He Blows Things Up So You Don't Have To

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."

Comments

Sheesh, all that..

[cenobita]

..and things like that still happen to those of us who buy the damned things!

"popular science reports"

[Barbarian]

Can't they write anything more extensive than this? This is basically the guy's portfolio for when he goes job hunting.

Re:"popular science reports"

[PetWolverine]

Can't they write anything more extensive than this?

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"

[whatch durrin]

While military research/application is usually on the cutting edge, I do agree that Popular Science tends to cover the subject a little much.

I grew up reading PS, and it's probably at least part of the reason I chose to study engineering. But reading it now, it's like watching one of those "gloss-over" shows on History Channel/TLC/Discovery. They tend to show the oooooh and aaaaaah pictures and provide very little scientific content.

Can anyone recommend a mag that still covers *cool* cutting edge products, while providing more in-depth science about the subject?

Re:"popular science reports"

[Xolotl]

Unfortunately, even SciAm has gone downhill compared to, say, ten years ago - the actual science content has been significantly reduced, with articles often being very superficial. And where are Mathematical Recreations, Amateur Scientist and other such features? They were inspirational. Now all we get are silly little aimed-at-12-year-olds explanations of how various things work; all well and good but no substitute for the previous content.

Protect them from themselves?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not protecting consumers from themselves, but rather from poor manufacturing.

Re:Protect them from themselves?

[der_joachim]

They're not protecting consumers from themselves, but rather from poor manufacturing.

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?

[-brazil-]

Poor Manufacturing and consumer idiocy do overlap to some degree. Some mistakes are easy to make, and those shouldn't result in fatal (or any) accidents.

Re:Protect them from themselves?

[PetoskeyGuy]

"the UL protects the idiots from themselves by requiring certian warning labels."

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

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. ;)

Re:Protect them from themselves?

[SN74S181]

But you've failed to note that the proposed solution would kill those people.

It isn't simply a matter of changing their behavior. Eliminating them from the road would be fine, too.

Re:Protect them from themselves?

[MegaFur]

Yes, but what if just once, *just once*, *for a moment*, I were careless? Then I might get dead. If you were careless even once, you might too.

What if your pregnant wife were in the car and you had to rush her to the hospital? Boy, that would suck, huh?

UL approval means less than it used to

[Markmarkmark]

IMHO, UL approval has gotten too regimented and isn't worth what it used to be worth. 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. Of course the manufacturer still slaps that UL logo right on the box.

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

[Markmarkmark]

My intention was to highlight two different ways that UL "approval" has evolved to have unintended consequences. The two examples were based on different types of companies, the first assembling commodity products out of commonly available "off the shelf" components.

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 already run the UL gauntlet, thus forcing the small company through the UL process (due to the "innovative" design of their product).

Re:UL approval means less than it used to

[theLOUDroom]

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.

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).

Probably not the coolest

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

Sure, he gets to blow stuff up

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

Nope.

[Czernobog]

The coolest job in the world is working as a Ferrari testing driver.
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.

UL Testing Blows

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a mechanical engineer, and we send stuff out to UL all the time for testing. We maintain reports that are older than me. Half of UL testing is absolutely useless, engineers take into account 99% of all possible failure modes regardless of what UL has to say or blow up. Half the time a customer will not purchase a product unless they see that oh so conforting UL logo. Its like in that movie with Chris Farley....You can slap a guarentee on the side of a box just to make the customer feel safe, but you can't replace sound engineering. Alright so I modified the quote. This is Slashdot right? Thats what really costs money. I remember many a times, we'd send a report change to UL and they'd come back and charge us 10k just to do it. All without testing. The other half the time the customer does even care.

How many of you people actually check to see if a product is UL listed or UL recognized? and can actually tell the difference. What about your Class/Zone/Division differences? Anybody care?

The Hman

Re:Stop the misinformation

[ConceptJunkie]

So the judgement is saying McDonald's is negligent when 700 people are burned out of 10 BILLION cups of coffee?!

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>