Garden Lighting Advice

[JohnW2]

What majority of the population getting something wrong determines it then be correct?

As you go on to say, it's a mess. However, given that it's a matter which impacts importantly on the general population, I think that one really has to visit the question of what terminology really should be regarded as 'correct' - that which is probably believed to be correct by 95%+ of the population, or that which is probably believed to be correct by <5%. Language, including terminolgy, is, after all, about (or meant to be about!) effective communication.

As I said before, just find me a few members of the general public (who haven't visited electrical forums!) who think that 230V is 'low voltage'!

However, I certainly agree with you that to 'accept' an ambiguity as to what, say, 'low voltage' means would be unacceptable, and I can't see the 'official' voltage bands getting re-named/re-defined. Hence, having got ourselves into this mess, I think that the only solution would be to try to 'phase out' this terminolgy completely (in relation to things which impact the general public), and to encourage people only to talk about actual voltages. Merely attempting to 'educate' the tiny proportion of the public who visit electrical forums is certainly not the answer.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe it ought, but it isn't, and until then ignorance is no excuse and it is to be challenged at all times.

Fair enough, but the extent to which that ignorance can be challenged/ corrected is so limited (what proportion of the general public visit electrical forums or the like?) that it's no solution.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

having got ourselves into this mess,

Like I no it proberly wood of been best if manufacturers was lerned to use proper terms innit.

I think that the only solution would be to try to 'phase out' this terminolgy completely (in relation to things which impact the general public), and to encourage people only to talk about actual voltages. Merely attempting to 'educate' the tiny proportion of the public who visit electrical forums is certainly not the answer.

Yeah I meen praps we cood educatify all of em.



Or - leave them to discover and learn if they wish, just as all the other trades and professions do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Language, including terminolgy, is, after all, about (or meant to be about!) effective communication.

So, when the first person to use a word incorrectly does so, is he wrong, or has he simply created a new meaning for the word which everybody else should then adopt?

If the former, what about the second person?

How many people have to be wrong before those who had always been right have to throw in the towel and go with the ignorami?

Hence, having got ourselves into this mess, I think that the only solution would be to try to 'phase out' this terminolgy completely (in relation to things which impact the general public), and to encourage people only to talk about actual voltages. Merely attempting to 'educate' the tiny proportion of the public who visit electrical forums is certainly not the answer.

We could use legislation to stop lighting manufacturers misdescribing their products.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fair enough, but the extent to which that ignorance can be challenged/ corrected is so limited (what proportion of the general public visit electrical forums or the like?) that it's no solution.

It's the correct way to deal with people who visit here.

 

[JohnW2]

Like I no it proberly wood of been best if manufacturers was lerned to use proper terms innit.

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'.

I don't understand the history of how this mess has arisen (i.e. when the IEC first produced the definition of LV which we currently use), but it's a fairly unique situation. There are obviously countless examples, in countless fields, of technical terminology which is not generally, or widely, known or understood by the general public, but 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.

I really don't want a meal out of this, since it's apparent that the situation is not going to change in the forseeable future. However, I'm not sure what is to be achieved by trying to 'educate' members of the general public unless/until manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers etc. come to generally be using the 'correct' terminology. As things stand, even if an electrician walked into an electrical wholesalers and said that (s)he wanted to see what low voltage 20W lamps they had in stock, I suspect that not many would be shown any 230V lamps!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Language, including terminolgy, is, after all, about (or meant to be about!) effective communication.

So, when the first person to use a word incorrectly does so, is he wrong, or has he simply created a new meaning for the word which everybody else should then adopt? If the former, what about the second person? How many people have to be wrong before those who had always been right have to throw in the towel and go with the ignorami?

Draw the line where you like, but, even if you/I don't like it, if 'the ignorami' become the vast majority, then I think one has crossed the line, and that the 'ignorami' are no longer the 'ignorami'.

We could use legislation to stop lighting manufacturers misdescribing their products.

If we did that (which I very much doubt that we will!), then things would be different, because the public then would not be continuously exposed to 'incorrect' terminology. It makes little sense to 'educate people' until that happens, since it's (IMO) likely to result in even more confusion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[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.

 

[JohnW2]

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.

Indeed so ...

IMO it's best to just state the voltage you are talking about and only use terms like "low voltage" and "high voltage" in the context of a document that either defines what it means by those terms or references a document that defines them. Using those terms in any other context is ambiguous.

Quite - that's the ideal, but this horse has already bolted. So many people believe they understand what 'low voltage lighting' (or whatever) means, that the situation is not going to change any time soon.

...That being the case, Part P really ought to be written in language which will be understood by most of the general public (that could be done without saying anything which electricians regarded as 'incorrect' - by just talking about voltages, rather than LV/ELV).

However, I certainly agree with you that to 'accept' an ambiguity as to what, say, 'low voltage' means would be unacceptable, and I can't see the 'official' voltage bands getting re-named/re-defined. Hence, having got ourselves into this mess, I think that the only solution would be to try to 'phase out' this terminolgy completely (in relation to things which impact the general public), and to encourage people only to talk about actual voltages. Merely attempting to 'educate' the tiny proportion of the public who visit electrical forums is certainly not the answer.

As you say, it's a real problem, and I don't think the approach advocated by some of those here ('educate the ignorami' etc.) is a realistic solution.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Taylortwocities]

Sorry I mentioned it

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry I mentioned it

If it hadn't been you, it would have been someone else

All I know for sure is that it is, IMO, a very unsatisfactory situation, but probably so well established that any real solution would be difficult. I just hope that no-one told that mains electricity is 'low voltage' has thereby been lulled into complacency and consequentially ended up dead or seriously damaged.

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Interesting. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread. It would seem that the obvious opinion I expressed is shared by others. It could be the start of a movement!

Shya right.

 

[JohnW2]

Interesting. Sorry I didn't read the whole thread. It would seem that the obvious opinion I expressed is shared by others. It could be the start of a movement!

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

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

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.

Kind Regards, John

 

[d438a1]

Apologies for confusion - clearly I opened a can of worms. I am looking at something like this http://www.electricalcounter.co.uk/...or+Garden+Spike+Spotlight+MR16+50W/1550420010

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

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Draw the line where you like, but, even if you/I don't like it, if 'the ignorami' become the vast majority, then I think one has crossed the line, and that the 'ignorami' are no longer the 'ignorami'.

That is so disgustingly craven and misguided that it actually makes me feel ill.