Dirty Electricity

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

If it does reduce the current used by an appliance, it will also
reduce its efficiency at what it does,

** Simple capacitor based PFC correction has NO effect on the current
flowing in the actual device - how can it since the device is still
connected directly to the AC supply ??

Think about it.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Sylvia Else is a fucking Witch "

Power factor correction is worthwhile when considered from the perspective
of the overall system.

** The scam device does not perform PFC - you raving nut case.

But as things stand, a consumer who installed one would pay the cost of
the device, but the benefits would accrue to the power supplier in the
form of reduced infrastructure

** There are no benefits - only draw backs.

You need to be burned to death on a pyre.



..... Phil

 

[TonyS]

On 2/02/2011 5:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
Today Tonight has done it again.

Shame they didn't try this first

http://www.google.com.au/#q=power+saving+scam

lol

They'd have no more stories

 

[Phil Allison]

"TonyS"

Shame they didn't try this first

http://www.google.com.au/#q=power+saving+scam

lol

They'd have no more stories

** Have a look at the ACA web site - they did a very similar story on the
same night.

Wonder how THAT happens so often ....

Anyhow, the feedback is almost all VERY NEGATIVE and even abusive.

Not happy Jan .....



...... Phil

 

[fritz]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfmFkt8U1@mid.individual.net...

On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
infrastructure,

PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.

You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
rip-off box at the power point.
This article explains it well...
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf

so it's understandable that the CSIRO and governments would be interested, particularly if consumers can be duped into paying for
the devices themselves.
I doubt their interest derives from a belief that it will directly reduce electricity bills.

They are probably just having a good laugh, and getting paid for it.

I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote

"Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but billable in the U.S"

Sounds like a load of bullshit invented by the scammers.

One can save up to 35% electricity when using the power factor
correction device.
(somehow I always thought that a power factor other than 1 rather saves
you money since the meter only counts real power?)

Well, yes, it's true that it only counts real power, but what exactly does "saving electricity" mean? The current is reduced, for
sure.

On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your electric bill each month". (What does "up to X or more"
mean?)

Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off the output from the Earthwise device, with the result
that the only energy you're consuming is the heat loss in meter and wires leading to the device.

If you have nothing but pure reactive loads you will not be doing anything
useful, so what is the point of connecting them to the supply anyway ?

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 2/02/2011 9:16 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfmFkt8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
infrastructure,

PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.

My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor, and it's not as
if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.

You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
rip-off box at the power point.

Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?

I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote

"Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but billable in the U.S"

Sounds like a load of bullshit invented by the scammers.

The more so when one notes that the same phrase appears in web sites for
multiple "power saving" devices, except that there seems disagreement
about whether the number is $80 or $16.

But more than likely, if such a comment was made at all, it was made in
a context that is not relevant to the claims made for the device.

One can save up to 35% electricity when using the power factor
correction device.
(somehow I always thought that a power factor other than 1 rather saves
you money since the meter only counts real power?)

Well, yes, it's true that it only counts real power, but what exactly does "saving electricity" mean? The current is reduced, for
sure.

On the Earthwise site it says you can "save up to 35% or more on your electric bill each month". (What does "up to X or more"
mean?)

Maybe you can, if you have nothing but reactive loads running, right off the output from the Earthwise device, with the result
that the only energy you're consuming is the heat loss in meter and wires leading to the device.

If you have nothing but pure reactive loads you will not be doing anything
useful, so what is the point of connecting them to the supply anyway ?

Dunno - to justify a 35% saving claim, perhaps. I did suggest it was an
unrealistic scenario.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone ELSE on earth "

Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?

** ROTFLMAO !!!

This lunatic, ASD fucked itch needs burning at the stake.




..... Phil

 

[fritz]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qstbuFalmU1@mid.individual.net...

On 2/02/2011 9:16 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfmFkt8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor
correction
infrastructure,

PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.

My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor,

Have you actually measured the PF of your A/C ? How did you do it ? What was it ?

READ THE LINK
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf

and it's not as if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.

You are missing the point - the large current consuming devices determine the peak transmission
current capacity. Low PF low current appliances do not add significantly to the peak currents required by
the main loads like hotplates, ovens, radiators etc.

You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
rip-off box at the power point.

Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?

Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
# This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
# This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
# Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...

Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.

It looks a more expensively packaged version of the boxes described in Silicon Chip Nov. 2007 and May 2008.

 

[TonyS]

This article explains it well...
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf

Interesting article and I believe also factually correct, except that it
talks about actual savings in domestic wiring, which are, even at 110V,
ridiculously low.
This could give a slither of dignity and credibility to the claims of
the tricksters, to a numerically challenged reader.

 

[gcd]

Hi all,
there is already power factor correction "infrastructure" or capital works
in every terminal station. These are capacitor banks used to correct for the
mainly inductive loads of industry. The caps are switched in as needed.

From what I saw on the today tonight show I also assume it was a PFC device,
it's the only consclusion I could come to and on that basis saw the
following outcomes for people using the device.

1) If the user has an old mechanical meter their power bill will most likely
actually increase as these meters do not measure reactive (imaginary) power
only real power, so putting a PFC after the meter will increase the power
consumption observed by the meter. So all those people with older CF globes
that consume a lot of reactive power and don't have much of a PFC in them
will see their power bills go back up.

2) If the user has a new "smart" meter, they will observe no change in their
power bill as these meters charge for the reactive power.

Most if not all devices these days are equired to have PFC built in now
anyway to get the PF to at least 80% (think that's the number, it may be
higher) or more. I'm sure there is legislation or australian standards such
as AS/NZ 3823.2.2009 (that one covers air con ) that cover most appliance
types these days. So even less requirment for a consumer PFC.

The claims on EMI...hmmmm... not sure I got that at all, made no sense

Of course it may just be a box of nothing but a few pass through copper buss
bars

Greg

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 2/02/2011 11:08 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qstbuFalmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/02/2011 9:16 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfmFkt8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor
correction
infrastructure,

PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.

My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor,

Have you actually measured the PF of your A/C ? How did you do it ? What was it ?

READ THE LINK
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf

and it's not as if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.

You are missing the point - the large current consuming devices determine the peak transmission
current capacity. Low PF low current appliances do not add significantly to the peak currents required by
the main loads like hotplates, ovens, radiators etc.

I question that they do not add significantly. They are not a large
proportion, but they still have to be handled. Do power factor
correction in the home, and you can delay the next transmission line,
switching station and transformer upgrade. Delaying an upgrade is worth
money.

You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
rip-off box at the power point.

Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?

Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
# This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
# This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
# Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...

They can still be switched in and out.

Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.

I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being
a lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power consumption (i.e.
it saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't
seem overly bothered by such things. The box looks like it's designed to
enhance heat dissipation.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"gcd" = wot ??

From what I saw on the today tonight show I also assume it was a PFC
device, it's the only consclusion I could come to and on that basis saw
the following outcomes for people using the device.

1) If the user has an old mechanical meter their power bill will most
likely actually increase as these meters do not measure reactive
(imaginary) power only real power,

** Modern electronic meters do exactly the same - far as any domestic
consumer in Aussie in concerned.

In any case, another company ( Auscha Corporation Pty Ltd ) selling a near
identical thing with the same claims has recently been successfully
prosecuted by the ACCC for breaches of the TPA.

so putting a PFC after the meter will increase the power consumption
observed by the meter.

** Really ? How ??

Since they do not measure the effect of a capacitor of any value across the
line.

So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive
power ..

** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.

Where do idiots like "gcd" get this fucking SHIT from ??

Must be from brain dead Green zombies ?

2) If the user has a new "smart" meter, they will observe no change in
their power bill as these meters charge for the reactive power.

** Strewth - it just keeps getting WORSE & WORSE ...

Words like " retard ", "fuckwit" and "imbecile" are just no strong
enough.

How about " anencephalic zombie " ??

Got a bit of a ring to it ......

Most if not all devices these days are equired to have PFC built in now
anyway to get the PF to at least 80% (think that's the number, it may be
higher) or more.

** Absolute bollocks.

The claims on EMI...hmmmm... not sure I got that at all, made no sense

Of course it may just be a box of nothing but a few pass through copper
buss bars

** My god you are a fucking moron.

Piss off to hell.


..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone ELSE on earth "

I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being a
lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power consumption (i.e. it
saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't seem
overly bothered by such things. The box looks like it's designed to
enhance heat dissipation.

** ROTFLMAO !!!

This lunatic, ASD fucked bitch needs burning at the stake.




..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 2/02/2011 11:20 PM, TonyS wrote:

This article explains it well...
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf



Interesting article and I believe also factually correct, except that it
talks about actual savings in domestic wiring, which are, even at 110V,
ridiculously low.

It won't even save those if it's mounted at the switch board. To provide
saving in the domestic wiring any PFC correction has to be done at the
appliance, which implies multiple devices.

I note that the suppliers of these devices have not done the obvious and
potentially convincing, test - power meter -> device -> another power
meter -> domestic wiring. Presumably they know that the result wouldn't
be advantageous to them.

Sylvia.

 

[fritz]

"TonyS" <nospam@mymail.com> wrote in message news:nfmdnc-adtOP0dTQnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

This article explains it well...
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf


Interesting article and I believe also factually correct, except that it talks about actual savings in domestic wiring, which are,
even at 110V, ridiculously low.

For the numerically-challenged, TonyS is saying that while the losses at 110V are ridiculously low,
the losses at 220/240V are even lower ! (coz the current is halved)

This could give a slither of dignity and credibility to the claims of the tricksters, to a numerically challenged reader.

If someone reads that info and still goes and buys a scam-box, then they deserve to be ripped off.

 

[Phil Allison]

"kreed"

"Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
billable in the U.S"

If you take 80 billion dollars, and to make it easy assume 3 people
per billed premises,

** That is way high.

The correct figure is more like 1.5 persons.


The only places that I can think of that they could be talking about
would be distribution losses
such as resistance in power lines, arcing from HT lines into the air
and across dirty insulators, transformer losses etc.
Unused off peak power etc.

** Ditto.

The figure is an absurd fiction derived very likely by subtracting the total
kWh estimated to be generated by all the alternators connected to the grid
in the USA and subtracting from that the billed kWh for the whole country -
and THEN applying the domestic kWh rate to the difference.

Only a brain dead, Green retard would even bother.

Fraid there are far too many of them.



..... Phil

 

[fritz]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qt1j4F7a0U1@mid.individual.net...

On 2/02/2011 11:08 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qstbuFalmU1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/02/2011 9:16 PM, fritz wrote:

"Sylvia Else"<sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:8qrpfmFkt8U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:
Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor
correction
infrastructure,

PF correction at residential consumers will not reduce the transmission
capacity requirement to any significant degree, even if every home had
one of these rip-offs plugged in. The peak load requirement comes
from things like ovens and water heaters which are unity PF. Other large
domestic inductive loads usually already have PF correction - e.g airconditioners.

My airconditioner is a good way off unity power factor,

Have you actually measured the PF of your A/C ? How did you do it ? What was it ?

I notice you have not answered this question, now have you measured the PF of
your A/C or not ?

READ THE LINK
http://powerelectronics.com/power_management/motor_power_management/705PET23.pdf
Check out the savings for an A/C with perfect PF correction (not the hit-or-miss scam box)

and it's not as if people turn of their low PF appliances at times of peak demand.

You are missing the point - the large current consuming devices determine the peak transmission
current capacity. Low PF low current appliances do not add significantly to the peak currents required by
the main loads like hotplates, ovens, radiators etc.

I question that they do not add significantly. They are not a large proportion, but they still have to be handled. Do power factor
correction in the home, and you can delay the next transmission line, switching station and transformer upgrade. Delaying an
upgrade is worth money.

Bullshit.
There is no need for PF correction in the home. Transmission lines terminate in sub-stations that have
PF correction anyway.
PF correction is best done at each load anyway, designed for the impedance of that load, not with
a scam box that cannot possibly cope with a range of reactive loads.

You cannot use a single fixed-value passive device (e.g. capacitor) to correct
PF unless it is matched to the actual reactive load. For example, a washing machine
motor will draw a wide range of reactive current depending on whether it is agitating,
spin-drying etc. You need different PF correction for each load, not a one-size-fits-all
rip-off box at the power point.

Where is it stated that the device in question is passive?

Sigh..Quoted from 'How It Works' at the Earthwank Power Scammer website
# This is achieved by supplying electricity locally at the load by the use of specially designed capacitor.
# This advanced capacitor stores the additional electricity needed for stabilizing electric current within an inductive load.
# Earthwise Power Saver does not consume electricity itself ...

They can still be switched in and out.

FFS
Then why did they say CAPACITOR not CAPACITORS, Einstein ? These scammers wouldn't miss a chance to
claim the expensive box had MULTIPLE capacitors if it really did, would they ?

Now, Einstein, put these claims together and you get a capacitor, a passive device even if it as advanced one (chuckle),
all active devices consume electricity so the Earthwank Power Scammer cannot be an active device by their own admission.

I could happily put down the no-power consumption claim to simply being a lie, or they'll argue that they meant no-net power
consumption (i.e. it saves more than it uses, despite not actually saving any). They don't seem overly bothered by such things.
The box looks like it's designed to enhance heat dissipation.

For fucks sake Sylvia, if the pricks are going to lie about something as basic as power consumption they are going to
lie about everything else - if they are not lying outright, then they are just completely technically ignorant and/or STUPID -
either way
THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY !
Oh - did it ever occur to you that they build the box to look expensive - looks like a car-amp case to me - so the suckers might
think it
actually works ?

 

[kreed]

On Feb 2, 11:14 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:

On 2/02/2011 11:01 AM, TonyS wrote:

Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

"Independent testing so far shows promising results. Electrical Engineer
Greg Paxton has worked with the CSIRO and federal and state governments,
which are interested in the Power Saver's potential.

It certainly has the potential to reduce the need to increase
transmission capacity, and the need to build power factor correction
infrastructure, so it's understandable that the CSIRO and governments
would be interested, particularly if consumers can be duped into paying
for the devices themselves.

I doubt their interest derives from a belief that it will directly
reduce electricity bills.

I was unsucessful in finding the origin of the quote

"Over $80 billion dollars of electricity is unusable energy, but
billable in the U.S"

so its context is entirely unclear.

If you take 80 billion dollars, and to make it easy assume 3 people
per billed premises,
with a population of 300 million (USA) then that means $800 per billed
premises
(per year? - it does not specify)


The only places that I can think of that they could be talking about
would be distribution losses
such as resistance in power lines, arcing from HT lines into the air
and across dirty insulators, transformer losses etc.
Unused off peak power etc.

This all has to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher
cost per KWH as it is an actual cost, even though it is "unusable
power"



You could also talk about standby power - but this is still being used
for a purpose and can be stopped by turning off the device when not in
use (if possible).

 

[HiramHackenbacker]

TonyS wrote:

Today Tonight has done it again.
Last night they promoted this Earthwise device which apparently saves up
to 35% electricity:
http://www.earthwisepowersavers.com.au/

It is bollocks. Where I live, domestic users are billed for real watts
used.
The power factor doesn't cost you more. However, industrial users do get
penalties for low power factors.

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

 

[fritz]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:8qt1ldF7t2U1@mid.individual.net...

"gcd" = wot ??


From what I saw on the today tonight show I also assume it was a PFC device, it's the only consclusion I could come to and on
that basis saw the following outcomes for people using the device.

1) If the user has an old mechanical meter their power bill will most likely actually increase as these meters do not measure
reactive (imaginary) power only real power,

** Modern electronic meters do exactly the same - far as any domestic consumer in Aussie in concerned.

In any case, another company ( Auscha Corporation Pty Ltd ) selling a near identical thing with the same claims has recently been
successfully prosecuted by the ACCC for breaches of the TPA.



so putting a PFC after the meter will increase the power consumption observed by the meter.

** Really ? How ??

Since they do not measure the effect of a capacitor of any value across the line.


So all those people with older CF globes that consume a lot of reactive power ..

** CFLs have NO no reactive power component.

Actually they do. I thought they had fixed the low PF problem with modern
CFL designs, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Here is a link with some actual CFL PF measurements.
http://www.leonardo-energy.org/reactive-power-due-cfl-lighting


And here the subject is mentioned in Mailbag, Silicon Chip Issue 226
Extract:
"One point you do not mention – as far as I can work out, CFLs typically have a power factor
of about 0.5 compared with a PF of 1.0 for incandescents."
SC replied:
"We did not mention power factor because we erroneously thought that this was no longer
a problem in more recent CFLs. This is quite wrong and it can be a serious problem if large
numbers of CFLs are used on one phase of the 240VAC mains supply."
http://www.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_109012/article.html