A thread for discussing "when is a Transformer not a Transformer" (technical and semantic)

[EFLImpudence]

OK. If that is the case, then

ALL transformers are 'electronic transformers' and only the modern (little plastic box) ones are correctly labelled - although, that being the case, there is no need to include 'electronic' in the name as they are just 'transformers'.

Winston is still wrong but for a different reason.

We still have to ask for exactly what we want, so what difference does it make and what is the discussion about?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does it work thanks to electrons? of, relating to, or utilizing devices constructed or working by the methods or principles of electronics? Yes. So yes. Very simple electronics, but yes.

Oh, I see.

Would it do any good to point out to you that if you are going to say "if it works thanks to electrons then it is electronic" then almost everything in the universe is electronic, including you, and that certainly everything on Earth, and the Earth itself, would be "electronic", and the descriptor would cease to have any value?

No - I thought not.

 

[bernardgreen]

Oh dear. We are all electronic human beings.

Axon terminal. Synaptic cleft. ... In the nervous system, a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron (or nerve cell) to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another neuron.

Or maybe we are just electrical human beings and not electronic human beings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1034826/

discusses electrical activity in the body and not electronic activity

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Would it do any good to point out to you that if you are going to say "if it works thanks to electrons then it is electronic" then almost everything in the universe is electronic,

No. Electrical circuits/devices are deliberate contrivances that explicitely exploit electrons by design. Everything else in the universe does not work because of electrons.

Winston is still wrong but for a different reason.
We still have to ask for exactly what we want, so what difference does it make and what is the discussion about?

I agree. Actually I'm not sure what exactly Winston was arguing. My argument was simply that I agree with his sentiment that it is a poor choice of name, and SMPS (or something equally unique) would have been better.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Winston argues that the original definition of transformer prevents anything else in the world being a transformer despite the fact that it is just a word.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No. Electrical circuits/devices are deliberate contrivances that explicitely exploit electrons by design. Everything else in the universe does not work because of electrons.

If I could manage to stop all movement and all functions of all the electrons in your body, do you think it would have any effect on you?

If I could manage to stop all movement and all functions of all the electrons in your car, do you think it would still work as it does now?

It does look, though, as if you have just backtracked from "Does it work thanks to electrons?". I wonder if that's because the case you are trying to construct is rickety and full of contradictions and inconsistencies?

I agree. Actually I'm not sure what exactly Winston was arguing.

He was arguing that electronic transformers do not exist.

My argument was simply that I agree with his sentiment that it is a poor choice of name, and a person or thing that transforms something. (or something equally unique) would have been better.

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, maybe it really doesn't matter.

But by your argument, all of what you call transformers should always have been called "electronic transformers", because they are deliberate contrivances that explicitly exploit electrons by design. and the word "transformer" had been used to a person or thing that transforms something for 300 years before what you call transformers were invented.

Why are you not agitating for that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Winston argues that the original definition of transformer prevents anything else in the world being a transformer despite the fact that it is just a word.

Well the original meaning of transformer is a person or thing that transforms something.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

If I could manage to stop all movement and all functions of all the electrons in your body, do you think it would have any effect on you?

Yes. But my body does not work because of electrons. It's not a device constructed or working by the methods or principles of electronics.

But by your argument, all of what you call transformers should always have been called "electronic transformers",

Yes they should; indeed they are. But the word 'electronic' is redundant and so almost never enunciated, in the same way we don't normally say "electronic capacitor" we just say "capacitor", or a painter doesn't say "paint brush" he just says "brush".

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Yes. But my body does not work because of electrons.

Actually it does. Without what electrons do your body would not work.

It's not a device constructed or working by the methods or principles of electronics.

Does it work thanks to electrons?

in an attempt to say that a transformer was an electronic device.

Yes they should; indeed they are. But the word 'electronic' is redundant and so almost never enunciated, in the same way we don't normally say "electronic capacitor" we just say "capacitor", or a painter doesn't say "paint brush" he just says "brush".

How can it be redundant when for 300 years prior to their invention transformer meant a person or thing that transforms something?

The point is, Gerry, your dislike is irrational, and all the "reasons" you put forward to try and prove that it is not simply disintegrate when subjected to scrutiny.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Actually it does. Without what electrons do your body would not work.

Natural phenomena do not work 'because of' anything. The concept of 'reasons' or 'purpose' are human inventions. Only a human-made thing can have 'purpose' and work 'because of' some deliberate exploitation.

How can it be redundant when for 300 years prior to their invention transformer meant a person or thing that transforms something?

You think a person talking about lighting or power supplies might assume the word 'transformer' is referring to 'a person who transforms'? You think a painter referring to a 'brush' might be referring to a fox's tail? Really?

 

[EFLImpudence]

You think a person talking about lighting or power supplies might assume the word 'transformer' is referring to 'a person who transforms'? You think a painter referring to a 'brush' might be referring to a fox's tail? Really?

Maybe not - but you are enhancing and verifying the point of the discussion and defeating Winston's obsession with earlier definitions.

So, Winston is not going back far enough.
His argument that transformers are only electromagnetic inductive voltage transformers, and nothing else which transforms voltage by other means is a transformer, is therefore flawed.
By his argument a transformer should be only a person or object which transforms something else therefore even the original electromagnetic inductive voltage transformers cannot be transformers.

Also, if the original definition of brush is a fox's tail, then he must think none of the other objects with that name can be brushes irrespective of any added descriptors.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

So, Winston is not going back far enough.
His argument that transformers are only electromagnetic inductive voltage transformers, and nothing else which transforms voltage by other means is a transformer, is therefore flawed.
By his argument a transformer should be only a person or object which transforms something else therefore even the original electromagnetic inductive voltage transformers cannot be transformers.

I dunno, did Winston really claim you couldn't have homophones or different meanings for the same word? Did he not mean that within the discipline of electronics a transformer is an electromagnetic inductive voltage transformer, and not an SMPS?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Lmao! My GF just saw me reading this thread and said "do people really argue about what a transformer is?"
And I replied "Yep! You know those big, heavy iron transformers I sell on eBay?" then I pointed at my laptop power supply and said "well some people call one of those an 'electronic transformer', but it works quite differently."
She looked thoughtful for a moment, then replied:
"...but that's not a transformer that's a... magic power box thingy"

Gentlemen, we have our new name!

 

[EFLImpudence]

That'll do me.

An MPBT.



Does that mean this

is not an MPBT.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Natural phenomena do not work 'because of' anything. The concept of 'reasons' or 'purpose' are human inventions. Only a human-made thing can have 'purpose' and work 'because of' some deliberate exploitation.

I'm sure I must at some point have read something more laughably, barkingly, ridiculous than that.

It's just that I can't remember when.

So the Sun does not give off heat and light because of the energy released within it from the fusion of hydrogen into helium?