safe than previous engines that two of them was actually safer than 3 or 4 of the existing types of engines (less large engines being more fuel efficient than more smaller engines).
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:5, Funny)
assorted?. not that i've ever heard. chickens and turkeys probably. frozen, no, not at all.
there is a famous story involving the safety program for very high-speed trains in an unnamed european country. they speak to the americans about how they test turbines for use in commercial aircraft, and decide that they will use the same basic testing setup. they put the bird right through the windshield of the train _and_ through the driver's seat and embed it in a rack of equipment. they call to the US and inquire as to whether that outcome should be expected. they're told 'no.' they send a detailed description of the test program; the reply, 'defrost the bird.'
(heard from the head of testing for a large commercial jet enging program)
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:2)
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry mate, but I don't believe you. [snopes.com] It's an ancient story. I first heard it best part of a decade ago, and in that version it was the Americans who were being idiots. Just goes to show, huh?
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:3, Informative)
It think it's likely nowadays that we may see the engine manufacturers subject the engine/nacelle com
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:2)
It think it's likely nowadays that we may see the engine manufacturers subject the engine/nacelle combination to the type of destructive event caused by the impact of Man-Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) surface-to-air missile. They want to make sure the engine/nacelle combination will still maintain reasonable structural integrity even after impact from the warhead of a MANPAD missile so an airliner that has been attacked by a terrorist with a MANPAD missile can still fly on the remaining operating engine(s)
Re:Even Cooler Job (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, on second thoughts there are some things a person shouldn't know...
I can't speak for anyone else here (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can't speak for anyone else here (Score:2)
This is nothing (Score:2, Funny)
Unsatisfying story! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unsatisfying story! (Score:2)
Re:Unsatisfying story! (Score:2)
Ask for movies of stuff been blown up, et voila!
Videos of things blowing up... (Score:2)
We started our website [dnsalias.com] with just a couple of videos and now have over 80 -- enjoy!
Probably not the coolest (Score:5, Insightful)
But imagine the extensive safety reports he must have to write, combined with the countless testing/retesting of products...
I'd imagine it would get tedious, like just about any job
Re:Probably not the coolest (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, like porn star. Man, I would hate to have either of those jobs! Yep - tedious, just like sitting in this cubicle.... Poor saps.
*SOB*
Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
Driving their cars all day long and actually trying to make their engine explode.
And off course nothing could make you happier and sadder at the same time when that magnificent engine goes boom! and up in smoke, literally.
Been there, done that ..... almost ..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, sometimes the test equipment would give way instead! For "live" testing gas boilers, we had this contraption with a pump, expansion vessel and heat exchanger, allowing the boiler to heat water which was simply chucked down the drain {not much else you can do with it unfortunately
We had surge test equipment for inducing high-voltage spikes onto the power lines of equipment
One product whose testing I missed was a 12kW electric water heater, which involved passing some 50-odd amps of current {approaching automotive levels and now with the added delights of sensible voltages as well!} through {very fat!} PCB tracks close to a copper tube filled with fast-moving water. As you probably can imagine, one bad connection on that contraption could have led to interesting results.
I don't miss the lousy wages they paid, though
I am the coolest job (Score:4, Funny)
Age 28
Job: During his 3 years at Condom Safety International, he has successfully tested over 300 different types of condoms.
Workplace: CSI's testing facility is in Las Vegas, Nevada. A typical day might have Eric testing upwards of 20 different experimental types of condoms in various orifices.
Current project: From behind the plexiglass window, Eric spreads a young 20-something who was brought in from the northern parts of Africa to test how well experimental 'shocking' condoms hold up inside rigid women.
Critical tool: He has one, and only one. He grooms and lotions this tool every day, keeping it ready for new use. He also takes a daily supplement of viagra for vitality
Greatest challenge: With so many women, STD testing is a must, but sometimes they slip up.. Eric has had over 150 STDs to date, and still recovering from a bout of the clap.
Final word: "Sometimes we'll break on average of 10-15 condoms a day, it's all about the combination of materials combined with the ability to keep sensation intact. We're a watchdog for the people, trying to protect them from themselves.
Re:I am the coolest job (Score:2, Informative)
In Canada, condoms are medical devices, and are (at least back in 1988) regulated by the Bureau of Radiation and Medical Devices. The poor guy whose job it was to maintain rubber standards had his office in room 61A of the Health Protection Building (Building #7), Tunney's Pasture, Ottawa.
I got wind of this because that summer my job was to babysit two fax machines and a telex for the entire building. This guy slips a 20-page f
Actually, there *is* a cooler job out there... (Score:2)
Saw a news clip a while back about I guy whose job it is to push performance cars to the point where they blow their engines. I watched him blow the hood off a Ferrari -- all that white smoke pouring out of the engine of this candy-apple red flashmobile was cool. And he did it by just crazy driving on a closed course.
Blowing things up? I think that runs a very close second to stressing sports cars by driving them to breakdown. Sure, the explosions are cool, but you can't drive a blender...
Re:Actually, there *is* a cooler job out there... (Score:2)
1. Get in car.
2. Start car
3. Leave in first
4. Push accelerator to floor
5. Wait
Or, for a more fun one
1. Get in car
2. Start car
3. Accelerate up to 100mph
4. Downshift into first
5. Repeat as necessary
Re:Actually, there *is* a cooler job out there... (Score:2)
So... (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe... (Score:2)
Doesn't work that way in real life (Score:4, Funny)
Long lost twin? (Score:3, Funny)
all in the name of consumer safety huh? (Score:2, Funny)
Another cool job... (Score:3, Funny)
George Takei (Score:3, Funny)
My great uncle had a better job at REI (Score:4, Interesting)
CNN did a spot on him a few years ago before he retired (I need to dig up that tape), profiling him and his job. He invented a few climbing gadgets (I can't remember which now) and improved many others, climbed a load of mountains with some of the more famous mountaineers, and got paid to play outside. Now THAT's a cool job. Last time I talked to him (`02) he was still backcountry skiing out to yurts. He's in his 70s.
(Needless to say: our family's co-op numbers were LOW)
Actually, the world's best test job is... (Score:4, Interesting)
He said that during the Gulf war he had visited more than one hotel which usually had a significant number of visitors from arab countries, and turned up unannounced late at night in full gear with four "wives" in tow to check that the current Middle Eastern situation wasn't adversely affecting the guest experience. I guess that the hours were long and the reports tedious but the compensations were interesting. (including hiring the actresses, I suspect.)
Used to do something similar... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know rugged "Mil-Spec" stuff is. You know how you see the terms "Tested to Mil-Std-810". Thats what I did. Now, this was more than 10 years ago, but I've seen how you can mount hard drives to survive being in a tank. I've seen films of what can go wrong if an external fuel tanl lets go on a Carrier Landing, and I've helped folks design stuff to survive this
BTW think about a computer in a tank. Your in battle, and another tank shoots at you, and ALMOST penetrates, say the turret. That BIG piece of steel if just been pounded big what is effectivly a HUGE hammmer. The computer that as mounted to it has to keep working, so you can return fire, and hopefully live to another day
Or, you mount your hard drive to the Space Shuttle, or to a Delta/Titan/etc. Do you have ANY idea how much those things shake? Not only by transmitted vibration, but by sheer NOISE. The noise alone will rip most consumer items apart
Some fun tests I saw films of? Let's say you have a door (Nuke reactor building). What happens if there is a tornado? A telephone pole can be picked up, and thrown against the door, narrow end first, at about 300 MPH. That door better hold. So you build a prototype, build a wall, and fire a telephone pole at the door at 300 mph, more than once
Other fun tests? Look up the term "Naval Heavyweight shock". Now imagine do that for a living
Are they accepting applications? (Score:2)
Rooms (Score:3, Funny)
The Fixture and Ballast Room
The Thrown Projectiles Room
The High Voltage Room
Do these guys know how to party, or what?
anybody else remember Letterman's safety calls? (Score:5, Funny)
Dot Org (sorta OT) (Score:3, Interesting)
Testing template? (Score:4, Interesting)
That reminds me of the good old days.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Many UL certifications on power supplies are fake (Score:5, Informative)
UL has online certification search. [ul.com] Look up those E-numbers and make sure that they match the manufacturer info. Report phonies to UL and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If you're in telecom or data center operations, it's definitely worth checking wall transformers against the database.
A power supply that passes UL testing will not catch fire if dead-shorted indefinitely. It will not catch fire due to a single-component failure. Some of the phonies will catch fire if merely loaded up to their rated load.
Some review site (ExtremeTech?) did a PC power supply review a few months back, and many of the power supplies wouldn't deliver their rated voltage at full load. Three of the power supplies caught fire. All the ones that passed were in the UL database. None of the ones that caught fire were.
That UL label really means something.