 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> It is not unknown, you know. Especially in the field.
When things get crazy, it's not surprising that mistakes can happen. A
very high pressure job, to be sure.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> It is not unknown, you know. Especially in the field.
>
> When things get crazy, it's not surprising that mistakes can happen. A
> very high pressure job, to be sure.
>
I’m thinking more of first aiders who only get refresher training every
couple of years.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:30:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/05/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> It is not unknown, you know. Especially in the field.
>>
>> When things get crazy, it's not surprising that mistakes can happen. A
>> very high pressure job, to be sure.
>>
>>
> I’m thinking more of first aiders who only get refresher training every
> couple of years.
That too, and probably more likely at that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>>>>> Note that the probability that you're making contact with the cattle
>>>>>> wire at the very moment that a pulse has just started is /very/ low.
>>>>> You make it sound like touching the fence is about the same as touching
>>>>> a 1.5-volt battery poles. Wouldn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose?
>>>> The farmer doesn't want to kill the cow. He wants to tingle the cow enough
>>>> that the cow learns not to lean against the fence.
>>> Hence 1.5 volts isn't going to do it.
>
>> Yes, but a very brief high spike, which is what you were responding to,
>> *will* do it if the cow is pressing against the fence for several seconds.
>
>> He didn't say 1.5 volts. *You* said 1. volts. He said very short pulses.
>
> I didn't say he said 1.5 volts. I said that "you make it sound like it was
> like 1.5 volts or something" (instead of a huge shock).
I see what you mean now.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> though) was that a burn could happen only if the defibrillator was used
> incorrectly.
Isn't that pretty much definitional? If you're burning someone with it,
you're probably doing it wrong?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Just to act on the dumb side. If you use a graduated beaker with a candle
>> in it, add the water, and the second beaker, and then measure the water
>> height. Shouldn't the increase in temperature in the up-turned beaker
>> create a high-pressure that forces the water out from under it and thus an
>> increase in the water height as measured in the graduated beaker? So why
>> is the level of water forced out by the high-pressure less than the amount
>> 'sucked' in by the low-pressure?
>
> I didn't understand the question.
Put two beakers on of different sizes. Shouldn't the cooling on the inside
beaker be offset by the heating of the outside beaker? (Something like that.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Phil Cook v2 <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> Just to act on the dumb side. If you use a graduated beaker with a candle
> >> in it, add the water, and the second beaker, and then measure the water
> >> height. Shouldn't the increase in temperature in the up-turned beaker
> >> create a high-pressure that forces the water out from under it and thus an
> >> increase in the water height as measured in the graduated beaker? So why
> >> is the level of water forced out by the high-pressure less than the amount
> >> 'sucked' in by the low-pressure?
> >
> > I didn't understand the question.
> Put two beakers on of different sizes. Shouldn't the cooling on the inside
> beaker be offset by the heating of the outside beaker? (Something like that.)
Sorry, I still can't understand. Maybe a picture and an explanation could
help?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:17:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> though) was that a burn could happen only if the defibrillator was used
>> incorrectly.
>
> Isn't that pretty much definitional? If you're burning someone with it,
> you're probably doing it wrong?
Maybe, I don't know a lot about them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/05/2010 4:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 16:30:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2010 4:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:34:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not unknown, you know. Especially in the field.
>>>
>>> When things get crazy, it's not surprising that mistakes can happen. A
>>> very high pressure job, to be sure.
>>>
>>>
>> I’m thinking more of first aiders who only get refresher training every
>> couple of years.
>
> That too, and probably more likely at that.
>
The last training I got, the machine did all the pre-tests before going
beep, beep, beep, BEEP. Bang! (No, Warp it did not actually go BANG,
that was symbolism.) :-P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.05.2010 20:21, schrieb Warp:
> clipka<ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Note that the probability that you're making contact with the cattle
>> wire at the very moment that a pulse has just started is /very/ low.
>
> You make it sound like touching the fence is about the same as touching
> a 1.5-volt battery poles. Wouldn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose?
Note that when I write "you're making contact with...", I literally mean
"you /are making/ contact" - not "you /are staying/ in concact". Of
course there's a comparatively high probability that you're currently in
contact with the wire when the pulse goes off.
Aside from that, I have no idea what the comparison with an 1.5V battery
has to do with the sentence of mine you quoted. Somehow gives me the
feeling that you're trying to be right by all means.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
