Have you or a loved one had an electrical accident in the garden in the past two years which has caused emotional distress or physical damage? And would you be prepared to talk about this with a charity committed to reducing accidents and deaths caused by electrical accidents? This charity may want to share your story with the media to raise awareness of this vital issue but will only do so with your consent. Contact with your email address and telephone number if you would like to know more. We are able to offer an incentive and can discuss this further when you’ve got in touch.

On 18/08/2011 12:17, Harriet wrote:
Have you or a loved one had an electrical accident in the garden in the
past two years which has caused emotional distress or physical damage?
And would you be prepared to talk about this with a charity committed to
reducing accidents and deaths caused by electrical accidents? This
charity may want to share your story with the media to raise awareness
of this vital issue but will only do so with your consent. Contact
with your email address and telephone number if you
would like to know more. We are able to offer an incentive and can
discuss this further when you’ve got in touch.

Does cutting through the electric hedge trimmer cable count? Physical
damage was entirely limited to losing 1m off the length of the bright
orange mains cable and resetting the earth leakage circuit breaker.

Promoting ELCBs for use on external garden circuits is very sensible.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:58:29 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

ELCB's are old technology. RCD's are the thing these days. An ELCB
won't protect you if you are unfortunate enough to contact a live wire
at the same time as providing a circuit directly to earth,

You need to define what type of ELCB you are refering to when using
that term. A Voltage Operated ELCB might not protect you (depends on
the earth path) but there is no difference between a Current Operated
ELCB and an RCD.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Chris Hogg wrote in
:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:42:22 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:58:29 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

ELCB's are old technology. RCD's are the thing these days. An ELCB
won't protect you if you are unfortunate enough to contact a live wire
at the same time as providing a circuit directly to earth,

You need to define what type of ELCB you are refering to when using
that term. A Voltage Operated ELCB might not protect you (depends on
the earth path) but there is no difference between a Current Operated
ELCB and an RCD.

From the Wiki article: "Current-operated ELCBs are generally known as
Residual-current devices (RCD)" and again :"When the term ELCB is used
it usually means a voltage-operated device". I assume the OP means a
voltage-operated device, and that was certainly what ours was. More
common with overhead (TT) power supplies.


Wiki is not to be trusted. EVER. It relies on information taken from the
public and some of these members of the public mean harm, or at least
mislead readers. It may have improved over the years, I don't know, but I
for one never ever go to that site.

Baz

In article , Baz wrote:

Wiki is not to be trusted. EVER. It relies on information taken from the
public and some of these members of the public mean harm, or at least
mislead readers. It may have improved over the years, I don't know, but I
for one never ever go to that site.

I use it a lot. While it is not to be trusted, it is at least as
reliable as the average academic book or paper, which is a pretty
damning indictment of the state of academia:-( But I usually know
enough to be able to detect significant bias or errors, and I use
it only as an index in important matters (i.e. I go back to the
sources, and validate THEM for reliability!)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 22/08/2011 12:36, Baz wrote:
Chris wrote in
:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:42:22 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:58:29 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

ELCB's are old technology. RCD's are the thing these days. An ELCB
won't protect you if you are unfortunate enough to contact a live wire
at the same time as providing a circuit directly to earth,

You need to define what type of ELCB you are refering to when using
that term. A Voltage Operated ELCB might not protect you (depends on
the earth path) but there is no difference between a Current Operated
ELCB and an RCD.

From the Wiki article: "Current-operated ELCBs are generally known as
Residual-current devices (RCD)" and again :"When the term ELCB is used
it usually means a voltage-operated device". I assume the OP means a
voltage-operated device, and that was certainly what ours was. More
common with overhead (TT) power supplies.

No the OP meant a current operated device and was using the term ELCB
loosely. The unbalanced residual current is the trigger. Although in the
case of cutting through the hedge trimmer cable a dead short between
live and neutral has a more rapid effect elsewhere in the chain.

Wiki is not to be trusted. EVER. It relies on information taken from the
public and some of these members of the public mean harm, or at least
mislead readers. It may have improved over the years, I don't know, but I
for one never ever go to that site.

That is an incredibly bitter and twisted view of Wiki. It may not be
perfect but it is a heck of a lot better informed than the average
website that search engines will throw up. Obviously you should not
trust the output of Wiki on "DIY open heart surgery" for example.

Wiki is usually reliable on most scientific and mathematical topics and
you can always check the references from the bibliography. It can
sometimes be corrupted in the life histories of politicians for partisan
gain (as past incidents will amply demonstrate). And every now and then
the Young Earth Creationists try to wreck geochronology pages (and not
just on Wiki). Wolframs site may be better for mathematics.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

Wiki is usually reliable on most scientific and mathematical topics and
you can always check the references from the bibliography. It can
sometimes be corrupted in the life histories of politicians for partisan
gain (as past incidents will amply demonstrate). And every now and then
the Young Earth Creationists try to wreck geochronology pages (and not
just on Wiki). Wolframs site may be better for mathematics.

I am afraid that it isn't but, as I said, it's as reliable as any of
the other sources that are likely to be available or comprehensible
to most people. My experience is that it is actually BETTER than
Wolfram's site for mathematics, as it over-simplifies less.

Of course, my standards are those of a traditional academic pure
mathematician :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

But not, unfortunately, on global warming matters, as there was the case where one of the AGW activists who was also a Wiki editor went through and rewrote all the articles about the Medieval warm period and the mini ice-age saying that scientists had now come to the conclusion that they didn't exist, (not true) just to try and give credence to the now defunct hockey-stick graph which had eliminated them to back up the claim by M. Mann of unprecedented warming. He was exposed and banned from wiki.

wrote in :

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

Wiki is usually reliable on most scientific and mathematical topics and

Usually?

you can always check the references from the bibliography. It can
sometimes be corrupted in the life histories of politicians for partisan

Sometimes?

gain (as past incidents will amply demonstrate). And every now and then
the Young Earth Creationists try to wreck geochronology pages (and not
just on Wiki). Wolframs site may be better for mathematics.

May?

I am afraid that it isn't but, as I said, it's as reliable as any of
the other sources that are likely to be available or comprehensible
to most people. My experience is that it is actually BETTER than
Wolfram's site for mathematics, as it over-simplifies less.

Better?
Of course, my standards are those of a traditional academic pure
mathematician :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

SSSScary. An academic pure mathemetician who uses conjecture as?conjecture?
on a website whose purpose is to mislead?

You know, man I adore your beleif.

Maybe it's time you gave up the math bit and concentrate on day to day
living. Get yourself a calculator, or a more basic tool such as a life.

Of course, my standards are those of a traditional academic pure
mathematician :-)...I pity you, really pity you.

Baz

Baz wrote:

SSSScary. An academic pure mathemetician who uses conjecture as?conjecture?
on a website whose purpose is to mislead?

Misleading assumption in "purpose to mislead."
I think Nick put it better, and with a much smaller value of A(snark).


--
Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/4 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

On 22/08/2011 17:02, Granity wrote:
Wiki is usually reliable on most scientific and mathematical topics and
you can always check the references from the bibliography.

But not, unfortunately, on global warming matters, as there was the case
where one of the AGW activists who was also a Wiki editor went through
and rewrote all the articles about the Medieval warm period and the mini
ice-age saying that scientists had now come to the conclusion that they
didn't exist, (not true) just to try and give credence to the now
defunct hockey-stick graph which had eliminated them to back up the
claim by M. Mann of unprecedented warming. He was exposed and banned
from wiki.

You have to be careful on controversial topics. And your paraphrasing of
this incident is a travesty against the scientific evidence and a slur
against perfectly good climate science researchers.

Even the sceptics admit that there has been an unprecedented rapid rise
in global temperatures during the last three decades of the twentieth
century and that you have to include greenhouse gas forcing to balance
the energy budget. The suns output is monitored by satellites over that
period and did not change by anything like enough.

I don't defend hacking at Wiki articles by either side but both of them
do it. And the anti-science lobby groups working for the oil and coal
industry have been using slur tactics and smoke and mirror techniques
they perfected in their campaign to keep suckers smoking tobacco.

Look under the skin of many of the prominent deniers for hire and you
will find someone with previous for denying that smoking tobacco can
cause cancer and/or CFCs damage the ozone layer. You can use this as a
pretty good empirical test of their scientific integrity.

What has been determined is that the Medieval Warm period and the
mini-ice age were mainly local European and northern hemisphere effects
rather than a *GLOBAL* synchronous warming or cooling. Unfortunately,
there are no contemporaneous written records of Southern hemisphere
weather of the period so we are reliant on painstakingly derived proxy
data for sites with suitable core samples or slow growing trees.

The hockey stick was only wrong in the sense that its shaft was a bit
too straight. It does not alter the conclusion that we are changing the
climate through the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Granity wrote in news:Granity.8c87416
@gardenbanter.co.uk:


Wiki is usually reliable on most scientific and mathematical topics and
you can always check the references from the bibliography.

But not, unfortunately, on global warming matters, as there was the case
where one of the AGW activists who was also a Wiki editor went through
and rewrote all the articles about the Medieval warm period and the mini
ice-age saying that scientists had now come to the conclusion that they
didn't exist, (not true) just to try and give credence to the now
defunct hockey-stick graph which had eliminated them to back up the
claim by M. Mann of unprecedented warming. He was exposed and banned
from wiki.





This is why it is dangerous. Can vulnerable or uneducated people see the
content which is true or false? How do they know what is true or false?

As has been said about how to revive or treat a person who has had a heart
attack, would you rely on wiki to advise you. No. You would not! Well if
you did it could turn out to be the wrong decision. Put someone at risk?

Scenario:

Caller: my parter is going to jump out of the 18th floor window

Emergency Services: has he googled wikki?

Caller: No, erm why?

Emergency Services: he could get a better answer on his way down with the
online wikki we provide, free of charge, but the answers are a bit iffy at
the moment.

Caller: Will we get some truth?

Emergency Services: No, but at least we have told no lies and can't now
'cos yer partner is splattered all over Marks and Sparks's car park.

Baz

In article , Baz wrote:

This is why it is dangerous. Can vulnerable or uneducated people see the
content which is true or false? How do they know what is true or false?

Well, yes, but it is MORE reliable than the vast majority of the
rest of the Web and most books. Quite a lot of serious experts
have looked at it and found that it is about as good as the average
quality encyclopaedia or academic book or paper. As I said, that's
a pretty damning indictment of the state of academia, but let that
pass.

Of course, if you were to propose a general knowledge test to
exclude those likely to be misled from using the Internet, it
would become a lot quieter :-) Most graduates would fail it,
incidentally.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:52:44 -0400, Gary Woods
wrote:

Baz wrote:

SSSScary. An academic pure mathemetician who uses conjecture as?conjecture?
on a website whose purpose is to mislead?

Misleading assumption in "purpose to mislead."
I think Nick put it better, and with a much smaller value of A(snark).

No, that just isn't British. Nick has the unfair advantage of knowing
what he's talking about: we can't have that!

--
Mike.

"Janet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:52:44 -0400, Gary Woods
wrote:

Baz wrote:

SSSScary. An academic pure mathemetician who uses conjecture
as?conjecture?
on a website whose purpose is to mislead?

Misleading assumption in "purpose to mislead."
I think Nick put it better, and with a much smaller value of A(snark).

No, that just isn't British. Nick has the unfair advantage of knowing
what he's talking about: we can't have that!

:-)

Violet Elizabeth Bott comes to mind.
Janet


Not too piercing please ;-)

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................