Economy 7 clock wrong

[ebee]

I suppose that is a habit that some folk use "Incredible" in the same way they might sometimes use "Fabulous", rather than not true they mean difficult to actually perceive that it is true , "Fabulous" means not true but is often taken to mean "Too Good to be True" or almost such, "Incredible" might be often used to mean too good or too bad to be true.
Just my humble opinion.
A bit like saying someone has done the impossible, if if is impossible it can not be done so we exaggerate the impossible to mean amost impossible or we thought it was impossible until we actually saw it done.

I was misunderstood a few short years back when a a former schoolgirl aquaintance of mine told me she had got married had two teanage girls and her husband decided he was gay and she left him and took the two girls and a suitcase and nothing else and started a new life.
I replied something like "Heck that is quite a tale" and she replied "No it is actually true" , she had taken my use of the word "Tale" as meaning untrue, my intent was not to thing it untrue but yes I believed her story . Some may disagree with me.

I will not mention the incorrect use of the word "Refute" that seems to be popular in polotics these days!

I can appreciate a need to have some random timings to reduce surge effects of loads but not the non-synced times for billing, I would have expected, prior to this thread that both switching tarriff and load to be synced together at the same time and that exact time to have some deliberate offset by a random or psuedo random method or some delberate order instruction to the installing engineer.
We are usually quite happy ourselves to allow some "Cooker" Diversity almost random element to come into our considerations and we are seldom aware of any actual problems in that method.

 

[Rodders53]

I can appreciate a need to have some random timings to reduce surge effects of loads but not the non-synced times for billing, I would have expected, prior to this thread that both switching tarriff and load to be synced together at the same time and that exact time to have some deliberate offset by a random or psuedo random method or some deliberate order instruction to the installing engineer.

In most cases the two are synced and include the offset for switching and billing... As that other thread shows...

Occasionally there are mistakes and it takes an observant customer to notice and contact their supplier... As I've said if the Supplier CS Agents were properly trained (and cared, took pride in the job, perhaps) then such mistakes would be resolved relatively quickly... Rather than having to lodge 'formal complaints' and so on with back and forth (mis)communications before escalation to the correct smart metering team for a fix.

I'm waiting for the OP to come back to this or the MSE thread with an update on the situation.

 

[SUNRAY]

just as many words get dumbed down over the years I've always understood it to be the second meaning

How is refute being used then, other than as a dispute of anothers statement etc?
As for tale, I'd have always taken it to be a narrative of some sort, generally a fairy tale or factual based on an incredible (second meaning) truth.
I haven't checked either of these for correct meaning

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose that is a habit that some folk use "Incredible" in the same way they might sometimes use "Fabulous", rather than not true they mean difficult to actually perceive that it is true

Sure, we all do it (including me) all of the time. We very often use words like "incredible", "wonderful", "awful", "terrible" colloquially in senses which do not correspond with their literal meanings. [dictionaries now seem to have 'given in', but one of my English teacher's pet hates was the use of "nice" to meant pleasant/attractive/whatever ]

However, I thought I had, in this thread, given people enough prompting for them to indicate that they were not using "incredible/incredulous" literally - but none of them did

I can appreciate a need to have some random timings to reduce surge effects of loads but not the non-synced times for billing, I would have expected, prior to this thread that both switching tarriff and load to be synced together at the same time and that exact time to have some deliberate offset by a random or psuedo random method or some delberate order instruction to the installing engineer.

I think that virtually all of us would have had that expectation.

As I wrote last night, I'm trying to discover what SMETS actually specifies/'requires' as regards this, and how suppliers implement it. As one might expect, there certainly seems to be only one 'clock' (which is kept accurate). However, as has been explained, it seems that there are tables/calendars which (separately) define (a) how the time from that clock is used to split usage data into the 30-inute(or whatever) TOU registers and (b) in the case of 5-terminal meters, when the switching of 'auxiliary loads' (i.e. 'off-peak' ones) takes place.

What I have yet to discover, is whether or not the (30-minute/whatever) TOU registers (used for billing) are constrained to have 'round' start/finish times - i.e. if they are constrained to start from, say, 00:00. As I have written, IF there IS such a constraint then given the necessary random element to the times of load switching, it would be inevitable that the TOU (billing) and load-switching times would be to some extent out-of-synch.

 

[JohnW2]

just as many words get dumbed down over the years I've always understood it to be the second meaning

So, it seems, have many/most people - and dictionaries have eventually 'given in' and documented such 'dumbed down' (previously 'incorrect' usage.

I suspect that (just as the case with "nice") if you looked at dictionaries from a good few decades ago you would not find that 'second meaning' mentioned. It is this eventual "giving in to ('incorrect') common usage" on the part of dictionaries that often upsets EFLI.

 

[JohnW2]

How is refute being used then, other than as a dispute of anothers statement etc?

I think you'll find that its original ('correct' per EFLI) meaning was "to prove that something was incorrect". It is now commonly used to indicate 'disagreement with' or 'denial of' (etc.) something, without any 'proof'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suspect that (just as the case with "nice") if you looked at dictionaries from a good few decades ago you would not find that 'second meaning' mentioned. It is this eventual "giving in to ('incorrect') common usage" on the part of dictionaries that often upsets EFLI.

It does indeed. It shows that the people in charge do not know what they are doing - a very common state of affairs.

I ask again: If enough people say that spiders are insects, will it one day be true?

 

[JohnW2]

I ask again: If enough people say that spiders are insects, will it one day be true?

Probably not, since you are then talking about a 'technical classification'.

However, when it's just a case of 'use of language', things are different - but it's not really a case of 'true' (or 'false'). If enough people came to call spiders, say, "crawlies", then dictionaries would probably eventually come to include the word "crawlie".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Probably not, since you are then talking about a 'technical classification'.

I fail to see the difference.

However, when it's just a case of 'use of language', things are different

Why? They would both be people using the wrong word.

- but it's not really a case of 'true' (or 'false').

Yes, it is.

If enough people came to call spiders, say, "crawlies", then dictionaries would probably eventually come to include the word "crawlie".

You always say (something like) that. It's not the same.

 

[ericmark]

Decimate = To kill one in ten. Roman word of course, but today the reference to 10 seems to have been lost.

 

[ebee]

I can not evisage Refute as being any other than to Prove to be false and I reckon the political favoured usage is devious. Denying is something else.
Spiders are not insects but usage would not surprise my though.

At least one dictionary does actually state Electroction as per Electric shock! A dictionary is only as good as the person writing it

Decimate = To kill one in ten. Roman word of course, but today the reference to 10 seems to have been lost.

Yes, once again it creeps in from the litera definition to an approx definition.
I once stated "a couple of ....." and was corrected by "a couple means two!" Yes I agreed that I actually meant two or around that figure maybe three sometimes. A Loose use of couple rather than literal. I could have meant just a few not many.

 

[JohnW2]

I fail to see the difference.

As I wrote, it's a matter of 'official classification', not just a choice of words.

People can use whatever word they like to refer to a spider, and if enough of them use some new word to do that, dictionaries will eventually come to document that 'common usage' (even though it obviously was once 'incorrect').

However, to say that a spider is an insect would be just as fundamentally wrong as it would be to say that it was a mammal, a reptile, a bird, a plant or a mineral. Technical definitions are in a different league from 'use of words' in the sense that we often discuss.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Technical definitions are in a different league from 'use of words' in the sense that we often discuss.

Why?

 

[ericmark]

The argument comes up many times, not eating enough vegetables I am told, I point to potato chips, and am told they are not vegetables and don't count for my 5 a day, well they are no animals, or minerals, not even a fungus, they have cellular cell walls, so to me must be vegetable.

However, not really anything to do with Economy 7, if he's still reading this, he is doing very well. I still question at 3 kW so assume only one storage radiator, is it really worth having a split tariff? Yes supplier should fix the problem, but is a single storage heater really worth having?

 

[JohnW2]

Why?

Because it is different.

In general, people can change their 'use of language' as much as they like (in a manner that is 'incorrect' at the time) and, although I appreciate that you don't like it, if some use of language comes into sufficiently 'common usage' it will eventually come to be regarded as 'correct' and recognised as such by academics, teachers and dictionaries (the 'evolution of language' which you hate so much).

However, when it comes to things which are 'officially defined' (particularly when 'scientifically' defined) it would be plain daft for people to start using language which differed from those official definitions - to say that a spider is an insect would be analogous to saying that a daffodil is an animal, a tiger is a plant or that oxygen is a metal. Those sort of definitions are 'fixed', unless/until those who create the definitions choose to change them (like deciding that Pluto is not a planet).