Don't just lay down. Stand and fight for the correct spelling. 
Electrician Expert Statement - Recessed light Transformers
- Thread starter London12345
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I would say that's really rather different, since it's just the case of an error/ misunderstanding on the part of many people, just as if a lot of people thought that "light borlb" was a correct term - so, as bernard has said, the appropriate course there is to try to educate in relation to the very-long-standing correct word.
Having said that, if the misuse of a word becomes sufficiently widespread, dictionaries eventually have little choice but to at least acknowledge, if not 'bless', the incorrect/'colloquial' use of the word.
This is IMO very different from the situation which would exist if a 'specialised few' decided, for whatever reason (and totally 'unnecessarily'), to re-name the organ as the "sub-vesical gland" or "sub-vesicular gland" (which would make anatomical sense) and then started criticising, or even ridiculing, the masses for continuing to call it the prostate gland.
Kind Regards, John
Heard on The Detectorists:
"So, when we gonna tell the others?"
"Not yet. I reckon we should keep it to ourselves for the tambourine."
"So, when we gonna tell the others?"
"Not yet. I reckon we should keep it to ourselves for the tambourine."
Sponsored Links
That didn't stop them redefining literally so it no longer means literally and the 'mistakers' cannot even look it up to see they are wrong.
As I said:
If they don't do that, they gradually become ineffective as a reference source in relation to the language "as it is spoken"
Kind Regards, John
Well, I think that's awful.
I'm not clear as to where you would like to draw a line. If today's dictionaries did not take on board the evolutions of meaning (and sometimes spelling) that have occurred (usually driven by 'common usage') over the centuries, they would surely be quite useless to anyone who wanted to speak, write, read or understand the English being used in 2014?Well, I think that's awful.
Kind Regards, John
The problem is the speed at which they give up, at which the professionals with knowledge and understanding simply abandon what they know to be correct, and give in to the ignorami. rather than taking every opportunity to tell the ignorami they are wrong, and to encourage a culture where everybody tells the ignorami they are wrong at every possible opportunity, and to refuse to accept their language.
An example of the confusion that can occur,
http://tinyurl.com/sounds-like-a-cheap-iPad
The other way round could be a big problem......
http://tinyurl.com/sounds-like-a-cheap-iPad
The other way round could be a big problem......
You mean like the way in which the dictionaries seem to have been far too quick in "giving in", even though the new meaning was in no way 'common usage', to the (IMO totally unnecessary) change in the meaning of the word "lamp" which was presumably introduced by "professionals with knowledge and understanding"?
I don't know at what point the dictionaries 'gave in' on this one (even though the new meaning is still not in 'common usage' in 2014), but it must have been less than 35 years ago. I have a 1979 OED which contains no hint of the 'new meaning', and the most pertinent meaning of "lamp" it gives is "a device for holding one or more electric light bulbs".
Kind Regards, John
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,728
- Reaction score
- 2,675
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
Decimate is the word I use to show the change in meaning. Clearly with Dec it's something to do with 10 my old dictionary tells me it means to get rid of 1 in 10 and comes from the days of the Legionnaires where if they lost a battle they would kill one in ten to make them fight harder next time.
So a very precise meaning get rid of one in ten. But it would seem people use the work to mean near the opposite and think of it as keeping one in ten.
This means reading old books one can get completely the wrong idea as to what happened. One prime example in the Bible which Kings like James have re-written to take into account the change in use of words.
Some religions however to not permit rewriting your not even allowed to translate it from the Arabic. This means you have a document which people follow but have the meanings of the words wrong so are not following what was intended.
To be fair English is the odd one out. Near every other language the academics write the dictionary and the people have to abide by what the academics say. But in English the dictionary gives common usage of the word.
However it does mean courts have a problem. I read my old TV licence and it said it was for an apparatus that receives broadcast radio signals and then split this apparatus into colour and monochrome. We when I went to school that apparatus was called an aerial and I am sure painting it black and white does not mean I can use a black and white licence.
As with many laws it is case law which counts. And this also changes. At one time it was having a TV set which required the licence but that has changed to using a TV set because TV's can be used as a monitor.
I have looked at the case in question and I really can't see how the name given to the device really has a bearing. Buy a bottle of milk and it has a use by date and clearly one would not expect that bottle to last even one year. Buy a diamond and it should clearly last a life time.
So what is a reasonable life for a voltage dropping device used to power a lamp? It contains electrolytic capacitors so the life of these will limit life of whole device. From Wikipedia:-
From that if it lasts for 3 months then it could be said to have lasted the expected life. I would think computer power supplies are typical of the problem with "Aluminum electrolytic capacitors" and it is common to have to replace a power supply after only 2 years although some last much longer.
So with the case in question it would be hard to show the price paid for the devices was responsible for their short life. And cutting to chase this is the question. Did the price paid cause the quick failure.
One could say the client had been told transformers were being fitted which should not degrade like an electrolytic capacitor so was lead to believe the devices would last much longer. But standard practice is to fit electronic devices so can't see this holding up.
So what is needed is a list of Manufacturer Guarantee Screwfix with a Halolite brand are offering 3 years. Robus also Screwfix offers 1 year. Robus is actually 10p more expensive. I have found examples with a 5 year guarantee but the problem is the only site I can find selling the transformers used does not give a warranty time.
If you can find a supplier of the "Avenue 60VA Dimmable Transformer" who offers a warranty then you can use this to show these devices were not designed to last or were claimed to have a long life.
The other problem is the lamp. In theroy every lamp should have an internal fuse. This should rupture before the ionisation current is passed to any supply device.
If the electronic transformer failed and the lamp was still OK then clearly the electronic transformer at fault. But if the lamp failed then it could well have been due to missing fuse built into the lamp.
Although the installer may have selected cheap inferior items you have to show he knew they were cheap inferior items and failed to correct faults when they arose.
In real terms the installers case is likely to show unreasonable actions by the client by not allowing them access to the lamps to investigate the cause of failure. You would have to show how you asked the installer to correct the faults and how they failed to do so within a reasonable time. Given of course reasonable assess to the premises.
Most of us work and to give assess during the normal working day is often a problem. Where it costs £50 to have a half day off work to open the house for an electrician to change an item costing £4 the temptation is to instead find some one willing to do the same thing where you don't lose that £50 in wages.
But as soon as you get some one else in then your guarantee goes out of the window. I think the contractor will win. May be that's wrong but the cost to you in lost time at work will likely mean you have to accept the money has to be handed over.
Personally I would think if the money held back reflected the cost to you in replacing the faulty units then you may win. Also if you can show requests sent for them to fix the problems again you may win. But likely you will need to pay the outstanding bill.
So a very precise meaning get rid of one in ten. But it would seem people use the work to mean near the opposite and think of it as keeping one in ten.
This means reading old books one can get completely the wrong idea as to what happened. One prime example in the Bible which Kings like James have re-written to take into account the change in use of words.
Some religions however to not permit rewriting your not even allowed to translate it from the Arabic. This means you have a document which people follow but have the meanings of the words wrong so are not following what was intended.
To be fair English is the odd one out. Near every other language the academics write the dictionary and the people have to abide by what the academics say. But in English the dictionary gives common usage of the word.
However it does mean courts have a problem. I read my old TV licence and it said it was for an apparatus that receives broadcast radio signals and then split this apparatus into colour and monochrome. We when I went to school that apparatus was called an aerial and I am sure painting it black and white does not mean I can use a black and white licence.
As with many laws it is case law which counts. And this also changes. At one time it was having a TV set which required the licence but that has changed to using a TV set because TV's can be used as a monitor.
I have looked at the case in question and I really can't see how the name given to the device really has a bearing. Buy a bottle of milk and it has a use by date and clearly one would not expect that bottle to last even one year. Buy a diamond and it should clearly last a life time.
So what is a reasonable life for a voltage dropping device used to power a lamp? It contains electrolytic capacitors so the life of these will limit life of whole device. From Wikipedia:-
From that if it lasts for 3 months then it could be said to have lasted the expected life. I would think computer power supplies are typical of the problem with "Aluminum electrolytic capacitors" and it is common to have to replace a power supply after only 2 years although some last much longer.
So with the case in question it would be hard to show the price paid for the devices was responsible for their short life. And cutting to chase this is the question. Did the price paid cause the quick failure.
One could say the client had been told transformers were being fitted which should not degrade like an electrolytic capacitor so was lead to believe the devices would last much longer. But standard practice is to fit electronic devices so can't see this holding up.
So what is needed is a list of Manufacturer Guarantee Screwfix with a Halolite brand are offering 3 years. Robus also Screwfix offers 1 year. Robus is actually 10p more expensive. I have found examples with a 5 year guarantee but the problem is the only site I can find selling the transformers used does not give a warranty time.
If you can find a supplier of the "Avenue 60VA Dimmable Transformer" who offers a warranty then you can use this to show these devices were not designed to last or were claimed to have a long life.
The other problem is the lamp. In theroy every lamp should have an internal fuse. This should rupture before the ionisation current is passed to any supply device.
If the electronic transformer failed and the lamp was still OK then clearly the electronic transformer at fault. But if the lamp failed then it could well have been due to missing fuse built into the lamp.
Although the installer may have selected cheap inferior items you have to show he knew they were cheap inferior items and failed to correct faults when they arose.
In real terms the installers case is likely to show unreasonable actions by the client by not allowing them access to the lamps to investigate the cause of failure. You would have to show how you asked the installer to correct the faults and how they failed to do so within a reasonable time. Given of course reasonable assess to the premises.
Most of us work and to give assess during the normal working day is often a problem. Where it costs £50 to have a half day off work to open the house for an electrician to change an item costing £4 the temptation is to instead find some one willing to do the same thing where you don't lose that £50 in wages.
But as soon as you get some one else in then your guarantee goes out of the window. I think the contractor will win. May be that's wrong but the cost to you in lost time at work will likely mean you have to accept the money has to be handed over.
Personally I would think if the money held back reflected the cost to you in replacing the faulty units then you may win. Also if you can show requests sent for them to fix the problems again you may win. But likely you will need to pay the outstanding bill.
I suppose it is definition by democracy and there is no solution but it is not helped these days by the attitude that we should not point out people's shortcomings.I'm not clear as to where you would like to draw a lineWell, I think that's awful.
Therefore they do not know they are wrong so never correct the situation so ignorance IS bliss.
It is just irritating for the rest of us.
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
