soldering AAA batteries

[JohnW2]

As an example bulbs were never called lamps, a bulb went in a lamp and so did a mantle or wick.

Quite so. As I have frequently demonstrated and reported, if one goes into a shop and asks for a lamp for one's table lamp/standard lamp/inspection lamp/headlamp/whatever, one will usually get some very funny looks - and if one asks to be directed to where one can find lamps, one is most unlikely to end up looking at light bulbs

Plugs had pins and were male, sockets had holes and were female - there didn't used to be such a thing as a male socket (there have always been devices with pins and holes and for those exceptions were acceptable)

Again, agreed. Maybe one of the worst examples (since the confusion was created by those who should know better) is the "Type B" RCD!

Following on from John's post#75 like him I'm aware of 'phased arrays' and similar systems but I find adding additional terms counter productive.

Indeed. I have no problem with industries/disciplines having their own terminology and jargon (those I am involved with do), but it is not realistic or appropriate to expect people who are not trained professionals in the industries/disciplines to be aware of that terminology/jargon.

 

[SUNRAY]

Quite so. As I have frequently demonstrated and reported, if one goes into a shop and asks for a lamp for one's table lamp/standard lamp/inspection lamp/headlamp/whatever, one will usually get some very funny looks - and if one asks to be directed to where one can find lamps, one is most unlikely to end up looking at light bulbs

Again, agreed. Maybe one of the worst examples (since the confusion was created by those who should know better) is the "Type B" RCD!

Indeed. I have no problem with industries/disciplines having their own terminology and jargon (those I am involved with do), but it is not realistic or appropriate to expect people who are not trained professionals in the industries/disciplines to be aware of that terminology/jargon.

Having worked in/or adjacent to a variety of different trades, one has to understand the variations.
One of the classics during a building conversion to a night club was the conversation between the sound system installers (who I was contracted to) and the builders. The DJ booth was being built about 10-12ft above the floor level across a corner of the room - lets describe it as a new balcony. The builders had used these steel reinforced concrete slabs (rather like fence gravel boards) maybe 12x4inch and up to 12ft long slotted into the brick walls to form the floor and were partway through constructing the 3ft high timber studwork balcony wall.

The sound guy was asking how the record decks would be stable (a common approach was to build brick pillars on independant foundations from the ground up), there was something in the builders contract to provide a suitable structure but both the contrete slab floor and the timber wall were far too unstable.

The discussions were about a surface that didn't move. The builder was saying something to the effect of 'we'll come off the floor and build a frame' the sound guy interpreted 'coming off the floor' as isolated from it and accepted it. Of course the builder meant build a frame fixed to the floor slabs. I had to butt in and explain to both what was being said. Eventually a pair of RSJs were added just below the desk and touching only the record decks.

 

[ebee]

Yes it can be confusing sometimes.
My "lamps in lampholders" and "Bulbs in Gardens" is a bit tongue in cheeck. "Spurs" and , to a lesser extent "Ring mains" is a slightly more serious attempt to inform the uninitiated of the correct terms for clarity on a forum such as this otherwise this kind of thing can easily cause missunderstandings to creep in. It is not a serious dig to cause bad feeling but merely a gentle reminder for clarity.
If I`m speaking to somebody who has another discipline I try to use accurate expressions in their fields of expertise where possible if I am aware of it.

I think nearly all of us when speaking in general terms use language a bit loosely but then do make some attempt to be a little bit more correct for clarity, although we might sometimes deliberately use a slightly wrong term in order to employ a bit of humour as a friendly gesture ut, inevitably, it sometimes gets misconstrued as being a bit of a clever devil and that is sometimes where offense is taken yet not actually intended.

One person I know quite well has a regular habit of saying things back to front whimost are yetch changes the literal meaning.
Lots of people might use "Give it me!" whilst actually meaning "Give me it" or "Give it to me", fair enough common practice.
Often the incorrect meaning is easy to spot because taken literally it would not make much sense therefore you quickly realise it`s been uttered back to front.
The problem is though that on some occasions either/or could be meant in the context of that particular conversation and if I get that not as intended I am seen as deliberately nitpicking yet if I do get it wrong it is seen as intentional.

In this particular case it would be easier if all phrases were spoken back to front it would be far easier to follow the meaning but when most are but yet many are not then it can sometimes be quite difficult to follow.

 

[JohnW2]

... My "lamps in lampholders" and "Bulbs in Gardens" is a bit tongue in cheeck. "Spurs" and , to a lesser extent "Ring mains" is a slightly more serious attempt to inform the uninitiated of the correct terms for clarity on a forum such as this ...

Yes, fair enough, although there can sometimes be discussion about how sensible the 'correct terms' actually are. That is particularly the case with terms like 'lamps' and 'transformers' (or "Type B" RCDs) when words which have had decades-long established meanings suddenly come to be regarded as the 'correct' term for something different.

.... otherwise this kind of thing can easily cause missunderstandings to creep in. It is not a serious dig to cause bad feeling but merely a gentle reminder for clarity.

Indeed - although some of the over-sensitive amongst us don't seem to realise and/or accept that.

If I`m speaking to somebody who has another discipline I try to use accurate expressions in their fields of expertise where possible if I am aware of it.

Fair enough but, perhaps more to the point, also if (as is very commonly the case) they have no 'discipline'. I would think that the great majority of members of the general public do not have familiarity with the technical terminology/jargon of any specific discipline - in which case 'clear and unambiguous communication' with them really requires the use of 'everyday' words and language.

For all of my professional career, I have been involved with disciplines which have very extensive and complex ('correct') terminology/jargon, much of which is unfamiliar to and/or misunderstood by most of the general public, yet some parts of that career have involved extensive interaction and communication with members of the general public. In such a situation, there really is no sensible alternative to using 'everyday' language (even if 'technically incorrect').

I think nearly all of us when speaking in general terms use language a bit loosely but then do make some attempt to be a little bit more correct for clarity, ...

As above, in many situations being even 'a little more correct' can actually be detrimental to clarity.

 

[ebee]

If you try hard enough to be correct then you`ll always suceed in infuriating somebody anyway.
I used to know somebody who thout some PC people were too oversensitive, he was a clever fellow but very antiPC so in speeches he always endevoured to be as antiPC as possible purely to annoy them , he was very successfull at it. LOL.

 

[JohnW2]

If you try hard enough to be correct then you`ll always suceed in infuriating somebody anyway.

Quite so - and, in general (although I realise that some people disagree), my personal view is that 'trying hard to correct' (with the attendant risk of irritating or offending the 'more sensitive' amongst us) is arguably not really necessary if 'clear and unambiguous communication' can be achieved without being totally 'correct'.

In a few cases, there is good reason to try to educate people about aspects of 'correct terminology' that can lead to (possibly dangerous) misunderstandings. I would suggest that one of the most common examples is "Low Voltage", which a high proportion of the general public take to mean 'harmless', 'safe to touch' or even 'safe enough for one's children to play with'!

I used to know somebody who thout some PC people were too oversensitive ....

One problem is that many people undoubtedly feel that some aspects of alleged 'PC' that some people are sensitive about are just plain silly!

... he was a clever fellow but very antiPC so in speeches he always endevoured to be as antiPC as possible purely to annoy them , he was very successfull at it. LOL.

I think I know his twin brother

 

[SUNRAY]

In many languages the phrases are back to front and reduce (or increased) words used, for example in German one would say "I understand not'

 

[spile]

Misuse I often see in forums…
“Ampage” when they mean current.
Confusing power and capacity - as in “that battery is more powerful” because it has a higher Ah rating.

 

[SUNRAY]

Misuse I often see in forums…
“Ampage” when they mean current.

Like this?:

Confusing power and capacity - as in “that battery is more powerful” because it has a higher Ah rating.

Ah except a Higher Ah rating - particularly in automotive batteries - usually means a higher current capability too.

 

[morqthana]

Confusing power and capacity - as in “that battery is more powerful” because it has a higher Ah rating.

People do not talk in precisely defined technical terms.

If Battery B can do more work than Battery A then it is far from unreasonable to say that it is more powerful.

 

[spile]

People do not talk in precisely defined technical terms.

If Battery B can do more work than Battery A then it is far from unreasonable to say that it is more powerful.

Which can lead to ambiguity. Re your second sentence, it ignores time so …If Battery B can do more work in the same amount of time as Battery A, then it is more powerful.

 

[robinbanks]

The amount of work done by the battery in any given time is fully dependent on the position of the “day work/price work” switch

 

[JohnW2]

.... the “day work/price work” switch

Could you perhaps elucidate?

 

[dowronger]

The amount of work done by the battery in any given time is fully dependent on the position of the “day work/price work” switch

Depends if battery A or B is a lesure or cold cranking type battery. meaning how thick the plates inside are

 

[robinbanks]

It’s a joke

Cordless drills typically have a two speed gearbox. When the tradesman works on price, he uses the high speed gear to get done sooner and hence make more profit. When he works on a day rate he uses the low speed gear to elongate the job and make more profit