Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scott Holtzman]

When in doubt do what's right.

JR

So we need to update the "know your shit, don't be a dick" to "know your shit, do right and don't be a dick"

[Mike Sokol]

Also you don't declare an object or situation to be "safe".  In Mike's example, if my NCVT did not indicate the presence of voltage, that's what I'd say - "my voltage detector does not show the presence of voltage".  Never say "yeah, it's safe" because there may be other hazards you are unaware of.  Speak only to what you observe.

Interestingly, the primary reason that Fluke really doesn't want to promote the use of the NCVT to test for things like a hot-chassis on a guitar amp, or electrified water in a baptismal pool, or a hot-skin voltage on an RV, is that their statement of design never foresaw that usage. That's what their legal team told me. So while Fluke does post my articles about using their NCVT to find dangerous voltages on mics, guitars and RVs, since it wasn't part of the design and never vetted legally, they don't want to suggest it will also function as a hot-chassis detector. It's all about reducing legal exposure.

[Tim McCulloch]

Interestingly, the primary reason that Fluke really doesn't want to promote the use of the NCVT to test for things like a hot-chassis on a guitar amp, or electrified water in a baptismal pool, or a hot-skin voltage on an RV, is that their statement of design never foresaw that usage. That's what their legal team told me. So while Fluke does post my articles about using their NCVT to find dangerous voltages on mics, guitars and RVs, since it wasn't part of the design and never vetted legally, they don't want to suggest it will also function as a hot-chassis detector. It's all about reducing legal exposure.

There is that, I suppose.  My initial reluctance to declare something 'safe' is rooted in knowing another person might accept that pronouncement at face value and not realize that I was speaking only to the results of the NCVT probe.  There could be a non-electrical hazard that I'm not aware of that subsequently harms the other person.  The legal aspect aside, I don't want someone subjected to risk because they assume I'm making an all-encompassing, blanket judgment.  Word choices can have unintended consequences.

Edit:  Is it safe?

[Mike Sokol]

Word choices can have unintended consequences.

So Fluke has suggested that while I can say that something is "dangerous", I shouldn't say it's "safe". That is, a NCVT can prove the presence of voltage, but can't prove the absence of voltage. Suppose the battery died and it doesn't respond to a voltage biased surface. In that case, saying it was "safe" would be untrue and could result in death.

[Stephen Kirby]

Also you don't declare an object or situation to be "safe".  In Mike's example, if my NCVT did not indicate the presence of voltage, that's what I'd say - "my voltage detector does not show the presence of voltage".  Never say "yeah, it's safe" because there may be other hazards you are unaware of.  Speak only to what you observe.

Heinlein's Fair Witness

or

"We should learn from a thing all the information that is in it.  But only the information that is in it.
Lest we be like the cat that jumps on a hot stove.
She will never jump on a hot stove again, nor will she jump on a cold one."
Mark Twain.

[Stephen Swaffer]

So Fluke has suggested that while I can say that something is "dangerous", I shouldn't say it's "safe". That is, a NCVT can prove the presence of voltage, but can't prove the absence of voltage. Suppose the battery died and it doesn't respond to a voltage biased surface. In that case, saying it was "safe" would be untrue and could result in death.

Which is why proper use-to deem something "safe" for you to personally work on requires verifying function before and after testing whatever you are testing.

I personally don't like to rely on an NVCT as the primary means to verify absence of voltage-but there are situations that occur where that is your only choice.

[Mark Cadwallader]

I think in the scenario Mike first posited, it would be OK if his wife's NCVT showed something like the misting tent was "hot", she could say "OMG, I'm getting a reading!  I'll inform a responsible person at the venue!"  If she does that, she has not created a hazard,  she has not made any affirmative representation of the safety of something, she has not tried to personally fix sometime, and she has acted reasonably by telling someone in charge that there appears to be an electrical hazard present.  No liability in doing that, to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

[Mike Sokol]

When in doubt do what's right.

Perhaps 10 years ago I was doing sound at an outside show with maybe 10,000 attendees spread out over multiple blocks of downtown for a blues fest. I was running between multiple stages checking on the various crews when I saw a small girl maybe 3 years old walking by herself, sort of wandering around. She was crying and asking for her mommy. I stopped and looked around and there was no mommy in sight. So I sat with her on the curb for a few minutes to see if mommy would show up. When asked, she didn't know her mommy's name, she didn't know her own address, and she didn't know her phone number. So rather than leave her in a crowd where heaven only knows what could happen, I picked her up and walked down the street with her on my hip and headed for the police security tent a few blocks away. Now there had recently been a number of child abductions in the area with a lot of publicity, so a little voice inside of me was worried I would hear some mom screaming at me that I was taking her daughter, but I thought it was more important to get her out of harm's way. As we walked by the houses I kept asking if she saw her house or her mommy, but no go. When I finally got to the police tent I went to the first cop I saw, explained the situation, and he found a female cop to help calm down the girl. An offer of french fries from McDonalds was made and accepted, and the cops thanked me for bringing the little girl to them. 

Always do the right thing. I would never have forgiven myself if I had left her wandering on the street and later found out she had been abducted. Same goes for safety situations. If I see something I consider to be dangerous I feel it's better to find the right authorities and be vocal about it, rather than shutting up and watching someone die. I would put saving lives ahead of legality any day. 

[Jonathan Johnson]

Always do the right thing. I would never have forgiven myself if I had left her wandering on the street and later found out she had been abducted. Same goes for safety situations. If I see something I consider to be dangerous I feel it's better to find the right authorities and be vocal about it, rather than shutting up and watching someone die. I would put saving lives ahead of legality any day.

I think this falls under "due diligence." As I define it, it is doing the right thing within your capabilities and rights. If your capability is recognizing a problem and then informing someone with greater responsibility or capability to correct the problem, and you inform them, you have performed due diligence. The burden of due diligence then falls upon them. If you fail to perform due diligence, that is you recognize a problem and have the ability to do something and you do nothing, you could be found negligent. (Negligent being the opposite of diligent.)

(I included within your rights because, while you may have the capability of rectifying an electrical problem, if you are not licensed or it's outside the scope of your contract, it may not be within your rights or liability protection to directly rectify it. In that case, your capability may be reduced to informing the proper people. Sometimes, though, effecting safety may require stepping outside of your rights and accepting the potential liability because the danger is clear and present and a delay in rectifying the problem is certain to cause harm.)

[Mike Sokol]

Sometimes, though, effecting safety may require stepping outside of your rights and accepting the potential liability because the danger is clear and present and a delay in rectifying the problem is certain to cause harm.)

As in - you see a car full of kids stuck on the railroad crossing with the train coming. So do you break the law, go through the lowered gate and push their car off the tracks, or do you call the railroad office and wait for someone to show up? Now that's an over-the-top example, but there's all levels of this. 

[ProSoundWeb Community]