Electrician Expert Statement - Recessed light Transformers

[Jackrae]

Much the same as :- "the size of Wales, the weight of 3 london buses and the length of 4 football pitches"
Total bunkum and part of the reason why the press and media (including the BBC) have dumbed down the general public to the level of technical morons

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You have cited just two of the seven items in the Wikipedia's list of the meanings of 'lamp' (in the context of Lighting).

They are the ones which are germane.

Had the Wikipedia existed 30 years (or whatever) the list would have been much the same, but with that one 'electrical component' definition not being there. In those days (and for decades/centuries/millenia prior to that), a lamp was an item which used oil, gas, a 'light bulb', tube or whatever to produce light - and that was a very well-established proper meaning, in no way 'colloquial'.

Indeed, but you can't call the replaceable components of a carbon arc light a bulb. And at the other end of the timeline, what about these, are they bulbs?

What term would you like to have seen used over the last 200 years for the replaceable light-producing components of lighting apparatus powered by electricity?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's fine for determining the terminology/jargon to be used by specialists within an industry, but it's of little use to the general public, who one can't blame for relying on standard English dictionaries.

Maybe one can blame the lexicographers for giving too high a priority to neologisms which are unnecessary or which arise because of ignorance.

 

[Jackrae]

Naw, bulbs are things you stick in the ground to grow flowers from.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Like one of these, you mean?

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe one can blame the lexicographers for giving too high a priority to neologisms which are unnecessary or which arise because of ignorance.

Doesn't the use of the word 'lamp' to refer to things which, ~40 years ago, no-one would have called a 'lamp' represent a "neologism which is unnecessary"?

Back then, with a few specialised exceptions (like the arc lamps you have mentioned), components which produced light from electricity were generally either called 'light bulbs' (even if they did not resemble ones which one could plant!) or 'tubes' (if they looked like tubes!). That worked fine, and everyone understood it (and each other) - and I would say that most people are still using that terminology.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Like one of these, you mean?

Transform it into "chips" and some one might decide to call it an electronic apple of the earth,

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Back then, with a few specialised exceptions (like the arc lamps you have mentioned),

They were the only type at first.

Maybe they should always have been called "wicks", as that's the replaceable light-emitting part of an oil lamp.

components which produced light from electricity were generally either called 'light bulbs' (even if they did not resemble ones which one could plant!) or 'tubes' (if they looked like tubes!). That worked fine, and everyone understood it (and each other) - and I would say that most people are still using that terminology.

So should they all have different names, based on their physical shape?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Transform it into "chips" and some one might decide to call it an electronic apple of the earth,

That would be a bit of a mash-up.

 

[JohnW2]

So should they all have different names, based on their physical shape?

I can't see why - as I said, we did fine when almost anything which wasn't an obvious 'tube' was called a 'bulb', regardless of it's physical shape. If it weren't broke, why mend it?

It is your apparent lack of consistency that I find a little difficult to understand. Both 'lamp' and 'transformer' are now being used with meanings that would not have been recognised, or defined as such anywhere, just a few decades ago - but your attitude seems very different in the two cases.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Pot & kettle?

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that it is not OK to use the word "lamp" instead of "light bulb", when in the past you have said it is OK to use the word "electrocute" to mean non-fatal electric shock, and it is OK to use the word "mayoress" to mean a female mayor.

With "transformer" there clearly was no need to either redefine the existing meaning, nor any need to find a new term which made such a redefinition expedient.

With electric lighting there was a need to find a word for the replaceable component. Possibly "lamp" was intended to stress that this was the part that was replaced when it stopped being the entire apparatus, which had been known as "the lamp"? "Bulb" wouldn't have been an obvious choice if the item was not bulb-shaped. As I asked - does "bulb" seem a sensible word to use for those Luxeon components?

If there is inconsistency in my position, how does it materially differ from that which means I do not use the word "lavatory" to mean a washing area?

As you have said more than once, language changes, it evolves, and that cannot and should not be resisted. You and I differ regarding the second.

 

[JohnW2]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that it is not OK to use the word "lamp" instead of "light bulb", when in the past you have said it is OK to use the word "electrocute" to mean non-fatal electric shock, and it is OK to use the word "mayoress" to mean a female mayor.

Yes, you have seemingly somewhat misunderstood, but, in response to your request, I will forgive you. I personally do not like or support the use of "lamp" to mean "light bulb", "electrocute" to relate to a non-fatal electric shock or "mayoress" to mean a female mayor. I would personally never (except 'accidentally'!) use the latter two words with those meanings, and nor would I ever use "lamp" to mean "light bulb" other than when I was in earshot of electricians - not the least because most members of the general public would probably not know what I was talking about! Just as you have pointed out that dictionaries now support this "new" meaning of "lamp" (which would not have been in the dictionaries a few decades ago, I have, in the past, pointed out that at least some dictionaries support the meanings of "electrocution" and "mayoress" you mention. That doesn't mean that I 'support' such use of those words.

With "transformer" there clearly was no need to either redefine the existing meaning, nor any need to find a new term which made such a redefinition expedient.

As you must be aware, I don't like this one, either - at least, the using of the word "transformer" to refer to an SMPS; I have much less concern about "electronic transformer" - there are plenty of examples of our accepting the new term "electronic X" to refer to something which bears little resemblance (in appearance or technology) to the original (non-electronic) "X", the common feature usually being that of functionality.

With electric lighting there was a need to find a word for the replaceable component.

Why? We already had a perfectly good and well-understood word, which had been used for many decades and which continues to be used by a high proportion of the general public even today, years after the alleged 'change' in terminology. As above, we do not need to (and generally do not) change the vocabulary just because the appearance or technology of something has changed

As you have said more than once, language changes, it evolves, and that cannot and should not be resisted. You and I differ regarding the second.

What evolves is 'common usage', and if changes arise which come into sufficiently widespread general usage, then they will eventually be assimilated 'officially' into the language (appearing in dictionaries etc). It certainly was not the general public who decided they wanted a new word or term to replace "light bulb".

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

bulbous = inflated swollen

A word used in glass blowing long before electricity was ever used for lighting. So in word theory a bulb is something, anything, anything that has been blown from a lump of molten material by inflation.

Capsule lamps are not blown but ( most often ) formed from a length of extruded tube that is then softened and squeezed at the ends

This thread could be considered inflated and swollen

 

[ericmark]

Coming in a little late seems two questions one what reliability should be considered normal and two the English used.

A capacitor which is often the part which fails in a switch mode power supply has a limited life which can be much reduced if the temperature rises.

Where the devices have been installed without enough ventilation and the units temperature has exceeded design parameters then the fault would be the designer be it the electrical designer or some other trade which due to there actions had reduced cooling available would depend on order of events.

If however the unit was not subjected to conditions outside of the design parameters then we have to look at the unit supplied.

Either was an opportunity for the designer, installer and supplier to correct any faults has to be given.

This often produces a problem where the supplier needs to return the faulty item through the supply chain to the manufacturer so it would be reasonable to expect 3 months between an item being shown as defective to getting the replacement.

Often good will means some one along the chain will replace the item before the whole process is completed but although that may happen with a single faulty item where there is a quantity of faulty items then clearly one would have to wait for the manufacturers report as it could result in a re-call and a modification rather than simple replacement.

£400 does equate to a lot of devices and it would be reasonable to wait for a manufacturers report when so many devices are in question.

As to the English it is clearly important in any court that the English used is understood by all parties. We tend to go back to the Latin origin as any item which is bulbous in shape could reasonable be called a bulb. Even if really it is a tuber as with the potato. We have for years where technology has progressed used the old name even when it really no longer applies. Device operating system was called DOS which used a command line interface CLI and as a result the two acronyms were often swapped about.

I do not agree with using the word "transformer" for a switched mode power supply or "driver" for a DC voltage regulated switched mode power supply but we all know when the word "electronic" is used with the description transformer it often means it's a switched mode power supply in the same way as we think of DOS meaning a CLI.

We do not call a folded florescent tube luminaires a FFTL we call it a CFL even though lamp refers to the whole unit. i.e. The oil lamp would include the oil tank, wick, and the glass globe and once lit the whole unit would be placed on the spigot on the wall. Calling the folded florescent tube luminaire a lamp is the same as calling it a bulb neither is correct but we do understand what it refers to.

So the power supply contains a "Thermal 100C Cut-off nonresettable" the question has to be "Did this cut out cause the failure" if so then down to designer if not then likely down to supplier.

If I was asked to fix a light and was told it was still under a warranty I would suggest it was fixed by the people giving the warranty. If I was asked to continue I would fix the lamp, and if I found some design or installation fault I would draw attention to that fault. If at that time I was asked to submit a report I would have to consider if I had the ability to investigate and for a device costing £3.50 I would question if the client was willing to pay for it to be disassembled to check if the "Thermal 100C Cut-off nonresettable" had failed or not and also the cost of placing a temperature probe on the device to monitor the temperature. It would likely cost around £100 to conduct the experiments required and to carefully disassemble the device.

Where 100's devices had been fitted this may make some sense, but at 20 only fitted some £70 worth then I would not have considered it was worth the money to test the installation and devices.

If a month after I had swapped a unit some one asked me to write a report then I would have said no. Simply point is I would have not kept the old units so however clever I am I could not have found why it had failed. The only thing I could do would be to measure the temperature of one of the remaining units while in use. Personally I do not have any logging equipment so all I could do is set it up and return some hours latter to see the temperature. One would also have to measure the temperature of the replacement unit.

Looking at the technical data given on the advert I found it would seem these units are extremely efficient basic 60W in and 60W out so going on the spec there should be very little heat generated. So I don't think one could blame the installer. As from your report the replacements have not failed so one would assume they have not over heated.

If you are blaming the manufacturer then clearly the units would need returning so at the very least the old unit would have needed to be returned to the installer for him to in turn return them to the supplier who could then advise if there was any fault with the batch.

Clearly if a unit is dismantled to find out why it failed you can't return it to the supplier.

However much we would like it to, cost and quality do not always go hand in hand. All too often you find people selling substandard gear for a high price and making a huge profit.

With bulbs we see a life for example 1000 hours, this does not mean every bulb will last 1000 hours it means after 1000 hours 50% of the bulbs will still be working. Up to date you have only lost 15% of the devices and until they have run a reasonable time no one can really comment on their reliability.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What evolves is 'common usage', and if changes arise which come into sufficiently widespread general usage, then they will eventually be assimilated 'officially' into the language (appearing in dictionaries etc). It certainly was not the general public who decided they wanted a new word or term to replace "light bulb".

How many people have to start calling that troublesome male organ the prostrate before we change the medical dictionaries, anatomy training etc?