ElectricityReciever

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthewm86

Member
I have a question, is there such a phrase as an Electricity Reciever in the NEC? My little sister is being taught this in her 4th grade class. The definition they have given her is: Anything that uses electricity to do something is an elecricity receiver. I.e. A Lightbulb on a circuit.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

That is not quite true. The electricity has to pass through something for it to be used. Therefore, things that use electricity must have a complete path through it before it can utilize the electricity. In your example of a light bulb, the electricity must pass through the filament in order for the lamp (light bulb) to make use of the electricity. If the filament breaks, the light goes out even if one side of the filament is still connected to part of the circuit.

To take this a step further, if something could be an electricity receiver then a bird that is sitting on a high voltage wire would be able to receive a bunch of electricity and that would kill the bird. That does not happen with small birds unless they can complete a circuit. In the western part of the US where large birds (like eagles) have large wing spans, those large birds can actually get their wing between the wires and can get killed by electrocution. They have become part of an electric circuit.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

Just why do schools need to come up with new terms like "RECEIVER" ? If they want to teach kids something about electric then make it something usefull and use terms used in the field and not some made up term.Just who is the idiot that came up with this ? It will only confuse kids when they study radio and tv.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

How about
Utilization Equipment. Equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similar purposes.
sounds like a reciver to me, this from the NEC Article 100 definition.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

I would hope that a teacher would use clearer language. We live on an electro-magnetic planet. Electrical waves run through everything. Our bodies utilize some of that electrical energy. Even by kindergarten standards most children understand the differences between hot, hotter, and real hot. They are quite capable of understanding the diference between maybe dangerous and definetly dangerous.

Maybe it's time that we start teaching simple electrical safety in school. Our utilization of electricity is only expanding. In new construction, 400 amp residential panels are as common as 100 amp 40 years ago. I have seen tons of 30 and 60 amp panels in old houses. Most of them have been upgraded in the ensuing years.

I wonder how many people die each year from trying to feel the tangs of a cord into the receptacle slots.

electrical receptor
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

I agree with Jim. I'll bet the people pretending to teach in your little sister's school know damn well they're feeding her garbage. I was probably around her age or a little older when I started understanding and building circuits. So there's no need to use baby talk or nonsense to get her to understand anything. I've never heard anything like "electricty receiver" in my life, and not when I was 10 either. I hope she doesn't get too stupid in that place.

And, the NEC is barely useful in the electrical field. (Sarcasm Disclaimer) (but I still mean it) It's purpose is mostly to provide legal code for the building trades and give people something to argue about.

You should look somewhere more like basic electricy for understanding electrical theory. Your sister could probably learn enough about electricity in a couple weeks to correct her teacher the next time he or she tries to teach her to be stupid.

Typo edit

[ October 11, 2004, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

teach sister about 3 phase and then have her ask the teacher in class about it.Bet he crawls under his desk or changes subjects real fast LOL
Teach them basic electric and maybe they will benifit from that

[ October 11, 2004, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: jimwalker ]
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

I disagree with everybody :eek: , and would like to suggest that we all leave the teacher alone. This is a fourth grade class, not an apprenticeship program. Perhaps any one of us might have had a better understanding of electricity at this young lady?s age. But that does not mean that all fourth graders will. I do not find the term ?electricity receiver? to offend my sense of professional pride, and I think it is perfectly acceptable for a fourth grade class level. In the fifth grade, she?ll learn more. And if she does not already know that it is a bad idea to put anything into an outlet, I am sure that learning about ?electricity receivers? will not cause her to think it is a good idea.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

I agree with Charlie B.

I am less offended by the term Electricity Receiver used by fourth graders than I am by the mis-use of the terms phase(s) and ground by experienced electricians. And, it does certainly "sound good" when used with: generator, conductor, controller, and receiver
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

I'm sticking to my guns on this. I'm going to refer back to baby talk and nonsense. Children aren't so stupid as they must be assumed to be in order to require the use of baby talk and nonsense. Not even at age five. I can take your point that we might take this particular issue with a little more prejudice than others and that maybe no harm is intended. But I can't exept that gaga googoo is at all necessary here. So why in the world should it be used?

Editted in: If you tell her the world is flat this year is it ok because you can fix it next year. If you don't break it you won't NEED to fix it later. This just goes against the grain of what school is. I don't remember ever being taught the wrong way first!

Oh, and I like where you put the EEK guy Charlie.

[ October 11, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

Originally posted by physis: I don't remember ever being taught the wrong way first!
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, you were taught the wrong way first! :eek: So was I. So were we all. Many things that we all ?know? to be true are, in fact, pure fiction. A PhD in Physics could explain why everything we ?know? about the way electricity works is essentially ?baby talk and nonsense,? to borrow your phrase. But you know what? I don?t care about what the PhD can tell me. I know enough to know (1) How to do my job, (2) How to do it well, (3) How to do it safely, and (4) How to recognize when I need help.

But I did not learn all those things the first day on the job. I was first taught basics. As time went on, I learned more details, and at the same time I learned that some of the ?basics? were mere simplifications. If they tried to teach me all the details the first day, I would not have understood enough to even ask any intelligent questions. So you start small, and you start simple, and you build up knowledge as the mind becomes prepared to take on more knowledge.

?Electricity Receiver? is not gaga googoo baby talk. It is fourth grader talk.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

Physis,

Why do you consider this to be baby talk and nonsense? They are not teaching anything wrong nor anything that will have to be corrected in the future. It is only a different name (a rose still smells the same) not a different concept.

Receiver = load = utilization equipment
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

OK, I'll give you "I never learned the wrong way first" too. But in school, I don't know how far I can agree. I still contend that there's no need to change the language. And if that's true then there's also no need to teach the wrong way first in the first place. Wally and Beaver weren't allowed to say things the all goofed up way. And if they were taught at school to talk flaky and stuff Ward and June would have gone down there with the police.

Your winning me over on about everything but that if it doesn't need to be done wrong then don't do it wrong. You can't talk me out of that.

And there are enough problems with the tower of English Babble as it is.

Edditted in: Jim, I'm calling it baby talk because it isn't grown up talk. And I don't know what other kind of talk it might be.

[ October 11, 2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

I thank you all for your input. I agree that the terminology could be incorrect. Something I would like to clear up. My sister is smart enough to understand things do not go into sockets, that had nothing to do with my question.
I do agree that they can teach the corect terms but the english language is an "evolving" language, for lack of a better term. After reading the posts I understand the meaning they have put behind it, or at least tried to. Thank you all again and have a good day.
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

matthewm86,
but the english language is an "evolving" language, for lack of a better term.
Click to expand...
that is an excellent and accurate term.

Roger
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

i still think "receiver" is confusing as "receivers" are referred to all over the place, and in homes and stores for various types of audio signal equipment. if kids can understand "receiver", they can understand other terms like "device" or "equipment". kids today are exposed to a lot more than when we were that age. i bet the kids think they are being talked down to.

paul
 
Re: ElectricityReciever

To receive is to take in.
Electricity is not what get's used as it is only the carrier.
It is energy that is used. It could be gas that is the carrier, wind, air, water, oil, hydraulic fluid, and even the sun.

Just put a amp probe on the return line and you will see just as many amp's on it as on the source line. :D

:confused: Yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top