A thread for discussing "when is a Transformer not a Transformer" (technical and semantic)
- Thread starter bernardgreen
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Are we to assume that you do not like the term "bus conductor", possibly because they are not made of (particularly) conductive material?
One thing which nobody will assume is that your post was an intelligent contribution to the debate over whether the makers of ELV lighting supplies should be allowed to call them "electronic transformers". Unless, of course, it was meant to be yet another example of how a word can have a modifier attached to it in order to change or restrict its meaning?
electronic cigarette
electronic book
electronic mail
guinea pig
bus conductor
electronic book
electronic mail
guinea pig
bus conductor
I wonder if we went through all of the (thousands? millions?) of these sorts of terms used in English, would we find that the ONLY one you refuse to accept is "electronic transformer"?
Was there a reason that you missed definition #1 in that?
Thos are poor analogies because none of them started out as electronic things. Adding the word 'electronic' created a whole new version of that thing.
But transformers already are electronic. Adding the word 'electronic' tells you nothing new; its a pleonasm. It doesn't distinguish reliably between a transformer which is an electronic component, and an SMPS. It's like saying 'electronic capacitor'. Why does it mean? A capacitor? More than a capacitor? If so, is it functionally identical, or just kinda similar in some ways but not others? Sure, the name is linguistically correct, but at best it is uninformative, and at worst misleading.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
You circled a definition like it proved something. So did I. Fair's fair!
Neither did the electronic transformer.
Precisely what has happened to the original voltage transformer causing confusion to those who have trouble with the meaning of words.
What? Yes it did.
An electronic transformer is... an electronic transformer. Just like the old-fashioned electronic transformers. You see the problem?
Agreed (did anyone even question thhis?). But they'd be much less likely to assume they're the same thing, if they have more unique names. They'd be morely likely to find out more information before forging ahead with either device. As the Americans say, they would "get a clue".
Last edited:
The original electromagnetic induction voltage transformers were/are not electronic.
Did you not read the definition?
You will assume whatever is most confrontational. If we send someone round to paint your local post office would you sit and watch the paint dry... and would you say the post office was drying and the paint wasn't.
You cannot say that a resistor is only a specific item but there are other things that resist which therefore are also resistors.
Please take your complaints about the meanings of words to the editors or lexicographers working for the publishers of dictionaries, for I can do nothing about them.
Yes they are. All electrical circuit components are electronic by definition*"of, relating to, or utilizing devices constructed or working by the methods or principles of electronics".
*except perhaps for some rare gas components that operate only by ionic conduction? Hmm, debatable.
electronic or electrical ?
No, they aren't.
If a transformer is 'anything that transforms' then electronic is 'anything that works by electrons'. We can both play that game!
Last edited:
Have you looked at the definition of notion?DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
