"When people buy one of these bug zappers, they want to see and hear bugs fry. That's one of the great attractions of these things. You hang them in your yard, and they really put on a show. As the bugs hit the electric grid, they arc. There are a lot of light flashes and snap, crackle and pop sounds. That's what people get for their money."
"The main reason bug zappers don't work is that mosquitoes are extremely sensitive to carbon dioxide," Day said. "They see the UV light in your yard, but once they pick up even the slightest trace of carbon dioxide from people, they change direction and zero in on the source of that odor. They are expert at detecting carbon dioxide at levels as low as 50 parts per million."
See Electrical Expert V4 Crackl
This program was created to help in efficiently meeting new challenges related to project structure requiring file sharing, multi-user functions, database management and personalized programming. Equipped with all the standard functions of an electrical CAD program, SEE Electrical Expert offers the unique advantage of simplifying the management of complex projects while allowing interaction with other programs. Professionals are using our programs more and more.
Arcing takes place in an electrical panel after the circuits in the panel are overloaded. If a circuit breaker joins to an electrical panel bus, it could result in overheating. It can ruin the bus and the connection, rendering the equipment defective and susceptible to failure. When there is an excess current flowing, circuit breakers may not function as expected. Rather than tripping when excess currents are flowing, damaged circuits allow electricity to continue flowing, which results in overheating followed by arcing.
The wiring in the electrical panel must never be left bare outside the box. Flammable materials such as paint thinner or gasoline, among others, should be nowhere close to the electrical panel or its immediate surrounding.
Furthermore, using excess fuses inside the electrical box can result in an additional electricity flow via the circuitry, causing overheating and arcing. Circuits that trip or fuses that blow often can point out potential arcing risk.
Another manufacture claimed to produce Faulty electrical panels is Federal Pacific Stab-Lok. Their electrical panels are quite infamous for defective circuit breakers, which may not trip when necessary. These failures are seen as underlying hazards, and they are not directly responsible for arcing, though they play a role in it. Most flawed panels were produced in the 1970s or before.
It is vital to remove the potential danger as soon as possible. Try not to work on energized electrical gear and be extra careful when testing it to ensure it is adequately de-energized or when you are re-energizing it. Utilize remote racking tech to control circuit breakers while you are outside the arc flash margin rather than letting your personnel be at risk.
Pinpoint the risks, use appropriate PPEs, and establish arc flash boundaries for safety in the event of an arc flash. Ensure that suitable electrical rules and work procedures are correctly documented, distributed to all personnel, and strictly applied.
When you start to hear buzzing or cracking sounds, or other noises from your electrical system, it is time to call your electrician. Things such as loose cables, overloaded outlets, or loose connections can be the reason why you hear these strange noises. Most of these circumstances will result in your electrical system arcing or causing weird noises and other electrical issues such as outlets, sockets, or appliance stop functioning.
If you ignore these warnings, it could cause more damage to your electrical system after a while and, at times, electrical fires. To sum it up, if you hear a buzzing sound call an electrician immediately.
Electricity is useful, and at the same time, dangerous and electrical systems are complicated. Electricians know how electricity operates, how electrical circuits flow, how they interrelate with each other, and how to handle them safely. When you have electricity issues, it is safe to have a professional come to your home and have him handle it. Many electrical problems can be solved easily if detected early.
More recently, the supervised deep learning methods, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have achieved state-of-the-art performance in many advanced computer vision tasks, such as image recognition [25], object detection [26,27], and semantic segmentation [28,29,30]. The main advantage of deep learning is that it does not rely on expert-driven heuristic thresholds or hand-designed features and has high accuracy and robustness to image variations [31].
An answer by an expert witness which contained the words "could," "might well," and "may well" was not mere conjecture where the expert later testified that his answer was based on reasonable scientific certainty. [333-335]
We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Carr v. Arthur D. Little, Inc. 348 Mass. 469, 471 (1965). Stewart v. Roy Bros. Inc. 358 Mass. 446, 448 (1970). Industrial washed the club's windows from 1961 through 1966, always as a subcontractor of Consolidated, and was the "person responsible" for cleaning the windows at the time of the accident in 1966. Industrial had five or six window washers on its payroll, and its president hired only experienced washers who were "union men." Industrial furnished its employees with all their window washing tools -- safety belts, pails, sponges, squeegees, and ladders -- and the plaintiff was using a bucket, squeegee, and belt supplied by Industrial on the day of the accident. There were no window washers on the club's payroll from at least 1963 up to the time of the accident, and the club owned no window washer's safety belts. The club had three shifts of its own employees to conduct the operation of the club at the time of the accident, which included two full time maintenance men for "the usual carpentry, plumbing and electrical work," a painter, and maids and housemen. On occasion it was necessary for one of these employees to clean a window when the "contract window cleaners" were not there, but the club's manager had never seen one of its employees use a window washer's belt, and none of them participated in the window cleaning operation described in the club's contract with Consolidated. The contract between the club and Consolidated in effect at the time of the accident required that all windows on the first and second floors be washed on a monthly basis and all other windows in the building be washed semi-annually. The plaintiff was engaged in one such semi-annual washing at the time he fell. In the opinion of the club's manager, window washing was a very minor part of the overall operation of the club.
We also conclude that the jury could find that the violation of Section 10 was causally related to the plaintiff's injuries. All the evidence on the point tended to show that the anchor bolt broke because of defects in the casting. From the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness to the effect that the "defects in the casting [were] caused by the shrinking of the liquid metal as it freezes, causing voids or hollow spaces, and . . . hot tear[s]," and from his testimony describing the difference between casting and forging procedures, the jury could infer that such defects would not have existed in a bolt made of forged metal, as required by the regulation. The question whether the violation of a
Dr. Carl Floe, a professor of metallurgy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was called by the plaintiff to testify as an expert with reference to the anchor bolt involved in the plaintiff's fall and resulting injury. In direct testimony, after he described the bolt and various tests which he performed on it, he was asked a hypothetical question which asked him to assume various facts and then concluded: "[D]o you have an opinion with reasonable scientific certainty, based upon your education, training, experience and background in the metallurgy field, as to the cause of the breaking or failure of the bolt in question known as Exhibit 19?" The witness answered that he did have such an opinion and he was then asked what it was. His answer is set forth in full in the margin. [Note 6] Counsel for the
The basic issue is whether we are dealing with "[a] mere guess or conjecture by an expert witness in the form of a conclusion from basic facts that do not tend towards that conclusion any more than towards a contrary one [and therefore] has . . . no evidential value" (Ruschetti's Case, 299 Mass. 426, 431 [1938]; Hachadourian's Case, 340 Mass. 81, 85-86 [1959]; Berardi v. Menicks, 340 Mass. 396, 401-402 [1960]; Oberlander's Case, 348 Mass. 1, 5-6 [1964];
The club also argues that the answer of the expert witness should have been struck because it was not responsive to the question. The motion was to strike the entire answer, and it was not limited to any particular part which was claimed to be unresponsive. The first part of the answer was clearly responsive, and the court was not required to allow such a motion unless no part of the answer was responsive. Since "[t]he motion to strike was too broad, for it included competent as well as incompetent evidence," it was properly denied. Bryer v. P. S. Thorsen Co. of Mass. 327 Mass. 684, 687 (1951). See Commonwealth v. Zaidon, 253 Mass. 600, 602 (1925).
The club has urged on us the further argument that the answer of the expert should be struck because it "included evidence incompetent because based upon unwarranted assumptions." This ground is not now open to the club because it was not included in the grounds stated to the trial judge as the basis for the motion. "Having stated specifically the basis of . . . [its motion], the defendants, in fairness, ought not to be permitted to urge other grounds in this court." Kagan v. Levenson, 334 Mass. 100, 107 (1956). Draper v. Turner, 339 Mass. 616, 618 (1959). 2ff7e9595c
Comments