-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
Weight which can be supported by plaster board?
- Thread starter ericmark
- Start date
I can understand that. However, and a bit ironically, "up to" has another problem, but in the opposite direction from your concerns - since, in the real world, very few things have "absolute maximums" (or "maxima" if you're ancient and Latin-speaking
) (or absolute minimums) - so, whatever "up to" figures is quotes, there will usually be instances which are above that figure!When testing of manufactured products can only be done by destructive methods (as in 'weight bearing capacity' etc.), quality control cannot involve every product which is manufactured, so one has to rely on 'statistical quality control', whereby a random sample of products is destructively) tested. That enables one to estimate the probability of an actual product having a value above or below some specified threshold. However, that 'probability' means the proportion of a large number of products that would be expected to be above or below the threshold, but it can't tell you which ones will be in that 'proportion' - the 'next one that one uses' might be one of those in the (perhaps tiny) proportion which are below the threshold!
Kind Regards, John
We had an issue back in 2017 when installing a stage lighting bar in a new school building where the builder asked for a SWL. We quoted the SWL ratings of the fitting's we'd attatched to the mounting framework they had installed but made it very clear we could not rate the frame they installed. We were then asked to load test the system but they were not prepared to accept responsibility for their framework. I don't know what the outcome was but there were many messages back and forth.I can understand that. However, and a bit ironically, "up to" has another problem, but in the opposite direction from your concerns - since, in the real world, very few things have "absolute maximums" (or "maxima" if you're ancient and Latin-speaking
When testing of manufactured products can only be done by destructive methods (as in 'weight bearing capacity' etc.), quality control cannot involve every product which is manufactured, so one has to rely on 'statistical quality control', whereby a random sample of products is destructively) tested. That enables one to estimate the probability of an actual product having a value above or below some specified threshold. However, that 'probability' means the proportion of a large number of products that would be expected to be above or below the threshold, but it can't tell you which ones will be in that 'proportion' - the 'next one that one uses' might be one of those in the (perhaps tiny) proportion which are below the threshold!
Kind Regards, John
Yes John I will buy that statement, it does not give me any problems, in most of life we tend to make statements with a broad, perhaps loose, general meaning rather than an absolutely exact, literal or technical meaning, we use language which is good enough for everyday use unless we are making a technical or lawful point about something , so long as it`s good enough for the purpose in hand and not deceptive we are mostly quite at home. It is when something is likely to deceive that it starts to concern me. Wild claims and exaggerations to exaggerate annoy me quite a bit, whilst innocent self deceptive statements do not cause me such great offense .I can understand that. However, and a bit ironically, "up to" has another problem, but in the opposite direction from your concerns - since, in the real world, very few things have "absolute maximums" (or "maxima" if you're ancient and Latin-speaking
None of us speaks absolutely Robot (well at least I hope we don`t) but hopefully most of us attempt to not deceive ourselves and others.
The most important thing on a forum such as DIYNOT is both the people who agree with me and equally the people who disagree with me, peer review helps us all methinks.
"absolute maximums" (or "maxima" if you're ancient and Latin-speaking
Minimus/ minimi ?
I guess it comes from inter (in between) and set (fix). I am only guessing though. I have only ever previously known them as Interset. I suppose the generic "hollow wall anchor" encompasses many different types of fittings.
The original registered trade name was Molly bolt (patented by George Frederick Croessant, USA, 1934).
I am not allowed to comment.
???
I don't have a dog in this fight, and you are aware that there are some fellow members, including you, whom I respect.
It's over 60 years since anyone last tried to teach me Latin, and I suppose the correct (Latin) plural depends upon what declension the word is in (and "don't ask me"
). However, one sees a good few 'lniguistic pedants' insisting on "minima" (but not the two alternatives you mention), so I suspect that may be the correct one!Whatever, I speak and write English, not Latin, so I generally form plurals of English nouns by adding and "s", or "es" !
Last edited:
Exactly - and I think a word like "typical" (or even "average") probably fulfills that ('everday usage') role, doesn't it?
Yes, but when it comes to technical or legal issues 'we' have to remember (but often don't !) that so many of this things are, in fact, probabilistic - such that "certainties" just do not exist - so that people looking at the figures must (should) accept that and take it into account.
There are sometimes ways of getting 'near-certainties', which are sometimes adopted in safety-critical situations, leading to things like the "up to..." (or "at least") figures you have mentioned. If, for example, it is crucial that a fastener (nut/bolt/whatever) can withstand a stress of, say, 50 kg, then one can do 100% testing of the manufactured products AT 50 kg -n which case the products which 'pass' that testing can be guaranteed to be able to stand 50 kg (at least, at that time!).
However, if (as is common) there is appreciable variation in the product strength, the manufacture has to produce a batch of products with a 'typical'/'average'/whatever strength appreciably greater than 50 kg - such that a high proprtion off the products which pass the test and are supplied are likely to be stronger (and maybe heavier) than is actually require) the need to manufacture things to 'a higher spec' than is actually required is likely to lead to ('unnecessarily') increased cost, but "heavier" may also be an issue.....
... my father was a Standards engineer in the aeronautical industry - where 'minimal weight' as well as 'guaranteed strength' is desirable. He explained to me (as an explanation of one of the reasons why the components he dealt with were so expensive) that, for that reason, products were often manufactured such as to 'typically' have a lower spec than was required (e.g. in above example,which could NOT stand 50 kg) but which were 'lighter'. They were then subjexte to the 100% "50 kg test" - a high proportion of them failed the test (and were hence destroyed), but those (maybe 'few') which passed the test were then both 'on spec' and light. It is clear why that approach leads to very expensive products!
Agreed. I think that, in practice, a high proportion of the statements which may potentially mislead (because they are not really understood) do not exist as deliberate intentions to deceive or mislead but, rathwer, out of 'ignorance'; or, more commonly because there is often no 'perfect' (right' or 'wrong') way of conveying the information ...
... lamps/bulbs are a good example. Life expectancies are nearly always quoted as medians - but, as I've often observed, a median lifespan of, say, 10.000 hours does not preclude the possibility that nearly half of them might fail after 10 minutes! On the other hand, if they quoted mean life expectancies (which might take them 'years' to determine!), then a relatively small number of products lasting 'for ever' (say 100,000+ hours) woukld pull up the quoted 'mean' to way above what most of lamps/bulbs would achieve ....
.... so which of those two figures would you personally regard as convering a 'typical' life expectancy? I don'tcreally think that there is actually any answer to that question - given that bioth figures would, 'in their own ways', be (statistically) 'correct'.
Kind Regards, John
Jesus wept.
Aren't those of us whom are competent in our respective fields are supposed to be here to help DIYers? Increasingly, I understand why @jobandknock left. And, yeah, I miss his advice.
I do not understand the pedantry and backbiting.
All to often, threads become an exercise in dick waving and, on the balance of probability result in the OP walking away. In no way am I suggesting that I am blameless. I "contribute" to this site because it helped me years ago (quid pro quo and all that). And I don't doubt that many of "you" are the same, nevertheless, the petty arguments possibly harm this site- which exists to generate income for the owners. They enable use to help other people, however, which passing diyer is gonna be arsed to see people having spats?
This isn't "our site". Whe are allowed to play in an incredibly expensive sand pit paid by a company that needs to generate income.
I don't want to see the owners pull the plug on this site. As someone who has previously paid for their own server, my traffic was minimal, this site costs thousands per month. Nothing in life is free.
We abuse it, and we will lose it.
/end of rant
Aren't those of us whom are competent in our respective fields are supposed to be here to help DIYers? Increasingly, I understand why @jobandknock left. And, yeah, I miss his advice.
I do not understand the pedantry and backbiting.
All to often, threads become an exercise in dick waving and, on the balance of probability result in the OP walking away. In no way am I suggesting that I am blameless. I "contribute" to this site because it helped me years ago (quid pro quo and all that). And I don't doubt that many of "you" are the same, nevertheless, the petty arguments possibly harm this site- which exists to generate income for the owners. They enable use to help other people, however, which passing diyer is gonna be arsed to see people having spats?
This isn't "our site". Whe are allowed to play in an incredibly expensive sand pit paid by a company that needs to generate income.
I don't want to see the owners pull the plug on this site. As someone who has previously paid for their own server, my traffic was minimal, this site costs thousands per month. Nothing in life is free.
We abuse it, and we will lose it.
/end of rant
As does Jeremy Clarkson when he talks about his SheepsIt's over 60 years since anyone last tried to teach me Latin, and I suppose the correct (Latin) plural depends upon what declension the word is in (and "don't ask me"
Whatever, I speak and write English, not Latin, so I generally form plurals of English nouns by adding and "s", or "es" !
Of course you are and your comments are always welcome
Quite so. It's not often that I 'walk away' from these 'discussions about words', but this time it became so silly that I did.
I have, admittedly, in this thread continued to engage in a totally 'off-topic' discussion (essentially with you), but I think about issues which might be of some interest or value to others.
I agree.
Perhaps, but those who run it have an ongoing need for income, so would probably allow it to persist so long as there were plenty of 'contributors', even if most were contributing little more than non-helpful (often silly) arguments with one another! Forums which seem to be designed for contentious and heated arguments often do very well in terms of 'post count' (and advertising income)
Kind Regards, JHohn
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
