Changing bathroom extractor fan from timed to standard - terminate live?

[winston1]

By the way check the voltage that extractor requires ,it may be low voltage, and not suitable for direct connection to mains , without a transformer.

But mains is low voltage.

 

[terryplumb]

But mains is low voltage.

Thanks for that winston . Top man.

 

[JohnD]

But mains is low voltage.

Technical terms used by electricians among themselves should not be deliberately used to confuse and mislead the other 70 million people in Britain.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Surely, if the OP did know the technical terms, then the statement would have confused him.

 

[sparkwright]

Interesting that regular 3 core and E cable has not been used.

Send a picture of the where the wires emerge from the cable sheath.

If ONE regular T+E cable has been used, then it may be that the bare earth cable has been over-sleeved as a live conductor.

Are you not going to answer this then?

 

[JohnD]

Surely, if the OP did know the technical terms, then the statement would have confused him.

only if he was not fluent in contemporary vernacular English.

A Bulgarian Electrical Engineer over here on holiday, perhaps?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Technical terms used by electricians among themselves should not be deliberately used to confuse and mislead the other 70 million people in Britain.

They should in the weird place in which Winston operates. He likes nothing better than to deliberately confuse and mislead people. He thinks it makes him look clever.

 

[JohnW2]

Technical terms used by electricians among themselves should not be deliberately used to confuse and mislead the other 70 million people in Britain.

Worse than mere confusion, I would say.

Despite the views of some (winston, EFLI etc.), I think there is a need for pragmatism (even if one disapproves of that need) ... if any of those 70 million (or whatever) go into a retail/consumer outlet and ask for a 'low voltage' bulb/lamp for their light fitting, there is a distinct possibility that they will be sold something which will go bang when they connect it to a (technically 'low voltage') mains supply!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

There really is no alternative than to state the actual voltage.
Why is there an aversion to being correct?

Pragmatism would not mean you are definitely correct in your presumption.


In any case writing '12V' or '230V' is quicker than writing '(extra) low voltage'.

 

[JohnW2]

There really is no alternative than to state the actual voltage. .... In any case writing '12V' or '230V' is quicker than writing '(extra) low voltage'.

Totally agreed, but there's nothing wrong with referring to '230V' as "mains" (and that avoids any silly arguments about nominal and actual supply voltages!).

Why is there an aversion to being correct?

I don't think there is, as a concept, but there is scope for debate about what "correct" means. As JohnD implied, I think you would really struggle to finds any of the "70 million" UK people he mentioned who would even dream of describing 230V as "low voltage" and it is only a tiny minority of the population who would consider that to be correct.

As you say, when buying ELV bulbs/lamps one really has to specify the actual voltage (even though anything other than 12V is rare, particularly domestically), but that's a rather different matter. Fortunately, I don't think I've ever seen a 230V consumer product labelled, or described as, "low voltage" - but, were that not the case, such use of 'correct terminology' would have the potential to be extremely dangerous in some cases.

I could give you countless examples of medical terminology which is almost universally used by the general public but which is 'technically incorrect' in terms of the proper terminology of the discipline. Would you prefer that attempts should be made to educate the general public to use the (often much more 'complicated') 'correct' terminology?

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Would you prefer that attempts should be made to educate the general public to use the (often much more 'complicated') 'correct' terminology?

It depends how complicated, I suppose, but unless it was an unnecessary latin name, then yes, of course; why not?

I do not know what you have in mind, but as with ordinary words, you accept what you are used to but not new examples I make up.


If someone referred to pulmonary embolism as a broken leg, then even you would correct them - I presume - or me calling an ant a giraffe.

 

[JohnW2]

It depends how complicated, I suppose, but unless it was an unnecessary latin name, then yes, of course; why not?

I obviously don't know what you would regard as 'unnecessary', but the fact is that a high proportion of proper medical terminology (and also terminology in many other disciplines, including science and engineering one) consists of Latin (or sometimes Greek) words.

I would add that an awful lot of present-day medical terminology is totally different from what it would have been, say, a century ago, so do you think that even the (current) medical terminology needs to be 'corrected'. I have a number of ancient medical textbooks, and I would imagine that most present-day healthcare professions would not even recognise/understand a lot of the words in their indexes (or should I 'be Latin' and say indices?)

I do not know what you have in mind ...

Well, you could start with very common ones like "heart attack" and "stroke".

... but as with ordinary words, you accept what you are used to but not new examples I make up. If someone referred to pulmonary embolism as a broken leg, then even you would correct them - I presume - or me calling an ant a giraffe.

The trouble with the "new examples you make up" (as with the two you quote) is that they are plain silly, and clearly need to be corrected, because they involve 'making up' for something a 'new word (or words)' that already means something totally different. On the other hand, if you referred to pulmonary embolism as, say, "lung artery blockage", I would understand and may well not even both to 'correct' you.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Interesting that regular 3 core and E cable has not been used.

Send a picture of the where the wires emerge from the cable sheath.

If ONE regular T+E cable has been used, then it may be that the bare earth cable has been over-sleeved as a live conductor.

Looks to me that the exposed copper in the wire labelled 'switched live' is a bit thin for the insulation...

 

[scousespark]

Technical terms used by electricians among themselves should not be deliberately used to confuse and mislead the other 70 million people in Britain.

In an internet forum, discussing installation of a bathroom fan Winston is absolutely correct to say that mains voltage is in the low voltage range (set by the IEC).

For those not sure, low voltage is 50-1000v. When you buy a light fitting, the instructions state the voltage and the type (MR16 etc.) so it should not be too hard to find the right bulb (and I'm not getting into bulb/lamp/luminaire argument here).

I don't think this site is visited by everybody in th uk, so it is hard to see it confusing 70 million people.

 

[JohnW2]

In an internet forum, discussing installation of a bathroom fan Winston is absolutely correct to say that mains voltage is in the low voltage range (set by the IEC).

As you say, it is an absolutely correct statement.

However, I would suggest that it added nothing to this thread, and I would further suggest that the OP will have fully understood what was being said when he was (perfectly reasonably, other than for arguments about terminology) advised ...

... By the way check the voltage that extractor requires ,it may be low voltage, and not suitable for direct connection to mains , without a transformer.

I don't think this site is visited by everybody in th uk, so it is hard to see it confusing 70 million people.

Very true, but I would imagine that Winston's view would be that all 70 million of them should be exposed to (possibly confusing) education about the matter in question.

A lot of the views expressed here (and elsewhere) about incorrect use of words/terminology ('which should be corrected', even if 'everyone understands what is meant by the incorrect words') are perfectly reasonable views for people to hold, essentially as a matter of principle. However, in the case we are discussing, as I've said, I really do think that pragmatism is appropriate, since such a very tiny proportion of English-speaking people would even think of referring to, say, 230V as "low voltage". That very tiny proportion of people (primarily in electrically-related professions/occupations) are, of course, free to use the correct IEC-dictated terminology when talking/writing amongst themselves (and have to do so if talking/.writing 'formally'), but nothing is gained by criticising everyone else for using incorrect terminology.

It's just like the medical terminology analogies I mentioned. For example, one would rarely hear/see healthcare professionals talking/writing amongst themselves (or writing 'formally') about "heart attacks", but the vast majority of English-speaking people almost universally do, and without being criticised or 'corrected'.

Kind Regards, John