Wiring from transformer melted?!

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course not ... Because it is not edible or even eatable; it merely has the same name.

But according to you it is a sausage. You said that if the manufacturer called it a sausage then it would be a sausage.

if, because of its shape, the manufacturer called it a sausage then that is what it would be.

So (assuming you eat sausages), why would you not eat it? It's a sausage.

If you bought a sausage roll, and it contained one of those wrapped in flaky pastry, would you think that was OK?
If not, why not?

As above.

That makes no sense - you have assured us that it is, in fact, a sausage.

I don't think it is difficult to understand that some completely different things have the same name - let alone some things with the same function.

Not without a proper framework for definitions, and you've said that redefinition isn't necessary

They don't have to redefine.
Even if it did not have the same function, that would still be its name.

So you think that without a redefinition of {a word}, if someone simply calls something {a word} then it does genuinely become {a word}.

As per above, if a handful of them were stewed with apple, and served in a dish covered with pastry, would you eat it?
If not, why not?

Because it it not edible; it just has the same name.

Since you seem to be unable to grasp the idea of the difference between a product name and a name describing the nature of an item, we are left with only your clearly stated opinion that simply calling it a blackberry makes it a blackberry.

So assuming you eat apple and blackberry pie, why would you not eat a pie made with some of those blackberries from BlackBerry Limited?

Are you saying something which transforms is not transforming?

No - I'm saying that unless the word transformer is officially redefined something which transforms voltage is not necessarily a transformer.

A transformer is an electrical device that transfers energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction.

A varying current in the transformer's primary winding creates a varying magnetic flux in the core and a varying magnetic field impinging on the secondary winding. This varying magnetic field at the secondary induces a varying electromotive force (emf) or voltage in the secondary winding.

 

[JohnW2]

But an electric device which (helps) create light, is only called a 'bulb' if it looks like the kind of bulb that gardeners plant in the soil.

I don't think you'll find any definition (of 'light bulb' or 'electric bulb') which says that. There have always been light bulbs that bear little physical resemblance to a gardener's bulb - and there are also countless examples of things which have changed out of all recognition (in appearance, functionality or whatever) since they were originally named (with names that are still in use) on the basis of what their predecessors were like decades or centuries ago,

Although some call flourescent tubes 'bulbs', which to me sounds stupid!

As you say, overt fluorescent tubes were never generally called 'bulbs', and nor are they usually now called 'lamps'. I agree that CFLs introduce complications, but, not the least because they often resemble other bulbs/lamps (even gardeners' bulbs in some cases), they have generally been called bulbs or lamps, not 'fluorescent tubes'.

So what it the alternative to 'lamp' if that is (in your opinion) 'daft'?

My point is that there was never a need for an alternative (to 'bulb'). What I think is daft is (a) that someone felt it necessary to replace/change a very well-established word that everyone used and understood (and which most people continue to use), and (b) that the word was 'changed' to one which already had (and still has) a very well-established, but totally different meaning. Try going into Halfords and asking for a 'lamp' for your 'headlamp', or into a shop and asking for a 'lamp' for your table/ standard/ heat/ inspection/ whatever lamp!

Whatever, as I implied, if one adopts BAS's view that use of a word to have a 'new meaning' is 'wrong' unless/until the definition is 'updated' (e.g. in dictionaries), then use of 'lamp' to refer to 'light bulb' would appear to be 'wrong', at least for the time being.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I know you understand really but I will continue; it's fun.

Of course not ... Because it is not edible or even eatable; it merely has the same name.

But according to you it is a sausage. You said that if the manufacturer called it a sausage then it would be a sausage.

It would but that does not transform it into a bag of offal.

if, because of its shape, the manufacturer called it a sausage then that is what it would be.

So (assuming you eat sausages), why would you not eat it? It's a sausage.

Because it is not an edible sausage.

If you bought a sausage roll, and it contained one of those wrapped in flaky pastry, would you think that was OK?
If not, why not?

As above.

That makes no sense - you have assured us that it is, in fact, a sausage.

Though not an edible type.

I don't think it is difficult to understand that some completely different things have the same name - let alone some things with the same function.

Not without a proper framework for definitions, and you've said that redefinition isn't necessary.

An additional definition would be added at a later time - literally.

They don't have to redefine.
Even if it did not have the same function, that would still be its name.

So you think that without a redefinition of {a word}, if someone simply calls something {a word} then it does genuinely become {a word}.

Yes.
You do not like my example of the blackberry so what about the hot dog?
Would you take it for a walk?

As per above, if a handful of them were stewed with apple, and served in a dish covered with pastry, would you eat it?
If not, why not?

Because it it not edible; it just has the same name.

Since you seem to be unable to grasp the idea of the difference between a product name and a name describing the nature of an item, we are left with only your clearly stated opinion that simply calling it a blackberry makes it a blackberry.
So assuming you eat apple and blackberry pie, why would you not eat a pie made with some of those blackberries from BlackBerry Limited?

Does that really require an answer?

Are you saying something which transforms is not transforming?

No - I'm saying that unless the word transformer is officially redefined something which transforms voltage is not necessarily a transformer.

Perhaps later we will have:
Electronic transformer - a device which contains traditional transformer(s) and electronics achieving the same result as traditional transformers.

A transformer is an electrical device that transfers energy between two or more circuits through electromagnetic induction.

A varying current in the transformer's primary winding creates a varying magnetic flux in the core and a varying magnetic field impinging on the secondary winding. This varying magnetic field at the secondary induces a varying electromotive force (emf) or voltage in the secondary winding.

How does that square with the toy of the same name?


Is it not indisputably a fact that the noun for something which transforms, itself or something else, is transformer?

 

[stillp]

Rather than Wikipedia, try an authoritative definition; the IEC:
http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=151-13-42

 

[JohnW2]

Rather than Wikipedia, try an authoritative definition; the IEC: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=151-13-42[/QUOTE]
Thanks - interesting definition. I suspect that "without change of frequency" will result in some debate, but the lack of any reference to inductive coupling or wirewound devices is interesting.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I know you understand really

I do.

You don't - you have no concept of what meaning is.

but I will continue

I won't. [EDIT] Not with you, anyway [/EDIT]

it's fun.

But not a joke, and not trivial, which is how you are treating it.

 

[Chris61]

Thanks - interesting definition. I suspect that "without change of frequency" will result in some debate, but the lack of any reference to inductive coupling or wirewound devices is interesting

I think the frequency reference is to differentiate a common or garden wirewound transformer from a switched mode power supply (which is what an LED driver effectively is).

Having said that, I don't think calling an LED driver a transformer is wrong, just as it's okay to call a lamp a bulb as long as everybody understands what is meant.

Language evolves...

 

[JohnW2]

Thanks - interesting definition. I suspect that "without change of frequency" will result in some debate, but the lack of any reference to inductive coupling or wirewound devices is interesting

I think the frequency reference is to differentiate a common or garden wirewound transformer from a switched mode power supply (which is what an LED driver effectively is).

I'm sure that is what some people here will argue. However, as far as the input and output terminals are concerned, and AC/AC SMPSU does not have to 'change frequency'. The main debate/discussion I was anticipating related to the frequency changes which will inevitably occur, internally, within an SMPSU, even if the output frequency is the same as the input frequency. I suppose I have to agree that describing a SMPSU with a DC output as a 'transformer' is perhaps pushing things a little, and even the IEC definition wouldn't encompass that, since the frequency of the output is zero!

Having said that, I don't think calling an LED driver a transformer is wrong, just as it's okay to call a lamp a bulb as long as everybody understands what is meant.

I have to say that I would put that last bit the other way round - i.e. "... it's okay to call a bulb a lamp so long as everyone understands what is meant" - and, as you know, I don't believe that anything approaching 'everyone' does understand the 'modern' meaning of 'lamp'. On the contrary, if you go into, say, B&Q (or anywhere similar) and ask to be directed to where the 'lamps' are and I'd be pretty surprised if you were directed to a display of 'light bulbs'!

Language evolves...

It does, and that is totally healthy. In the case of lamps/bulbs, however, I do wonder why such a seemingly 'unnecessary' change was thought to be necessary or desirable. Evolution of language usually results from progressive changes in 'common usage' - but I am very far from convinced that, other than in 'specialist' circles, use of the word 'lamp' to refer to a light bulb has become 'common usage'. This particular change seems to have been imposed by a small minority onto a majority who are largely still using the 'old' word!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incandescent lamp

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fluorescent lamp

 

[Chris61]

I've been dealing with IEC standards for many years now so I have a little insight, not much but some. The standards writers seem to be specialists in not making themselves very clear - it's most frustrating when trying to interpret things. If they wrote explanations or rationales it would be a great help but this only seems to happen in the medical testing world.

I'm pretty sure the frequency thing refers to what goes on inside a SMPS, not a change in frequency between the I/P and O/P.

I've never heard a SMPS called a transformer before but I've heard an LED driver called one.

I've always called light bulbs, light bulbs. Until now. Now part of my job is looking after a lighting lab, I call them lamps. When I was in B&Q looking for LED lamps, my wife asked me what I was on about and said they were called bulbs. She calls a luminaire a lamp. I have to speak two languages now...

 

[JohnW2]

I've been dealing with IEC standards for many years now so I have a little insight, not much but some. The standards writers seem to be specialists in not making themselves very clear - it's most frustrating when trying to interpret things. If they wrote explanations or rationales it would be a great help but this only seems to happen in the medical testing world.

That's interesting, but they ought to realise that there is little point in defining something unless one does so clearly and unambiguously!

I'm pretty sure the frequency thing refers to what goes on inside a SMPS, not a change in frequency between the I/P and O/P.

You may be right - given the lack of clarity, it's really anyone's guess. I have to say that my guess would have been the opposite - that it regarded the device as a 'black box', so that 'no frequency change' would relate to the difference between what went in and what came out - but, as above, who knows?!

I've never heard a SMPS called a transformer before but I've heard an LED driver called one.

Are we perhaps thinking differently about what constitutes an 'SMPS'. There are countless 'Electronic Transformers' (AC/AC) out there - for use with ELV halogen lamps/bulbs etc.

I've always called light bulbs, light bulbs. Until now. Now part of my job is looking after a lighting lab, I call them lamps. When I was in B&Q looking for LED lamps, my wife asked me what I was on about and said they were called bulbs. She calls a luminaire a lamp. I have to speak two languages now...

Indeed, but the language your wife speaks is, I believe, the language which the vast majority of the general public still speak ... which is really the basis of my point!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I suppose I have to agree that describing a SMPSU with a DC output as a 'transformer' is perhaps pushing things a little, and even the IEC definition wouldn't encompass that, since the frequency of the output is zero!

What about inverters?

A diode will change a voltage without changing the frequency. Is it a transformer?

Language evolves...

It does, and that is totally healthy. In the case of lamps/bulbs, however, I do wonder why such a seemingly 'unnecessary' change was thought to be necessary or desirable.

We already had the term "power supply", which worked perfectly well.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I'm pretty sure the frequency thing refers to what goes on inside a SMPS, not a change in frequency between the I/P and O/P.

Like John, that's not what I think it means.

I've never heard a SMPS called a transformer before but I've heard an LED driver called one.

Dimmable ones do change the frequency.

I've always called light bulbs, light bulbs. Until now. Now part of my job is looking after a lighting lab, I call them lamps. When I was in B&Q looking for LED lamps, my wife asked me what I was on about and said they were called bulbs. She calls a luminaire a lamp. I have to speak two languages now...

We can probably guess what she calls ELV lamps....

 

[JohnW2]

I suppose I have to agree that describing a SMPSU with a DC output as a 'transformer' is perhaps pushing things a little, and even the IEC definition wouldn't encompass that, since the frequency of the output is zero!

What about inverters?

If you mean DC->AC ones, then that's the converse of an AC->DC SMPSU - in both cases not satisfying the IEC definition of a transformer, since frequency is zero on one side, non-zero on the other.

A diode will change a voltage without changing the frequency. Is it a transformer?

So will appropriate arrangements of resistors, capacitors or inductors. I would have said that any of those things would probably satisfy that IEC definition, as written, of a 'transformer'. It is clearly a poor/inadequate definition.

In the case of lamps/bulbs, however, I do wonder why such a seemingly 'unnecessary' change was thought to be necessary or desirable.

We already had the term "power supply", which worked perfectly well.

Yes, I take your point, except that, in the case of transformers, the general public probably didn't feel the need to change to a different 'perfectly good' term, since they regarded something which turned 230V into 12V for their lights to be a 'black box', the inner workings of which did not concern them (and which many would not have known). To them, that black box was 'a transformer' and the fact that the technology changed did not really interest or concern them, or make them feel the need to change what they called it. There are countless examples of things, the innards of which have changed out of all recognition over time, but which are still called by their original name.

As you know, this is all in some senses Devil's Advocate stuff for me. I personally don't like boxes full of electronics being called 'transformers', any more than I like electricians talking about 'continuity testing' when they are talking about the quantitative measurement of resistance. Both make me shiver a little, but in both cases I acknowledge that such is what is happening to language!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

A diode will change a voltage without changing the frequency. Is it a transformer?

So will appropriate arrangements of resistors, capacitors or inductors. I would have said that any of those things would probably satisfy that IEC definition, as written, of a 'transformer'. It is clearly a poor/inadequate definition.

So according to the IEC, 1 diode is a transformer, but 4 diodes are not.

Well - that all makes perfect sense.