Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More fallacious grounding

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    More fallacious grounding

    Got this- can't help but want to call them up. Count the number of incorrect statements:



    https://www.americanpowerrental.com/...afetyFlyer.pdf

    #2
    Yeah I couldn't get through the first paragraph without laughing. It happened on 'spurious current.' one thing you can say about electrical current (unlike people, or perhaps even voltage), it either flows or it doesn't. It doesn't do anything spuriously.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
      Yeah I couldn't get through the first paragraph without laughing. It happened on 'spurious current.' one thing you can say about electrical current (unlike people, or perhaps even voltage), it either flows or it doesn't. It doesn't do anything spuriously.
      At least they tried.


      Most information on grounding only makes it more confusing.

      Comment


        #4
        personally, methinks the NEC is somehwhat contrained to it's own earthing system parameters>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthing_system , which flows downhill to many a spark (myself included) whom can't rise above it ~RJ~

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
          Yeah I couldn't get through the first paragraph without laughing. It happened on 'spurious current.' one thing you can say about electrical current (unlike people, or perhaps even voltage), it either flows or it doesn't. It doesn't do anything spuriously.
          Your understanding of the passage that refers to the context being handed out by the author is patently wrong. You can't shackle the use of language by a limited knowledge on how language should or should not be used.

          Unfettered use of English language in an academic environment is what we strive for in higher learning.

          Language (particularly English) unlike other languages--ancient or modern had evolved so much so that it no longer (mostly) resemble the original words and usage that they were intended to be used.

          Your judicious or rather magisterial edict that such usage does not collocate with scientific norms flies in the face of insufficient information and inadequate training or lack of it.

          Shooting from the hip could get yourself shooting yourself in the foot.

          The use of the word spurious in this instance (grounding/bonding) has a drift toward being metaphorical . . . there is nothing wrong with it.

          It could also mean (among others) unintended result. . . unplanned or as a result of unforeseen event.

          I'd be interested in a more definitive argument to support your claim.

          Have a good day.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by myspark View Post
            Your understanding of the passage that refers to the context being handed out by the author is patently wrong. You can't shackle the use of language by a limited knowledge on how language should or should not be used.

            Unfettered use of English language in an academic environment is what we strive for in higher learning.

            Language (particularly English) unlike other languages--ancient or modern had evolved so much so that it no longer (mostly) resemble the original words and usage that they were intended to be used.

            Your judicious or rather magisterial edict that such usage does not collocate with scientific norms flies in the face of insufficient information and inadequate training or lack of it.

            Shooting from the hip could get yourself shooting yourself in the foot.

            The use of the word spurious in this instance (grounding/bonding) has a drift toward being metaphorical . . . there is nothing wrong with it.

            It could also mean (among others) unintended result. . . unplanned or as a result of unforeseen event.

            I'd be interested in a more definitive argument to support your claim.

            Have a good day.



            Its metaphors and obscurities which create confusion. If you can't explain it to a kid you don't know it well enough.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by myspark View Post
              Your understanding of the passage that refers to the context being handed out by the author is patently wrong. You can't shackle the use of language by a limited knowledge on how language should or should not be used.

              Unfettered use of English language in an academic environment is what we strive for in higher learning.

              Language (particularly English) unlike other languages--ancient or modern had evolved so much so that it no longer (mostly) resemble the original words and usage that they were intended to be used.

              Your judicious or rather magisterial edict that such usage does not collocate with scientific norms flies in the face of insufficient information and inadequate training or lack of it.

              Shooting from the hip could get yourself shooting yourself in the foot.

              The use of the word spurious in this instance (grounding/bonding) has a drift toward being metaphorical . . . there is nothing wrong with it.

              It could also mean (among others) unintended result. . . unplanned or as a result of unforeseen event.

              I'd be interested in a more definitive argument to support your claim.

              Have a good day.
              LOL. You happen to be lecturing a philosophy major on the use of language. Are you being serious or just trolling me?

              On the off chance you are being serious, here is my response to your most extreme claims.

              Your understanding of the passage that refers to the context being handed out by the author is patently wrong.
              It is impossible to say that I'm wrong if you can't describe that context in a way which clarifies the author's meaning. The author's choice of words demonstrates his lack of knowledge of the subject, not mine. It is fair to say that I don't have an understanding of his meaning because he hasn't communicated his thoughts clearly enough. In that situation I can't have a wrong understanding.

              (I'm making an assumption that the author is male, btw, but my comments wouldn't be flattering to the female gender if I included alternate pronouns.)

              ...Unfettered use of English language in an academic environment is what we strive for in higher learning.

              Language (particularly English) unlike other languages--ancient or modern had evolved so much so that it no longer (mostly) resemble the original words and usage that they were intended to be used. ...
              Opinions within academia about the unfettered use of language no doubt vary according to subject matter and individual opinion. While many philosophers (Rorty comes to mind) would argue that language should be free to be put to novel use, I don't think any academics would argue that the meanings of words should be shifted for no good reason, when conventional meanings suit the purpose better. It is clear that the author's choice of words were not meant as poetry or cultural critique, and that the safety flyer wasn't created to hang in an art gallery. Rather, the author's choice of words compromises his purported purpose, by sowing confusion about what measures are actually necessary to keep people and property safe around electricity. Even if the real purpose of the flyer (say, to satisfy an insurance requirement) is somewhat ancillary to actually improving safety, this just means that the flyer is incompetent or dishonest, for which there is no defense.

              The use of the word spurious in this instance (grounding/bonding) has a drift toward being metaphorical . . . there is nothing wrong with it.

              It could also mean (among others) unintended result. . . unplanned or as a result of unforeseen event.
              Look up synonyms for 'spurious'. 'Unintended' doesn't appear in any lists I found. Metaphor has no practical purpose when it comes to improving electrical safety.

              Have a good day.
              You too.
              Last edited by jaggedben; 06-08-19, 05:56 PM.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by mbrooke View Post
                If you can't explain it to a kid you don't know it well enough.
                Yep. I remember some teacher or professor telling me that once.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by mbrooke View Post
                  Its metaphors and obscurities which create confusion. If you can't explain it to a kid you don't know it well enough.
                  That's a phrase from a writer quoting Albert Einstein's response when asked what makes a good teacher.
                  His response:
                  If you can't explain a subject in simple terms, you don't know it well enough.

                  Quoting something without acknowledging its source is plagiarism. . .a form of literary theft.

                  I would hope mods should be aware of this.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by myspark View Post
                    That's a phrase from a writer quoting Albert Einstein's response when asked what makes a good teacher.
                    His response:
                    If you can't explain a subject in simple terms, you don't know it well enough.

                    Quoting something without acknowledging its source is plagiarism. . .a form of literary theft.

                    I would hope mods should be aware of this.
                    It seems to me plagiarism would be quoting something that was known to have been published or recorded but not giving credit to the source, however making a quote that someone made before but not knowing it had been made would just be the meeting of like minds.

                    Roger
                    Moderator

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by roger View Post
                      It seems to me plagiarism would be quoting something that was known to have been published or recorded but not giving credit to the source, however making a quote that someone made before but not knowing it had been made would just be the meeting of like minds.

                      Roger
                      How would people know if the phrase had not been published.
                      The quotation is listed in the compendium of famous quotations by members of the literati.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by myspark View Post
                        How would people know if the phrase had not been published.
                        Why would everyday people care? Conversation would come to an end if we all had to worry about saying something that had already been said.
                        Originally posted by myspark View Post
                        The quotation is listed in the compendium of famous quotations by members of the literati.
                        So I ask that you watch all threads (I mean all threads) from this point on and make sure a quote is not plagiarized and TIA

                        Roger
                        Moderator

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by roger View Post
                          Why would everyday people care? Conversation would come to an end if we all had to worry about saying something that had already been said.
                          So I ask that you watch all threads (I mean all threads) from this point on and make sure a quote is not plagiarized and TIA

                          Roger
                          Watching all threads is your job not mine. I will point out literary theft every chance I get.

                          Now, if your priority is to have this site overran by charlatans. . .more power to you.

                          Another gibberish? Your call.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by mbrooke View Post
                            Its metaphors and obscurities which create confusion. If you can't explain it to a kid you don't know it well enough.
                            This forum explains it every other day, but your advice is duly noted....so following i would probably dwell on the difference betwixt earthing and that which provides equopotential via bonding pieces/parts

                            That said the long winded version may end up going down the noodle rathole, because our lovely NEC's grounding /grounded matrix often will disguise what is in reality a return path cloaked in the guise of a GEC.

                            This is where even a tenured spark such as myself am often at a loss ,and refer to other systems for the sake of enlightened comparatives to 'think outta the nec box'....

                            ~RJ~

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Y'all are getting carried away.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X