Neon Screwdriver - They're ok and fine to use.......

...Anyhow , surely using a mains tester screwdriver is better than no testing at all?
That depends entirely on what it is used for, and who (with what knowledge) is using it. I have, and use, several, as I suspect do many electricians (if they would admit it) - but I like to think that "I know what I am doing".

I need not tell you that the greatest concern is the use of such devices for "testing for dead". In that situation, a neon screwdriver is definitely worse than no testing at all if it fails to light - since that can sometimes represent a 'false negative' (i.e. the circuit may be live, despite the failure of the neon to light), and hence give false confidence. 'False positives' can be confusing, but are not usually dangerous.

Kind Regards, John
 
No, a tester that isn't reliable doesn't inject any certainty to the question "Is this circuit safe to work on?"

Nozzle
 
No, a tester that isn't reliable doesn't inject any certainty to the question "Is this circuit safe to work on?"
Indeed. As I said, they cannot be used safely to "test for dead" (i.e. confirm that a circuit is safe to work on).

However, as I said, these things do have their (other) uses, in the hands of those "who know what they are doing".

Kind Regards, John
 
He made a comment "I have seen electricians use neon screwdrivers" and yes I do use a neon screwdriver, however I don't use it as my primary testing tool. It can alert one when power returns to a dead circuit, but should not be used to prove dead.

I have removed a neutral and it has lit up my neon screwdriver showing I have a borrowed neutral, although today I use a clamp on meter so unlikely to make that error. I have also had one light when the circuit was dead and locked off. It was found the foreman had sent two electricians to work on the same circuit and one was using an insulation tester.

So yes as an electrician I do use neon screwdrivers, but as an added belt and braces not as the only tester. In the main cheap testers are not supplied with GS 38 leads you need to buy them separately, so most multi-meters will fit into a 1mm hole to test with. And a multi-meter is less than £10 so does not break the bank.

The problem is many DIY people simply don't know how to use a multi-meter and there is as a result some danger using it to test with. There is no idiot proof tester, what every you do some one will find a way to defeat it. These idiots are very clever at that!
 
If there are no colloquialisms in the written word, someone must have forgotten to tell my daughters (and many/most of their generation!) - although you might describe them as 'just incorrect'!
Your daughters must be of the same age as mine when the teachers would inform me that spelling and grammar was not important as long as the meaning is clear.
I disagreed then and I do now and wondered why they thought that. I can only assume they did not know either.

In the context of this thread, one irony is that in a pub (or any verbal communication) there would be no discernible difference between "their" and "they're" (or "there")!
Yet there is in writing.
If anyone gets them wrong, we must assume they don't know; no one would use the wrong spelling intentionally.

However, the point about the pub analogy is that both are very informal/'casual' forms of communication/interaction - and, although one is verbal and the other is written, a good few people write (casually/informally) what they would say in verbal communication.
Like; you no; yoom probly write innit. That's no excuse.

It's also the case that people vary their 'style' according to the situation. Returning the my daughters, both have serious professional roles (one is a barrister) and one assumes that they write professionally is as grammatical correct as they can manage.
Exactly. I would be most upset employing a barrister who could not write properly.

However, what they write in 'informal e-mails' (not to mention text messages and 'social media'!) doesn't bear looking at for an old fogie like myself!
Why do they do it?
Texting is different but we don't want text speak where electrical explanations are concerned.
Do you mean they intentionally write things wrongly?

... and nor is it necessarily a question of ignorance. I rather doubt that I'm the only person whose typing fingers sometimes go into a "phonetic autopilot" mode, and type the wrong one of there/their/they're (or "its"/"it's" etc.), even though I know which should be used, am I?
Typos occur. Don't make excuses when someone corrects you.

... your use of 'what' (instead of that or which) it reminds me of Ernie Wise.
"Like" (which does sometimes get into written material) is far worse one amongst the younger generations! Also, as from 'ignorance', most of us are far from omniscient when it comes to grammar - had you talking about using "that" instead of "which", or vice versa, I would be the first to admit that I haven't a clue as to which is 'correct' in which situation!
I have heard that nowadays, instead of actually laughing, some youngsters actually say "L.O.L.". Absolutely ridiculous as they obviously did not laugh out loud.

"That" or "which" is more complicated but as for the "what" in question, it is very likely NEVER correct.

Whatever, as I implied, I hope that we are not going to see too much of these discussions in the future.
Writing long threads about it is not the best way to achieve that.

If there is a lack of clarity, then we should ask for clarification, but if it is clear what is meant, I'm happy.
Yes, I know that and you are indeed overly tolerant.

I disagree. That way lies no improvement and the logical outcome of never correcting is a continual worsening of the situation.



Take the sentence:
"They're over there in their office."
Maybe I'm odd, but:
"There over their in they're office." actually doesn't make sense and has to be translated.
After reading "There over their" my mind is already somewhere else wondering - what? Over their lunch? - and why isn't there a comma. Then corrections have to be made.



As I have mentioned elsewhere if I say:

This is a giraffe:
upload_2016-8-8_15-40-30.jpeg

Do you think I am just using the wrong word by mistake, intentionally or through ignorance?
Which ever it is; does it matter and do you know what is meant?
 
I'll transfer this to this thread to save using two.

I think you may be making a point relevant to our discussion in the other thread. I don't particularly 'like' using the correct word, either, but I'm not sure that 'not liking' the correct grammar is really a good (or even an acceptable) reason for deliberately using incorrect, rather than correct, language, is it?
I suppose not but 'one' sounds terribly, terribly posh. I shall use anyone.

... but that is precisely what most of us do (usually without attracting any criticism) in informal/casual speaking and writing. However, if I'm writing 'formally', I have no choice but to use the correct version.
I am not sure. How informal do you (I mean you) want to be?

I don't much like avoiding split infinitives,
It depends on whether the meaning is the same. I suppose that could then be a colloquialism.
or trying to avoid ending sentences with prepositions, either - but, again, in 'formal' writing I have to try to stick to those rules - but I don't in informal/casual writing.
It probably depends on how informal you are being.
Surely, then you have to have two (or more) methods.

It also depends on whether the preposition is actually needed and how far away it is.
"He has closed the shop that his Father left him six years ago down."
(The BBC seems to have a compulsory "end a sentence with a preposition rule" even when unnecessary. Traffic reports are full of roads 'blocked off';'closed off';'closed down';'shut down';'opened up' etc.)

Also, if you don't put it in the right place then other mistakes can follow.
E.g. "I have answered the question to which you are referring" may become "I have answered the question that you are referring to" or even "I have answered the question what you are referring to".

Of course, if you then put the preposition back in the correct place with the wrong word - as in "I have answered the question to that you are referring" and "I have answered the question to what you are referring" the statements don't actually make sense.
 
Your daughters must be of the same age as mine when the teachers would inform me that spelling and grammar was not important as long as the meaning is clear. I disagreed then and I do now and wondered why they thought that.
If that was their 'primary' viewpoint, then I would disagree as well - one's primary aim should be to achieve correct spelling and grammar. However, are you sure that they weren't saying that "the meaning being clear" is more important than for the spelling and grammar being correct, since I would agree with that - in terms of communication (which is what language is all about) 'clear meaning but with spelling/grammatical errors' is, in my book, far preferable to 'perfect spelling and grammar but meaning not clear'
'
Exactly. I would be most upset employing a barrister who could not write properly.
Quite so - and when she is writing as a barrister she writes as 'properly' as she can (and, given that she has a 'first' in English {and Philosophy} I expect she has a clearer idea of what is 'proper English' than do I :-) ). However, when writing to 'family and friends', she uses more 'relaxed' language (which you might well call 'incorrect' - but see my reply to your next post - when I write it!).

"There over their in they're office." actually doesn't make sense and has to be translated.
That's literally true but are you seriously suggesting that you wouldn't know exactly what it meant - as I've said, if it were spoken it would appear to be totally correct (with the same meaning).

This is a giraffe: ... <picture of insect> ... Do you think I am just using the wrong word by mistake, intentionally or through ignorance? Which ever it is; does it matter and do you know what is meant?
That is surely totally different from matters of correct spelling and grammar? I wouldn't have a clue as to why you had written that, or what you meant. It is therefore very ineffective communication.

Kind Regards, John
 
I don't particularly 'like' using the correct word, either, but I'm not sure that 'not liking' the correct grammar is really a good (or even an acceptable) reason for deliberately using incorrect, rather than correct, language, is it?
I suppose not but 'one' sounds terribly, terribly posh.
It sometimes can (although I often use 'one', so do you regard my style as "terribly, terribly posh"?!). However, you seem inconsistent. You appear to be saying that it is very important to use correct grammar/spelling unless you "don't like" the correct grammar (because it sounds posh, or whatever), and therefore use an incorrect version!!! I'm not sure that I understand this 'prejudice' amongst the English - I don't think that the French 'on' or the German 'mann' are regarded as 'over-posh', are they?
I shall use anyone.
I don't think you can do that without risking changing the meaning dramatically ...
"One can translate from Cantonese to Latvian"
and...
"Anyone can translate from Cantonese to Latvian"
... do not seem to have even remotely similar meanings!
I am not sure. How informal do you (I mean you) want to be?
I don't think we're really expressing different views. You resort to 'incorrect grammar', when you do not 'like' the correct grammar (because it 'sounds posh', or whatever). I use more informal language (spoken or written), which you would call 'incorrect grammar' when I feel that the 'correct grammar' sounds/feels 'wrong' ('posh', 'awkward', 'contrived', 'too formal') in non-formal situations. In non-formal/casual situations, I would never normally say or write 'correct grammar' such as "This is a method of wiring of which I often make use"!

Kind Regards, John
 
""Any test is better than none""

Not if the result of that test is false. A neon driver can be put on a Live terminal and NOT light up in some situations.
So can any other item of test equipment.

Isolation is a difficult subject, in an ideal world you would be able to test for live, then isolate and lock off, then test for dead then test your tester. In an ideal world all circuits would be fed from exactly one place. In an ideal world neutrals and earths would be solidly connected. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to cut into existing cables where we can't see either end. In an ideal world we wouldn't have borrowed neutrals.

We don't live in that world.

All test equipment has limitations. Testers that measure relative to the human body can have problems if the capacitive coupling of the human body to ground is unusually weak or if the human body is capacitively coupled to a live conductor. Two pole testers have problems if the neutral or earth connections are bad. All testers suffer from the problem that they only tell you if the conductor was dead at the time of the test, not that it will stay dead.

Having a tester that you can trivially use each time you disconnect a conductor because it's also your terminal screwdriver is IMO a very valuable thing.
 
"There over their in they're office." actually doesn't make sense and has to be translated.
That's literally true but are you seriously suggesting that you wouldn't know exactly what it meant.
It's an extreme example but obviously I would after reading it all.
If the first three words were on one line (or even page) then after the first three words no one would have a clue what it meant and, as I said, translation is required.

This is a giraffe: ... <picture of insect> ... Do you think I am just using the wrong word by mistake, intentionally or through ignorance? Which ever it is; does it matter and do you know what is meant?
That is surely totally different from matters of correct spelling and grammar? I wouldn't have a clue as to why you had written that, or what you meant. It is therefore very ineffective communication.
That's the point, isn't it?
I have just used one word incorrectly. Does it matter? It's not such an obvious mistake as others but, still, just a mistake. I can't help it.

If I had written it without the picture you would think you knew what I meant.
If I had written "This is my Aunt", would you think I had posted the wrong picture?

You are far better than I at deducing what people actually mean but, with the wrong words, you can never be certain.


Regarding "one" - a bit unfair. Is "one" the only option? Is "you" not an acceptable alternative.
I don't think any of my acquaintances uses "one". I associate it more with the Queen.
However, you are correct and I shall use it where doubt would ensue.
 
That's the point, isn't it? I have just used one word incorrectly. ... You are far better than I at deducing what people actually mean but, with the wrong words, you can never be certain.
I suppose that is strictly true, but in the sort of case that started this (their/they're/there), there really is no credible intended meaning other than the 'obvious' one. As I've said repeatedly, if the language used leaves any ambiguity, or any doubt about the intended meaning, it is essential to seek clarification.
Regarding "one" - a bit unfair. Is "one" the only option? Is "you" not an acceptable alternative.
The OED seems to regard 'you' as 'an alternative', but that can only be true in certain circumstances. To stick with the example I gave before, "One can translate Cantonese into Latvian" is clear, and essentially means "It is possible to translate Cantonese into Latvian". "You can translate Catonese into Latvian" is very different (and usually would be untrue!).
I don't think any of my acquaintances uses "one". I associate it more with the Queen.
I think the queen is a bit different - AIUI, she uses "One" and "We" ('the Royal We') in situations in which the rest of us would use "I".

Kind Regards, John
 
All test equipment has limitations.
They do, and it's essentially that the user is aware of those limitations and uses (and interprets the results of) that vtest equipment accordingly. The main worry obviously relates to the use by DIYers of neon screwdrivers as the primary, or only, "test for dead", without their being aware of the limitations of the device for this purpose (more of a problem than most of the other {all imperfect} methods of "testing for dead").
Having a tester that you can trivially use each time you disconnect a conductor because it's also your terminal screwdriver is IMO a very valuable thing.
As I've said, I do agree that neon screwdrivers have their uses, but should really only be used (for appropriate purposes) by those who "know what they are doing" - which crucially includes an understanding of the limitations of the devices.

Kind Regards, John
 
Back
Top