Specifying Nothing
This linguistic gem was part of an NPR newscast about the potential for a collision between earth and a a "near earth object" such as an asteroid."We...have actually found the majority of the known objects,"
 |
| Eros Asteroid, Photo by JPL/JHUAPL |
It would be shocking to know objects that had not been found. Or if we failed to know objects that had been found.
Yet figures of speech like this abound in building product technical literature. I once wrote that a water repellent "penetrates up to a quarter inch or more." While it sounds good as a marketing claim, it actually means nothing, since a material that lays on the surface would also satisfy this claim.
Recently, I saw a product claim that "our material meets ASTM E84." This says nothing, because a test conducted according to the standard (for surface burning characteristics of a material) yields a numeric value, not a pass/fail criterion that can be met.
Send me your favorite example of a product claim that doesn't say anything.
-------------
Post Script:
A comment on the NPR site refers to the title of the news segment:
"Asteroids Pose Less Risk To Earth Than Thought"
The commentator says, "I completely agree!!! Thought poses a huge amount of risk to the earth. Way more than asteroids."
I was taught that construction specifications must be written not only to say what was meant, but in a way that can not be misinterpreted.
Posts
4 comments:
Absolutely great post. We do sports flooring. For years the standard for sport has been the German International Norm testing. D.I.N. for short.
A din test varies by altitude and lab.
But American wood manufacturers frequently market their products as din certified, din approved, etc...
This is incorrect. I can din certify a piece of concrete. Something has a din rating of ___%
Hi Michael,
Too true! A pet peeve. I absolutely hate when product literature states that product X "meets such and such requirement", when it should state that it was "tested in accordance with... and the results of the testing are as follows:".
In my conspiracy-addled mind, I've wondered if this is done in innocent error, or if it is a calculated attempt to mislead and obfuscate. Maybe both...
For sports floors, you may be interested to know that DIN V 18032-2:2001 has been superseded by EN 14904:2006 Surfaces for sports areas. Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use. Specification. So those manufacturers are going to have to retest!
And EN 14904:2006 is quickly being replaced by ASTM F2772 - 09 Standard Specification for Athletic Performance Properties of Indoor Sports Floor Systems.
However, I consider the EN a better standard because the EN gives a ___% and the ASTM just places materials into 'classes' and every manufacturer has adjusted their products to just get over the minimum cusp of the next higher class.
The ASTM also lacks any sort of examination re: coefficient of friction which is important in volleyball or basketball where people are diving onto the floor.
Post a Comment