Garden Lighting Advice

[EFLImpudence]

Indeed, but I can't really see it happening.

It's not new and there doesn't seem to be a problem.

As I intimated in my last post, my greatest concern relates to members of the public (to whom the number of volts would probably be meaningless) being told that 'UK mains electricity is low voltage'.

So Detlef's solution would not solve it, then.

At least some, maybe many, of them will probably equate 'low voltage' with 'not dangerous' - with the obvious risk of tragic consequences.

If stating that the 'mains' is classed as low voltage would lead some to deduce that the 'mains' were no longer dangerous then I don't think anything is going to help.
Except, perhaps, keep away.

I therefore think that, at the very very least, those who feel compelled to 'drum into members of the public' the fact that 'UK mains is low voltage' should always qualify that with an explanation that, regardless of the words, it is neverthless potentially lethal.

Surely, though, when a poster says some 'low voltage' lights have been purchased, we have to determine whether what they are talking about is 12V or not.
Would it not be logical and indeed desirable to then inform them of the definitions so that they are more knowledgeable?

A campaign to inform the vendors of 12V lights who call them 'low voltage' would be much the better option.
Then anyone who buys 12V lights will know they are extra-low voltage.

Maybe you could 'pop' some 12V lamps which were called 'low voltage' and complain to a 'shed' that you had connected them TO low voltage and were going to sue them.


These terms, amongst others, are not ideal but, as we have said before, that's how it is and people doing work should learn enough to complete it safely.
After all, Bernard does not even agree with calling the MET or CPCs 'earth'.



As an aside, perhaps you have stumbled across the reason for a few people climbing onto pylons and being electrocuted.
They didn't think high voltage was dangerous but referred to the altitude.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I really don't see that your analogy is particularly appropriate. If 95% of the public spoke/wrote in that fashion then, whether we liked it or not, that would be accepted as the norm, and it would be the other 5% who were regarded as 'wrong'.

Not if the official rules for spelling and grammar etc still sided with the 5%, not the uncaring and ignorant 95%.

it's pretty rare (at least, within fields I know anything about) for technical terminolgy to be contradictory, in a potentially dangerous fashion, to what most of the general public understand by the same terms.

Like "chronic" when applied to medical conditions, you mean?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

One way to avoid the problem, which is a real one, would be to abandon the use of comparative jargon, as defined in a particular specification, and simply refer to the actual voltage or voltage range. This would be unambiguous.

Alternatively append to all wishy-washy terms, such as 'low voltage', a reference to the particular specification which defines these terms.

You mean like the Building Regulations do in the "Interpretation" section which is early on, and before the terms "low voltage" and "extra-low voltage" are used to describe the scope of the regulations?

And like Approved Document P does in Appendix A: Key terms?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So any thoughts on cable running behind gravel board of fence? I can box it in with some more gravel board....

At the very least you would need to use armoured cable. Or galvanised steel conduit.

Burying the cable would be better. http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Book/7.13.3.htm[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnW2]

If 95% of the public spoke/wrote in that fashion then, whether we liked it or not, that would be accepted as the norm, and it would be the other 5% who were regarded as 'wrong'.

Not if the official rules for spelling and grammar etc still sided with the 5%, not the uncaring and ignorant 95%.

You mean those who were regarded as uncaring and ignorant by a very small minority of society? I'm not sure I would want them dictating 'official rules' about anything.

it's pretty rare (at least, within fields I know anything about) for technical terminolgy to be contradictory, in a potentially dangerous fashion, to what most of the general public understand by the same terms.

Like "chronic" when applied to medical conditions, you mean?

Yep - and, as we've discussed before, a good few other medical terms (hysteria, fracture etc.) but I'm not sure that I would call any of them 'potentially dangerous'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

As I intimated in my last post, my greatest concern relates to members of the public (to whom the number of volts would probably be meaningless) being told that 'UK mains electricity is low voltage'.

So Detlef's solution would not solve it, then.

If they were identifying things (like lamps) just by the voltage, then that would obviously remove 'my greatest concern', and the fact that the numbers might be meaningless to them (beyond being a means of identifying different lamps) would not be a problem. However, I doubt that we are going to see the 'LV' description of ELV lamps etc. disappear from widespread use (or be replaced by 'ELV') any time soon.

At least some, maybe many, of them will probably equate 'low voltage' with 'not dangerous' - with the obvious risk of tragic consequences.

If stating that the 'mains' is classed as low voltage would lead some to deduce that the 'mains' were no longer dangerous then I don't think anything is going to help.

Descriptors and classifications can have marked effects on subconscious perceptions of danger levels. Just look at the arguments surrounding the re-classification of cannabis from 'Class B' to 'Class C' and then back again. I'm not suggesting that it's going to affect a lot of people, but if only a handful suffered harm because what their minds regarded as a 're-classification' of mains electricity, that would be a pity. Change the labelling on a bottle of something nasty from "deadly posion" to "posion" and a few people will become more complacent about handling/using it.

Surely, though, when a poster says some 'low voltage' lights have been purchased, we have to determine whether what they are talking about is 12V or not.
Would it not be logical and indeed desirable to then inform them of the definitions so that they are more knowledgeable?

Sure, in that situation, it would be perfectly reasonable to tell them "what electricians call 12V" (and maybe even "what electricians call 230V") but, so long as manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, books and everyday English are using different different terminology, I personally would not tell them that the terminology to which they were constantly exposed was 'incorrect'. Taking the medical example raised by BAS, if a patient talks to a doctor about his "chronic" pain, the doctor would interrogate as to what was meant, and if the answer was that it is very bad pain which had been present for a few hours, the doctor might explain that this is what doctors would call something like "severe", and that doctors used the word "chronic" to mean long-standing, but I wouldn't expect the doctor to tell the patient that the word the patient had used (in accordance with common everyday usage) was 'incorrect'.

A campaign to inform the vendors of 12V lights who call them 'low voltage' would be much the better option.
Then anyone who buys 12V lights will know they are extra-low voltage.

I think most of us would agree with that (manufacturers, authors of books and many other things as well as vendors), but I suspect that's not going to happen.

These terms, amongst others, are not ideal but, as we have said before, that's how it is and people doing work should learn enough to complete it safely.

Indeed, but that doesn't make me regard the situation as any more satisfactory. Over the years, I've seen too many disasters, near-disasters and tragedies due to communication issues (often involving terminology or units issues) to be complacent, no matter how few people may suffer.

After all, Bernard does not even agree with calling the MET or CPCs 'earth'.

That's really very different. It's not a question of electricians and non-electricians using different terminology. Rather, he's questioning the terminolgy which everyone uses - and is unhappy calling something 'earth' (without quotes) if it is not necessarily at earth potential. I suppose I have some sympathy with his view - particularly when (per one of his favourite topics!) one is talking about 'earth rising to above earth potential'

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Change the labelling on a bottle of something nasty from "deadly posion" to "posion" and a few people will become more complacent about handling/using it.

What about labelling it "toxic" instead of "poisonous"?

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

One way to avoid the problem, which is a real one, would be to abandon the use of comparative jargon, as defined in a particular specification, and simply refer to the actual voltage or voltage range. This would be unambiguous.

Alternatively append to all wishy-washy terms, such as 'low voltage', a reference to the particular specification which defines these terms.

You mean like the Building Regulations do in the "Interpretation" section which is early on, and before the terms "low voltage" and "extra-low voltage" are used to describe the scope of the regulations?

And like Approved Document P does in Appendix A: Key terms?

No. I mean like people on this site who attempt to belittle innocent posters by deliberately misunderstanding their use of the term 'Low Voltage', without explaining where they are getting their own interpretations.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

It's interesting that during my lifetime the same level of voltage has been referred to 'High Tension' and 'Low Voltage'. The general public doesn't stand a chance.

 

[JohnW2]

It's interesting that during my lifetime the same level of voltage has been referred to 'High Tension' and 'Low Voltage'. The general public doesn't stand a chance.

Historically, it actually gets worse ... 'High Tension' batteries ('B Batteries') were most commonly produced in 45V, 90V and 120V versions, all of which would today qualify as Extra Low Voltage.

It's far from being the only example, but I think that one of the main underlying problems is really that everyday words which have a meaning (albeit vague) to every English-speaking person have been adopted by organisations and given very specific definitions for use as technical terminology. That is asking for confusion. An English-speaking person who has never heard of the IEC/BS7671 definitions will happily (and with the blessing of all dictionaries and texts of the English language) say things like "Car headlights/ torches/ mobile phones/ whatever run on low voltage electricity". One has to accept that 'low' is ill-defined, but most people will have an approximate perception of what it means, and that perception will rarely encompass 'mains' supply voltage, or anything like that high.

There is clearly a need in most fields to have strictly-defined terminology, but I would have thought that one of the first rules when creating it would be to avoid giving technical definitions to words/phrases which already had a meaning, or a perceived meaning, in everyday English - it just seems like common sense to me. They could easily have used numbered or lettered voltage 'bands' (and, yes, I know they've used that for something slightly different!), or something like that.

Anyway, I'm sure that neither you nor I are going to change any of this.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Change the labelling on a bottle of something nasty from "deadly posion" to "posion" and a few people will become more complacent about handling/using it.

What about labelling it "toxic" instead of "poisonous"?

That's a different word, so your guess is as good as mine as to which would be perceived as the more dangerous. However, if it changed from 'Very Toxic' or 'Highly Toxic' to just 'Toxic' then, again, I would imagine that at least some people would become a bit more complacent about it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No. I mean like people on this site who attempt to belittle innocent posters by deliberately misunderstanding their use of the term 'Low Voltage', without explaining where they are getting their own interpretations.

We see 12V lighting everywhere, and it's usually described as “Low Voltage” lighting, but in fact “Low Voltage” means at least 50V and up to as much as 1000V for AC, 1500V for DC. So the supply that comes into your house is a low voltage one. 12V lighting, pond pumps etc are officially classed as “Extra-Low Voltage”, which is anything under 50V AC, 120V DC.
.
.
.
Why does this matter? Surely when people say “low voltage lighting” it's pretty clear that they mean “12V”, so what's the problem?

This is not some pedantic technical point along the lines of “it's not an earth, it's a cpc” or “bulbs are what you plant in the ground, what you mean is a lamp”. If you start getting involved in doing your own electrical work, and start learning about regulations etc you'll come across references to “Low voltage”, and it'll be no good you thinking that that means 12V.

The Building Regulations, for example, which are law in England and Wales, contain a section on electrical safety, Part P, and the legislation says

The requirements of this Part apply only to electrical installations that are intended to operate at low or extra-low voltage….

So if you don't realise that “low voltage” includes your mains supply of 230V, you might think that the law doesn't apply.

People are careless, and they get the terms wrong - even electricians will talk about “low voltage bulbs” when they don't mean 500V daffodils, but as long as you know what you really mean when you say “low voltage” you'll not go wrong. If you read the term somewhere, and it isn't clear from the context what the writer means, then ask.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That's a different word, so your guess is as good as mine as to which would be perceived as the more dangerous.

I suspect that most people would not regard "toxic" as meaning the same (in terms of danger) as "poisonous".

However, if it changed from 'Very Toxic' or 'Highly Toxic' to just 'Toxic' then, again, I would imagine that at least some people would become a bit more complacent about it.

Are there official LD50 ratings for "very", "highly" etc?

I have several containers in my bathroom which have Sodium Flouride in them.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

No. I mean like people on this site who attempt to belittle innocent posters by deliberately misunderstanding their use of the term 'Low Voltage', without explaining where they are getting their own interpretations.

...and then quotes a wiki article at length

Yes. I think you should look up the Asperger Sally and Ann test. And then try to see it from the point of view of first time posters with a problem outside of their usual field.

 

[JohnW2]

That's a different word, so your guess is as good as mine as to which would be perceived as the more dangerous.

I suspect that most people would not regard "toxic" as meaning the same (in terms of danger) as "poisonous".

As I said, your guess is as good as mine. You may be right. However, the question may well be moot ...

Are there official LD50 ratings for "very", "highly" etc?

The regulations regarding labelling of hazardous substances have all changed in recent times, and I know very little about them. Far from being defined, I think that qualifiers such as you mention are actual banned, and I don't think that 'poison'/'poisonous' any longer exist (only 'toxic'). In any event, I was merely talking generally and hypothetically, suggesting that slight changes in the wording of classification/ description/ labelling could result in some people perceiving a change in danger level, even when that is not true.

Kind Regards, John