Dangerous fitting or dangerous bulbs?

Sponsored Links
For what its worth, an issue Ive come across before with these, is lamps of too high a wattage being used. A fitting had ‘max 20 (or 25??) watt’ on a crispy label but end users were using something like 50 or 60 watt lamps. The crumbling lamp holder and wiring were very nicely cooked when I had a look. Also, it wasn’t easily and safely replaceable so new fitting required.
 
I was trying to use terminology the OP would understand, instead of the correct terminology, as should have been clear from my earlier post.
 
Sponsored Links
I was trying to use terminology the OP would understand, instead of the correct terminology, as should have been clear from my earlier post.
Well, as you will know from what I wrote previously, I very much sympathise with that approach. However, what you wrote was:
If the G9 capsules are not enclosed, then I disagree that they are good quality.
I meant enclosed by the luminaire.
I think I must have misunderstood, because you appeared to be saying that you would disagree that the capsules were good quality if they were not enclosed in a luminaire!

Kind Regards, John
 
I think I must have misunderstood
Yes, I think you did.
The OP used the old term 'lamps' to mean the luminaires, which he said were good quality. My point was that if the G9 capsules were not enclosed by the luminaires then the luminaires were not of good quality.
Is that better?
 
The OP used the old term 'lamps' to mean the luminaires, which he said were good quality. ...
So he did :oops: - and I (and BAS) have no excuse for not remembering that, because it was that very 'total confusion' in this thread which I blamed on the new-fangled usage of the word "lamp"!

Very few members of the general public would use the word "luminaire", and I continue to put bulbs into my "table lamps" and "standard lamps" (and don't recall many people calling them "table lights", "table luminaires", "standard lights" or "standard luminaires"!)

Kind Regards, John
 
I wasn't going to reply to this but subsequent posts have seemed to contradict.

Perhaps, now - but, as above, in most cases only because someone decided to change the language. I will agree that "headlight" and "headlamp" always seem to have been interchangeable - but your are old enough to know that "table lamp" (and many other types of "lamp") and "lamp post" originally meant.
If you agree that a headlight contains a lamp then table/standard lamp cannot be a correct term even if that's what people call them.
After all, if you take out the lamp part, then they are not table/standard lamps, but a headlight would still be a headlight.
Lamp post is not the same, is it? (the equivalent would be post lamp) It is a post with a lamp at the top - whether or not this lamp is enclosed in another assembly. It presumably comes from a post with a gas lamp atop.
Anyway, a gate post is not a gate, is it?

"Change back", you mean?
I'm not sure.
As you agreed with me, I think you must have misunderstood.

If so, I agree - but it is unusual to find you supporting a change in meaning/use of words!
I don't but I cannot do anything about those which occurred a long time ago.

Having said that, virtually every 'ordinary' person I know still talks of "bulbs",
They do - but they also do it for any lamp whether bulbous or not - so that's not a good reason, is it?

so nothing needs to be "changed back" for them!
They could call them lamps. Is that going back or a totally new experience.
 
I think BAS's point was that the 'quality' of a G9 capsule is a characteristic of that capsule, and is not affected by whatever fitting it is put into.
I'm sure it was.
Indeed it was.

Just like it was yours:

If the G9 capsules are not enclosed, then I disagree that they are good quality.

Unless you would like to tell us that you are using this topic as your try-out for the UK Olympic Wriggling team, there is no way that the "they" in "I disagree that they are good quality" can not have been referring to the G9 capsules.
 
... there is no way that the "they" in "I disagree that they are good quality" can not have been referring to the G9 capsules.
Having made the same 'mistake' myself (and confessing, not wriggling!), whilst you are probably right about the grammar of stillp's statement if it were taken out of context, the reality is that it is very clear (once one realises!) that it was the fitting/luminaire/whatever which was being said to be of "good quality" in the post to which he was responding - so, in contect, his "they" could not sensibly refer to the capsules.

Kind Regards, John
 
If you agree that a headlight contains a lamp then table/standard lamp cannot be a correct term even if that's what people call them.
As I conceded, headlamp/headlight seems out on a limb, since both words seems to have been in use 'for ever'
After all, if you take out the lamp part, then they are not table/standard lamps ...
Of course they are. I'm sure that I could go out and buy any number of table lamps and standard lamps which were sold without a bulb in them.
I don't [usually support of change in meaning/use of words] but I cannot do anything about those which occurred a long time ago.
I'm not so sure about this "long time ago". I think this attempt to rename 'light bulbs' is relatively new (maybe 20-30 years?).
They do - but they also do it for any lamp whether bulbous or not ...
But they always have, haven't they? Plenty of the 'light bulbs' around in my youth were far from being bulbous, but no-one dreamed (or is it dreamt?!) of calling them anything other than light bulbs. There are many examples of words which we have carried on using despite the fact that he historical derivation of them has become 'incorrect' in terms of the modern manifestation of the item.

If it were really felt sufficiently important to change "light bulb" to something else, then they should surely have come up with some new word, not substituting a word that already existed and meant (and continued to mean) something else? In any event, as I've said, the general population seem to be largely ignoring this ' change', so I'm not sure what it is meant to have achieved!

Kind Regards, John
 
Of course they are. I'm sure that I could go out and buy any number of table lamps and standard lamps which were sold without a bulb in them.
I didn't mean just remove the 'bulb'.


If it were really felt sufficiently important to change "light bulb" to something else, then they should surely have come up with some new word, not substituting a word that already existed and meant (and continued to mean) something else? In any event, as I've said, the general population seem to be largely ignoring this ' change', so I'm not sure what it is meant to have achieved!
I don't think it is that important.

It was you complaining about the confusion. I was trying to explain a reason why it may have happened - from oil lamp.
 
I didn't mean just remove the 'bulb'.
In that case, I don't understand what you did mean.
I don't think it is that important. .... It was you complaining about the confusion. I was trying to explain a reason why it may have happened - from oil lamp.
In terms of the point I was making, I think it is very important. I was talking about the confusion, at least in some people's minds, that arose in this thread, because the OP used the 'original' (electrical) meaning of "lamp" (and bulb) - and that has nothing to do with the reason why the word (light) "bulb" arose decades earlier.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top