And are often wrong too.
What cable to extend a Tesla mobile charger?
- Thread starter OM2
- Start date
And are often wrong too.
Sponsored Links
"wrong" & "often" or just "not quite always mainstream fashionable thinking" might be a better phrase than "are often wrong" surely?
Example - He and I might have very different views on the use of Ring Final Circuits but that wopuld not make me right and he wrong!
To put t his into context, I have been doing public address work for 65 years and estimate I have done this on average maybe 5 times a year and Oh by golly the horrendous damaged caused has given me so many sleepless nights and massive insurance claims totalling hundreds of thousands.
I'm with John on this one, For a long time I'd watch and listen and very regularly internally question but something in particular (which I think was one of his "Old junk" comments on a perfectly valid current object) I felt I had to make an observation to the contrary and I was amazed how many PM's of agreement I received.
The point there is you may both be wrong but equally you may both be correct, but on that point there is no reason to 'junk' such a circuit, it is a valid solution, it is usually more econimical than a radial to install and in my opinion (which is not held by all on here and I heavily respect the difference of opinion) is generally easier to install the smaller 2.5mm² cables.
Sponsored Links
There are many risks I would take, under my own watchful eye, which I would never suggest anyone else would attempt.
Oh indeed yes but with the caveats already mooted letterbox and cable is not one I would criticise to the point of banning.
Last edited:
I suppose that's probably the 'initial gut reaction# of many/most of us, but do you not agree that it's really a pretty irrational view- given that, as you go on to say ....
Kind Regards, John
Well John thee, there is at least perhaps a bit of truth in what you say. But being, in the view of some folk, a tadd OTT in risk aversion I must admit I do see risks and like to reduce/minimise them.
At the far end would be nobody ever gets to drive a private vehicle and no domestic property has a gas supply, an electric supply etc etc.
That would greatly cut down on many accidents (I`m not saying that it might not introduce some additional risks or increase any existing risks to a greater degree) .
But hey ho it would make modern life almost impossible so it would be not a sensible thing to do anyway.
What I do think is important is to reduce all risks to the extent we believe "reasonable", Great risks, normal risks and slight risks in that order of course but that does not imply that I think that we should deal with all of the greaster risks before we address lesser risks.
We do not deal with them all on a scale of 1 to 10 but we do deal with them all to every extent we can, easily, them not as easily then sometimes more difficult.
When we have invisaged risks and sometimes actually seen them occouring either unexpectidely or not then we mitigate them.
We do not say that we will allow electrical risks because motor vehicle risks are a bigger problem.
We deal with them all, to some extent.
I have seen instances of things being risky and only by the "Grace of an entity I do not berlieve in" the outcome could have been far more frightening.
I know that there are some on here who could perform "risky" tasks quite safely due to skill, experience, qualifications, competance and that does not concern me much.
But I think that putting a mains flex thru a letterbox potentially introduces too many risks to be considered acceptable.
Now if someone did that for a few mins in order to operate life saving equipment urgently I would never object in that unlikely situation but as a gen practice to be allowed by all just for a bit more convenuience then NO!
At the far end would be nobody ever gets to drive a private vehicle and no domestic property has a gas supply, an electric supply etc etc.
That would greatly cut down on many accidents (I`m not saying that it might not introduce some additional risks or increase any existing risks to a greater degree) .
But hey ho it would make modern life almost impossible so it would be not a sensible thing to do anyway.
What I do think is important is to reduce all risks to the extent we believe "reasonable", Great risks, normal risks and slight risks in that order of course but that does not imply that I think that we should deal with all of the greaster risks before we address lesser risks.
We do not deal with them all on a scale of 1 to 10 but we do deal with them all to every extent we can, easily, them not as easily then sometimes more difficult.
When we have invisaged risks and sometimes actually seen them occouring either unexpectidely or not then we mitigate them.
We do not say that we will allow electrical risks because motor vehicle risks are a bigger problem.
We deal with them all, to some extent.
I have seen instances of things being risky and only by the "Grace of an entity I do not berlieve in" the outcome could have been far more frightening.
I know that there are some on here who could perform "risky" tasks quite safely due to skill, experience, qualifications, competance and that does not concern me much.
But I think that putting a mains flex thru a letterbox potentially introduces too many risks to be considered acceptable.
Now if someone did that for a few mins in order to operate life saving equipment urgently I would never object in that unlikely situation but as a gen practice to be allowed by all just for a bit more convenuience then NO!
That's all fair enough and, as I always say, I would never 'knock'people for being ultra-cautious.
However, if that's your view, why on earth did you make reference to "monkeys and typewriters"- since that relates o a probability (c.f. 'risk') which is about as close to zero as anything could be, isn't it??
... and, as you go on to say, if we want to take measures to reduce/eliminate risks with a probability "about as close to zero as they could be", it would simply not bee possible to 'have a life'. Indeed, it would not even be possible to 'live', because one would regard it as "too risky" to eat or drink anything, or even 'move'
Kind Regards, John
I thought you`d like that one John.
Simply to demonenstrate a reminder that how ever unlikely thing are they could still happen or not happen.
Sailor Vee
Sure. As I've observed more than once recently, people do get struck by lightning and I imagine that some have been hit by meteorites, but ......I thought you`d like that one John. ... Simply to demonenstrate a reminder that how ever unlikely thing are they could still happen or not happen. ... Sailor Vee
These are situations in which common sense really should prevail over theory!
Over the years, there have been a good few attempts to 'test' the 'monkeys and typewriters" idea and I seem to recall that no monkey even typed the first word of the first Work of Shakespeare! More recently, it has changed from monkeys to computers - which, of course, can 'type' random collections of characters almost 'infinitely faster' than can monkeys - but, again, no Works of Shakespeare have yet appeared
Kind Regards, John
Sailer Vee Rodney, sailer vee.I thought you`d like that
Sailor Vee
Derek and Rodney laugh as the closing credits roll
Derek and Rodney and Sailor Vee etc, priceless, and that chandelier still makes me laugh everytime I see one hanging from a ceiling. Oh and that dead parrot in the bottom of the cage too
Over the years, there have been a good few attempts to 'test' the 'monkeys and typewriters" idea and I seem to recall that no monkey even typed the first word of the first Work of Shakespeare! More recently, it has changed from monkeys to computers - which, of course, can 'type' random collections of characters almost 'infinitely faster' than can monkeys - but, again, no Works of Shakespeare have yet appeared
The chances would be greatly improved, with predictive text
Arrrrrgh - the work of the devilThe chances would be greatly improved, with predictive text
If it did to the monkey's typing anything like it tries to do to mine,it would be guaranteed to prevent them correctly creating Shakespear's works!I've just managed to find some notes about this that I made many moons ago. If one is hoping for the entire works of Mr S., one would presumably have to start with the first one - and, although views seem to differ, I worked on the assumption that his first published work was a long poem entitled "Venus and Adonis", published in 1593.
That poem starts "Even as the sun ....". To make life simple, I assumed a typewriter with just 27 keys - all the lower-case letters plus a space. Hence the probability of getting the first word (4 letters plus a space) of that first work by 'random typing' would be 1 in 27^5 - which is 1 in a bit over 14 million. To get the first four (all very short) words (plus 4 spaces) all correct would be 1 in 27^16, which is just under 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000
I won't bother to go any further
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
Sponsored Links
