Can’t change a light bulb?

[David George 1Participant @davidgeorge1]

Hi Nigel  I was the National Caving Association  equipment comitee charman for about ten years and was involved in eqipment usage fitting and testing was very involving. It entailed testing rope drop force and connections to the rock and type of anchors. Many of the original members came to be high rope access workers doing inspection and assembly at height including buildings like the Milenium dome and tower block inspection. I was more involved in the wear and loading on metalic eqipment like decenders and harness conections as well asthe use of chemical anchors of bolts. we spent many hours droping weights onto rope lengths checking extension stretch and final breaking load weight and with differant notts on the ends.

David

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I too was prevented from reading the ELS lamp-maker’s blurb but to claim a lamp is more efficient simply by its mounting, is more than disingenuous. It is downright deceitful.

The advertisement may be for l.e.d. lamps that happen to have screw-fittings, but that does not excuse the claim; and if now two us have also reported our security software finds its “Iodances” source dangerous digitally, I would not trust that supplier one bit.

It is a fake address; as independent, very careful searching revealed (also showing the same Norton notice).

===

David –

I well remember all the work that has gone on in that field, since the days of M8 “self-drilling” anchors banged in everywhere with little thought of future thread wear and corrosion. Indeed, I installed such a route up the front wall of my first home, a Portland-Stone built cottage, so I could rake vegetation from the roof. I felt a lot safer on a rope than on an extension-ladder.

The favoured anchor now, I think, is still the two-legged, staple-shaped one set into resin in a pair of properly-drilled holes.

My own club’s rope drop-test rig has since become disused and partially dismantled; and there seems now little of such testing. This could of course reflect growing appreciation over the years  –  indeed from before NCA became BCA – of the use and care of ropes and other high access equipment.

I know plastic materials have – or we are advised by the makers they have – fairly definite shelf-lives even if cared for properly. My last employer had a thing about safety-helmets “expiring” on arbitrary birthdays even for hats that spent most of their lives in dark cupboards.

I have though, also heard strange anecdotes of people like youth-group leaders thinking all-metal items have similar magical properties even if barely used. So I’d better not use my Fig-8 descendeur, as I turned, filed and polished it from 3/4″ thick, HE30 Aluminium-alloy plate, nearly fifty years ago.

[Colin HeseltineParticipant @colinheseltine48622]

I had the H&S guys at one site refuse my Risk Assessment. I was up in a cherry picker at around 15 metres and I had stated that I would be wearing a shirt restraint harness which prevents me climbing out if the picker basket. He would not accept that and said what happens if I fall out. I ended up doing some research on what happens if get suspended in a harness in fresh air. You can end up critically injured due to compression of arteries and veins in groin and lack of blood flow. I manage to locate some devices to prevent this. They were small zipped pouches which attached to the waist band of the harness. If the unthinkable happened you unzipped the pouches and a support harness with a foot stirrup dropped out. Put feet in this and the weight was then taken off the straps in your groin. He was still not happy and I had to go into a long diatribe about rescue cherry picker ( which they would not pay for) and they finally accepted than someone would make emergency call to the Fire Brigade. H&S gone mad.
Colin

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

That reads like someone given H&S responsibility without proper training and support.

I have never operated a cherry picker so am probably wrong but the obvious to me would be, firstly, at least two on site being able to operate the lift, and secondly, the other, if not on the platform anyway, to lower it using the ground-level controls (I assume those are fitted?). Very carefully of course so as not to injure the casualty or lower him into some other danger.

Suspension trauma can set in very rapidly, possibly before the Fire Services can arrive – but are they able and equipped to rescue anyone in such a situation, especially inside a building so inaccesible to an escape ladder? (They do use cherry-pickers, though.)

I wonder how these stirrups would work. Certainly much better than nothing but to take your weight off the harness requires rather more than that. The nett effect could simply be you dangling in an ungainly reclining position. Although that might itself sufficiently slow down the suspension effects for long enough for your rescuers to arrive.

Perhaps a better approach is two in the basket, the other able to lower a short flexible ladder or etrier kept belayed to the basket, for the casualty to stand on.

I imagine somewhere there will be guidance, perhaps published by the Department of Trade & Industry and/or HSE, covering all this precisely to help operators and safety-managers alike.

I’ve long wondered if company H&S people are actually afraid to seek advice, other than formal training-courses they might be sent on, lest it been by the directors or the HSE as a sign of ignorance?

…….

This has drifted a long way from how to replace a lamp!

Though there is a tenuous link.

The types who do not know one end of a spanner from another, or how to change a luminaire, are probably the most likely to come to grief if they attempt it.

They won’t fall out of cherry-pickers, but could still tumble from a badly-supported step-ladder, skin their knuckles by closed-hand pushing rather than pulling the spanner (of wrong size too), or receive an electric shock.

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I summarised the conversation about working at heights, to a friend who is both a retained fireman and fellow-caver with a lot of experience of high things and big drops. He replied:

Hi Nigel,
Sounds like some interesting discussions. I’m sure there are protocols for what sort of safety equipment should be used in Cherry pickers. From a Fire service point of view when using the Turntable ladder  its full body harness and fall arrest cows tails,
The idea of the foot stirrups is to allow the person to occasionally stand in them to relieve pressure on the thighs and mitigate some of the effects of suspension trauma. Probably the worst effect of suspension trauma is unconsciousness  leading to a compromised airway
Anyway hope this helps
Cheers
Adrian

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

My grandfather was a firefighter during the Blitz. His safety equipment consisted of his helmet, his hands, his feet, and the rungs of his ladder.

[Sonic EscapeParticipant @sonicescape38234]

I believe that the ability to do “basic DIY tasks” is a native thing. It has nothing to do with culture, the need or lack of need to fix things, school training or anything else. It might be developed, of course, but fundamentally it is a native talent. Just look at small children. Some of them are very interested in building stuff, improvising or disassembling things. They are the ones that will be able to change the light bulb.
Or look at women. Some of them are surprisingly skilled in using tools or doing small repairs. I know a few cases. And I know that nobody teach them. It just came natural to them.
And the article is cheap. It appeals to the eternal idea that new generations are not as skilled/smart/hard working/disciplined as the old one. But somehow we didn’t returned to the cave yet.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

It’s very worrying. Speaking with a lecturer in mechanical engineering at the local university was not reassuring. Apparently, students and post-grads routinely turn to software to do the ‘heavy lifting’ required in the design process, rather than work it all out themselves ‘from basics’. He says there’s just not enough time in the course(s) to cover all the basics, so use of software is regarded as justifiable use of a tool, just as use of a machine tool has replaced chipping and filing.

This is resulting in a cohort of engineers who have not learned the ‘basics’, and who trust software to do things their brains no longer do. (I won’t call it ‘thinking’, but we’re straying into philosophical quicksand…). This, and the lack of practical experience (the students don’t get that either) results in the sad catalogue of design stupidity that gets complained about on this forum quite frequently. If you don’t hold a lot of knowledge in your head, you won’t be able to make the mental conceptual connections that are necessary for thought. Outsourcing knowledge, and devaluing experience is dangerous – but that’s how it’s going.

Now add AI to the mix, and it’s not just worrying, it’s terrifying! Of course AI has important and justifiable uses, and has been used to achieve great things. However, it is also being used to ‘think’ for people who can’t or won’t think for themselves, and don’t have sufficient knowledge to judge its output. AI hallucinates: if you put your faith in it, you’re putting your faith in a possibly psychotic process. If AI’s ‘mental’ processes are too opaque or too difficult to understand, how do you know whether its output is trustworthy or not? Progress is not always in the desired direction methinks.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

A very perceptive post, Kiwi … it should be writ large !

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

PostScript

A somewhat disturbing quote from today’s News:

In a statement, Mr Musk said the deal would create “the most ambitious, vertically-integrated innovation engine on (and off) Earth, with AI, rockets, space-based internet, direct-to-mobile device communications and the world’s foremost real-time information and free speech platform”.

MichaelG.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The higher they are the further they fall…..

Elon Musk’s motives are only yet more money and power, but to succeed he needs people to allow him that.

I wonder what he means by “direct-to-mobile device communications“? I though we have had that ever since portable two-way radios were invented; and a “mobile [sic] device” is essentially a portable two-way radio.

A “smart”-‘phone can do much more than allow voice conversation, but that’s only technical development. It’s still a portable two-way radio.

 

As for “vertically-integrated innovation engine “…. more pretentious jargon that impresses money-trader types. Just make sure you wear a fall-arrest harness with foot-loops when you’re on top of the engine, Mr. M.

 

Meanwhile we have young adults who cannot, or cannot be bothered to learn to, perform simple household DIY maintenance like changing a lamp, or use basic tools…..

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

For context, Nigel … I should really have quoted a little more from the Sky News page:

SpaceX has announced it has acquired artificial intelligence start-up xAI in a deal that that brings together two companies owned by Elon Musk. 

MichaelG.

…

The deed is done … the impact on civilisation is yet to be seen.

 

.

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Well, at least France is trying to do something about him.

https://news.sky.com/story/french-investigators-raid-paris-offices-of-elon-musks-x-13502669

Russell

[JuddyParticipant @juddy]

”I wonder what he means by “direct-to-mobile device communications“? I though we have had that ever since portable two-way radios were invented; and a “mobile [sic] device” is essentially a portable two-way radio.”

What I think he means by that is it will bypass any specific country filtering of data, allowing complete control by him to all of the crazy rubbish spread by him. Dictators rule by information control and limiting information to what they want you to know.  Sounds all a bit paranoid I know but him and his mates are clearly trying to go down this route

[peak4Participant @peak4]

Direct to mobile communications already exists, in terms of satellite phones, but is becoming more readily accessible to normal consumers, though still in its infancy.

There’s a reasonable explanation here; https://kineis.com/en/direct-to-device-simple-explanation/

See also this Ofcom briefing; https://www.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/space-and-satellites/ofcom-ignites-liftoff-for-smartphone-space-race

I recently bought a new smartphone from Google, a Pixel 9a, selecting the model for its long battery life.
The slightly more upmarket Pixel 9 is able to make emergency calls direct via satellite, even with no conventional mobile network signal available
https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/15254448?hl=en

Re. Vertical as opposed to horizontal integration of the supply chain; in a way it’s a bit more like a monopoly, perhaps better suited to just in time philosophy. The supply chain is owned by the end product manufacturer.
See this Wiki;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_integration

also;
“Examples of vertically integrated companies include Apple, which designs and manufactures its own hardware and software, and Amazon, which controls its supply chain from production to distribution.”
http://www.inboundlogistics.com/articles/vertical-integration

Bill

[Juddy]

On Juddy Said:

”I wonder what he means by “direct-to-mobile device communications“? …

At present mobile phones connect to a ground network of cell-towers linked by fibre or microwave.  It routes phone calls and connects to the internet.  Lots of hardware and coverage depends on hills, buildings, and whether or not it’s worth the provider adding a tower.

Musk intends to put cell-towers in space.  Rather than connecting horizontally across cluttered ground, the signal goes vertically up in the clear.   Rings of satellites will connect to each other in outer-space, not over ground.

At first the system will coexist with the existing network, with no change to the phones – they don’t know or care where the tower is.  It connects to the strongest signal.   Improved coverage is an obvious advantage:  phones in the Sahara will get a signal.

Has potential to replace the entire ground system saving enormous money.  No need to buy land on hill-tops, build towers, dig trenches, or protect the installation from thieves.  The ground system a lot of electricity too, in space much less is need, and the power source is the sun.

Later, the space system could be extended technically, linking to more advanced phones and the internet of things, such as smart meters.  Could be made feature rich.

Early days, with lots of pros and cons and technical problems to solve. One issue is that a space-based system would be owned by whoever had the wherewithal to launch the satellites.  International rather than national, discuss!

Odd we worry about engineering going to pot because students exploit AI and are allegedly not taught basic skills whilst today’s engineers are happily developing this and other advanced technologies!  Could it be that these fears and doubts are our problem, misconceptions due to gradually losing touch?

I find the rate of change disconcerting.  As a young man:

• Still plenty of manual Exchanges about.
• Automatic exchanges were electromechanical monsters.  Took up loads of room, burned lots of electricity and were maintained constantly by skilled staff.
• Plain Old Telephony was basic and rather unreliable.   Not enough trunk capacity, crossed-lines, snap-crackle and pop, dolty filing pulses, press Button-B, and unable to carry computer data.  Telex and Telegrams.   Waiting lists for new phones.
• Party lines and long queues for international calls.
• Run by the GPO.

Modernised painfully slowly.  GPO replaced by BT, manual exchanges, Strowger and Button B all gone.  Many redundancies, but reliability and capability gradually improved, especially the ability to mix data and voice.  Queues for new phones, trunk and international calls disappeared.

Further improvements.  Digital, fibre, high-speed computer data.  Big rooms full of mechanical switches replaced by a small black box in the corner.  Voice became data.  Progressive removal of Copper, centralisation of switching centres, many local exchanges closed.  Internet in the home: originally 56kbaud, then 10, 50, 100Mbaud or Gigabaud.  VoiP and other digital services.   Slaughter of public phone boxes. Landlines replaced by mobiles on a large scale.  Five generations of Mobile services from 1G to 5G.   Science fiction video calls and streaming.   Integration with internet services, and more.

Morse code was once the most important basic telecomms skill. On a good day I can do 18wpm. None of the phone developments above depended on me or anyone else understanding Wireless Telegraphy.  The same is true of many other technical fields. What’s important changes.

Dave

 

[Adrian R2Participant @adrianr2]

TV transmission from space was supposed to be better than using terrestrial aerials for the same reasons. Instead I read we are to switch off Freeview broadcasts in 203x because everything is going to internet streaming (terrestrial fibre).

I will be suprised if direct satellite to mobile can deliver the same performance as terrestrial, physics must apply to device antenna size at some point. That said existing Starlink broadband terminals are much more compact than their rivals so maybe massive processing capability can tease signal from noise…

…and then you can hook your 7G augmented reality glasses up to your always on AI friend and it will walk you through changing the light bulb in real time.

[Adrian R2]

On Adrian R2 Said:

TV transmission from space was supposed to be better than using terrestrial aerials for the same reasons. Instead I read we are to switch off Freeview broadcasts in 203x because everything is going to internet streaming (terrestrial fibre).

I will be suprised if direct satellite to mobile can deliver the same performance as terrestrial, physics must apply to device antenna size at some point. That said existing Starlink broadband terminals are much more compact than their rivals so maybe massive processing capability can tease signal from noise…

…and then you can hook your 7G augmented reality glasses up to your always on AI friend and it will walk you through changing the light bulb in real time.

Bear in mind that the change in dates for ceasing/changing Freesat/Freeview originate from a survey commissioned by Sky; not that it necessarily means it’s wrong or biased.

There’s a reasonable explanation here. https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/sky-study-freeview-can-end-sooner/

In my case, our own Humax Freesat box  lost any catch-up TV accessibility on 31st Jan, though I can still record Freesat for the time being. I also have an old BT Youview box, which can access iPlayer etc. without charge, via a web connection.

Our new TV will receive Freesat, terrestrial Freeview (Lite only as we have a restricted repeater transmitter in Buxton), cable/streaming, and also Freely.
Hopefully, this will give us the best of most options for the foreseeable future; (It will apparently also record to an external dedicated hard drive).

It’s noticeable though that Panasonic have officially stopped Freesat support already; you can still receive the broadcasts OK via the twin tuners, but the Electronic Program Guide (EPG) is not supported; (it still works on older TVs unless you upgrade the firmware from what I can gather).
EPG works OK on Freeview, and is still accessible via the Humax Freesat recording box on satellite & terrestrial.

It used to be so much easier with 405 lines black & white when I was a kid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/405-line_television_system

Bill

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Our Humax Freesat box packed up because of outdated software which couldn’t be upgraded. There appears to be only one device made now, so we bought one. I wish I’d read the reviews first. Not very good might be too much praise. Why have a box when everything can be streamed? You can fast forward the ads, and not all streamed stuff has sub titles.

[VicParticipant @vic]

https://www.upworthy.com/gen-z-technology-schools

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

…” more well-adjusted…” I thought that description had faded into history. I recall it being very fashionable in the 1960s, though I don’t think I ever saw a sensible definition, or any definition!

What Dr. Horvath need do though, is offer his explanation. Maybe he did but it was not reported.

 

I’d also ask what “outperformed their parents” really means. In what? I can accept a difference between child and parent, but are the modern measurements of cognitive development the same as those used in the 1890s?

For this apparent rise in cognition generation-by-generation to happen for about five generations, suggests the great-great grandparents of the present young adults now unable to change a lamp, must have been remarkably dim. Were they?

Surely what has changed is education, not brain physiology. General school education in the late-19C for so many children, rich or poor, seems to have been pretty basic, very narrow in curricula, and often by rote. Also subjects like the sciences were naturally narrower in scope anyway. Perhaps education difference is the key to this apparent development over several generations.

Perhaps the kids [sic] of today may be of limited practical ability, but are not necessarily more or less “sharp”. Instead they know more, and about more things; or about different things. While limited practical ability may mean only their elders-and-betters have not taught them anything practical.

 

[VicParticipant @vic]

Actually there could be another reason? We know particulates can be damaging to the brain, particularly in developing ones.

https://www.mumsforlungs.org/our-campaigns/ditch-diesel

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969726000057

 

 

 

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

I venture to suggest the move away from free over air TV towards internet delivery has more to do with the production companies wanting to get direct contact with the viewers to sell targeted advertising. All the catchup services, even BBC, now want registration and login so they can harvest your details.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Vic –

Possibly, if the decline in cognition is physiological, but we should realise that even in cities the air we breathe is far better than it was in our grandparents’ day.

In the past, vast amounts of lower-grade coal were burnt in very inefficient open fires or potentially leaky stoves for domestic heating and cooking. Even into the 20C, many homes in rural areas had to rely on oil-lamps and candles for lighting, even when the suburban householders were moving from gas-lamps to the new-fangled electricity.

The industrial combustion of better-quality coal by factories, gas-works – and yes railway locomotives – was a lot more efficient but still added to the general miasma.

Until really very recently, internal-combustion engines were far less fuel-efficient and far “dirtier” than now, with much more toxic exhaust.

Smogs were common – a really severe one with a large death-toll in 1950s London, triggered the Clean Air Act.

 

So while we should not be complacent, and those living in some countries are still putting up with far filthier air,  I would rather doubt air pollution as a common cause of lowered cognition in children born within the last two decades, at least in countries like the UK – and that study author’s Denmark.

I wonder if the problem is actually from lack of mental stimulus and practice.

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Knowing exactly where to smack the tv and stop the picture rolling is also a long lost art (thankfully).

[Author]

Posts