electric towel rail

[ebee]

Again John you have a very valid point.
Whereas Tech Splitting in the supply industry into two main bands of High and Low gives us two basics:- Transmission/Distribution/Generation on the one hand and utilisation on the other.
Low voltage is further split down into RLV and ELV (3 variants being SELV, PELV and FELV) .
Therefore a 9V PP3 battery and our 240V/415V mains are both in the low voltage band whereas the PP3 battery is in further sub-divisions too.
So what`s better categories? I am not sure!

Alice in Wonderland picked her words carefully to mean exactly what she decided they mean in the context she had used them at the specific time of so doing! Hmmm

 

[JohnW2]

Again John you have a very valid point. ... Whereas Tech Splitting in the supply industry into two main bands of High and Low gives us two basics:- Transmission/Distribution/Generation on the one hand and utilisation on the other....

.... and I suppose that would have been fine, provided that they had 'kept it to themselves' (i.e. within those two industries0. The problem is that, as we quite often see here, 'members of the general public' (the vast majority of whom believe that 'low voltage' means 'safe to touch') are quite often told that 230/240V is"Low Voltage".

The industries might at least have decided to call it, say, something like "Lower Voltage", leaving "Low Voltage" to continue meaning what most of the general public have always believed it go mean!

... but all that is, of course, just 'my opinion'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I extended the ring when fitting it so its not technically a spur,

Well, yes, but isn't that - i.e. on the ring - how/where an FCU is nearly always connected?

You didn't need to extend the ring; it is permitted to place the FCU at any point on the spur - the cable - but then obviously the spur - the cable - has to be connected to the ring by other means.

Our definitions say a spur is "a branch from a ring or radial final circuit".

but took a spur from that to install a socket...

Exactly - the cable.

 

[ebee]

It is not completely unknown for some folks to refer to sockets as plugs ELFI but I think you are long aware of that one my friend

 

[JohnW2]

It is not completely unknown for some folks to refer to sockets as plugs ELFI but I think you are long aware of that one my friend

Indeed, but the 'word police' are never too far away

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is not completely unknown for some folks to refer to sockets as plugs ELFI but I think you are long aware of that one my friend

Some think that is the reason for "plug tops".

Regarding calling FCUs "spurs", I think this probably originates because of adjectives being before the noun in English and that then unthinkingly being used as an abbreviation. There are many such examples.

Was the FCU ever referred to as a "spur connector" which was then abbreviated to just "spur"?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed, but the 'word police' are never too far away

Why do you think it so wrong to inform people and educate them of mistakes they have made - unless of course it is something you happen to think important like 'lamp' or 'continuity'?

 

[blup]

Well, yes, but isn't that - i.e. on the ring - how/where an FCU is nearly always connected?

You didn't need to extend the ring; it is permitted to place the FCU at any point on the spur - the cable - but then obviously the spur - the cable - has to be connected to the ring by other means.

Our definitions say a spur is "a branch from a ring or radial final circuit".


Exactly - the cable.

I don’t like spurs, I might need to extend the ring again. A spur from the fcu worked for the loft though where I am unlikely to need further points

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don’t like spurs,

That's a bit silly. What other perfectly satisfactory circuits do you dislike?

I might need to extend the ring again.

Or have another spur.

A spur from the fcu worked for the loft though where I am unlikely to need further points

There you go.

 

[ebee]

Or a fused spur can have any number of points fed from it.
Beware two way "Death Cubes" of the unfused variety though. (three ways usually have fuses).

 

[JohnW2]

Why do you think it so wrong to inform people and educate them of mistakes they have made

I don't think it's wrong - but there are 'ways and ways' of educating (and a time and a place for doing it).

- unless of course it is something you happen to think important like 'lamp'

I'm actually surprised you tolerate that one. In our youth, it was 'correct' to refer to one of those things as 'light bulb' (or just 'bulbs', for short), and incorrect to refer to them as 'lamps' (which had a number of meanings, none of which were 'light bulbs') - yet, rather than educate people as to what was the correct term (before the terminology 'evolved') you actually seem to go along with that 'evolution'.

or 'continuity'?

Again, in our youth, continuity testing was a qualitative (or, at least, binary, since there had to be some 'threshold') exercise and it was incorrect to use thee word to refer to the quantitative measurement of small resistances - but, again, you see m to support the current 'incorrect' use of thee word, don't you?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ebee]

So my age old saying "You put Bulbs in Gardens and Lamps in Lampholders!" is incorrect? or Correct? Ho heck.

If it is any consolation one of my pet hates (Besides PAT Testing) is the term "For Free" it should be "free of charge" or "at no charge" etc etc not "for free" I can just imagine my old school teachers turning in their graves at some terms in popular use these days.
Does makes me wonder if some of their pedantic statements actually wore into my way of thinking. Oh Dear - What have I become? It`s a bit like when you think "Oh Heck, I remember when my parents said that to me and now I`m saying the same thing to my children, oh it can`t be right, oh I am becoming like my parents. Aggghhh " Dread thoughts

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think it's wrong - but there are 'ways and ways' of educating (and a time and a place for doing it).

That time and place being when and where a mistake is made which requires correcting.

I'm actually surprised you tolerate that one. In our youth, it was 'correct' to refer to one of those things as 'light bulb' (or just 'bulbs', for short), and incorrect to refer to them as 'lamps' (which had a number of meanings, none of which were 'light bulbs') - yet, rather than educate people as to what was the correct term (before the terminology 'evolved') you actually seem to go along with that 'evolution'.

There isn't much point informing people what used to be correct but instead correcting what is wrong today before it needs to evolve (before we of to take a break to of a cup of tea).

Evolution being the alteration of a meaning because enough people were not corrected.

Again, in our youth, continuity testing was a qualitative (or, at least, binary, since there had to be some 'threshold') exercise and it was incorrect to use thee word to refer to the quantitative measurement of small resistances - but, again, you see m to support the current 'incorrect' use of thee word, don't you?

I was not intending to discuss various definitions but the fact that I get told off for correcting mistakes other people think unimportant.

 

[blup]

That's a bit silly. What other perfectly satisfactory circuits do you dislike?

Ones that lead to a fluorescent tube

Or have another spur.

Why add spurs when the used of high current devices might regularly exceed the capacity of the fuse. Plus when the ring is near its legal limits in terms of area or length, it’s safer to extend the ring rather than load it with spurs.

There you go.

An eException that prove the rule

 

[JohnW2]

There isn't much point informing people what used to be correct but instead correcting what is wrong today before it needs to evolve

I thought your view was that what 'used to be correct' is still correct and that the 'evolution' only happens when, at some point in time, people start using language incorrectly? Indeed, even when evolution has effectively become a 'fait accomplis', because thee evolved language is in such widespread usage that dictionaries come to accept it, you then criticise the dictionaries for being complicit in accepting the 'incorrect' language.

I was not intending to discuss various definitions but the fact that I get told off for correcting mistakes other people think unimportant.

I don't think I [or,come to that, (m)any others] have 'told you off for correcting mistakes. We may comment about it, but I, for one, accept that it is your prerogative to do whatever correcting you feel you have to do. However, the point I was making is that I didn't think you regarded the current usage of the words you explicitly mentioned ("lamp" and "continuity") as being incorrect - which presumably explains why you don't 'correct' people's current usage of thee words?

Kind Regards, John