As has been said what a fuse "is for" and what it "also does" are not the same thing.
Kind Regards, John
PIV electrics
- Thread starter BRIGHTHOPE
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
It obviously isn't.
You say that a need is obviously not addressed.
You cannot say that a need is obviously not addressed unless you can produce evidence of problems. With no evidence then either it is actually being addressed, or there simply is no need.
Where is your evidence, John?
BTW - I know you have said that you aren't inclined to respond to inquisitorial cross-examination, but sadly for you you cannot escape it, nor will until you either produce the evidence or admit that everything you say should be a policy, or is a policy of yours which you advocate, is little better than a superstition. Sadly for us you'll no doubt try a "reason" to duck the question. I wonder what it will be, as it is a Tuesday morning and not a Friday or Saturday night. (Not that you have ever explained why you think you should have that exemption).
I can't.
I can ask you why you refuse to accept it.
What definition of "inadequate" are you working to?
Given the huge number of "inadequate" products out there, have you really never seen any evidence of their inadequacy, or are you simply, with no justification, assuming that they are inadequate?
One can.
But then given the huge installed base over such a long period of time if no evidence emerges that there is actually an advantage then one has to assume that there actually isn't and that the theory is wrong.
That's the way it works with theories - you come up with them, and then try to establish whether they are true or not. You've come up with a theory. Now do the work to establish whether it is true.
When you consider the huge installed base over such a long period of time, then how could no evidence have emerged? How come manufacturers are happy with the extra warranty costs incurred because their products suffer damage due to inadequate internal protection? How come that they are happy with the extra consequential costs incurred because their products damage something else due to inadequate internal protection? How come no legislators have introduced regulations to force makers to stop making flaky products?
And please don't say "ask them" - I am asking you, because answers to those questions must be part of your theory. Your theoretical model must explain both why observable things happen and why things which would surely happen if your theory were correct never actually do.
That is indeed true.
But of them it cannot be said that they employ rational, evidence-led policy making.
I have never said that, not the least because, in this context, "need" is impossible to define, and the perception of "need" will vary between individuals. There is an astronomical number of examples of situations, in all fields, in which, although there is arguably no absolute "need" for particular products, there is a large market for them. To give just one example, there is absolutely no 'need' for anything but the most basic of cars, provided that it can reliably get one from A to B, but such cars probably represent a small minority of what people actually buy.
What I have said is that if it is conceivable that something might possibly offer a (probably extremely small) benefit, then, if there is no appreciable cost or downside to that something, one might just as well go with it. At worst one has gained nothing, but there is a conceivable chance that one might benefit.
Easily, I would say. Given that the 'conceivable benefits' are probably very small, and that most products which die are probably 'thrown in a bin', obtaining evidence would be a very non-trivial exercise.
They could be balancing two considerations, and maybe you should take this up with stillp, who essentially said the opposite. He was talking about external fuses 'required' by manufacturers, but exactly the same considerations apply to any internal fusing they install. He said that, because they wished to avoid warranty claims, they tended to 'require' (or install) fuses of a rating higher than that which would give optimal/maximal protection to the product.
Kind Regards, John
I wonder if you see the irony there.
In support of a policy for which there is no evidence of either need or benefit, you cite an example where there was a blindingly obvious need. Even if people had no way of knowing what, if indeed anything, could meet that need other than divine intervention or magic, there was no shortage of evidence.
You've taken my comment out of context. I was not talking about 'evidence for a need' but, rather, about evidence that something exists.
I was merely challenging EFLI's apparently general assertion that if one does not (yet) have evidence that something exists, then it is "reasonable to assume" that it does not exist. I would hope that you would not agree with that.
Kind Regards, John
I would not necessarily disagree with it.
For example, when it gets to the point that if something did exist it would be so unlikely that there would be no evidence, then the fact that there is no evidence would indeed make it reasonable to take the lack of evidence as an indication that it does not exist. Like, for example, the billions of TV-hours which have passed without any evidence that external fuse protection is of benefit.
For example, when it gets to the point that if something did exist it would be so unlikely that there would be no evidence, then the fact that there is no evidence would indeed make it reasonable to take the lack of evidence as an indication that it does not exist. Like, for example, the billions of TV-hours which have passed without any evidence that external fuse protection is of benefit.
Maybe, but if one took that approach one would have to be very very sure that "if something did exist it would be so unlikely that there would be no evidence" ... since otherwise one would be at risk of drawing an erroneous conclusion, just as has happened so often in the past when evidence was (at the time) lacking.
If I were adopting your interrogation technique, I suppose that I would demand that you provided "evidence that there is no evidence"; the fact that neither you nor I are aware of any 'evidence' is obviously purely anecdotal, and proves nothing (unless you claim to be omniscient, which I don't).
Less confrontationally, I wonder what sort of evidence you would hope/expect to be able to find. As I see it, direct evidence (one way or the other) could only derive from a detailed examination of TVs in which either the internal fuse had blown or (in the UK) an external fuse (lower in rating than the internal fuse) had blown, but the internal fuse had not. I would imagine that both of those events are extremely rare, so that those "billions of TV-hours" probably do not equate to a particularly enormous number of such 'events', and I don't know who you think would have detected most of those events, undertaken the detailed examinations and collated the data on a global scale.
Kind Regards, John
You used the word "reasonable".
Are you now backtracking on that?
You could demand that. And you would not be the first person to attempt that ludicrously inadequate way to wriggle out of an impossible situation you had got yourself into.
It really is blindingly simple, and frankly you should be ashamed to be pretending that you don't understand it, and we should all be aggrieved that you insult us by behaving as if we don't:
If you claim that something is the case then it is 100% down to you to produce the evidence to corroborate your claim. It is not, and never ever will be, down to anybody else to lift a finger to prove that there is no evidence. Your failure is sufficient to show that you are wrong in your claim.
I don't hope or expect to find any. That is you, that is.
Would it be fair to say that that means that you know damn well that there is no evidence to support your assertion that there is a need for external fuse protection of appliances?
No.
As I said, I doubt (but do not "know", at all, let alone "know damn well") that anyone has done what would be necessary to determine whether there is any evidence that could be found. That does not necessarily mean that (unknown to me) no-one has done what would be necessary to seek such evidence, nor does it mean that it is certain that such evidence could not be found if people sought it (if they haven't already). So, no, I definitely do not "know damn well" that there is no evidence.
Kind Regards, John
OK.
So we all know however-well-you-choose-to-express-it that you are making assertions about the need for, and benefits of, external fuse protection when you are unaware of any evidence which backs them up.
So we all know however-well-you-choose-to-express-it that you are making assertions about the need for, and benefits of, external fuse protection when you are unaware of any evidence which backs them up.
Statements (I wouldn't really call them 'assertions') about the "conceivable, probably very small, theoretically possible advantage", yes.
Kind Regards, John
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