As I was saying

[EFLImpudence]

It was sarcasm.

Bernard's argument is that drivers are constant current devices therefore none of your examples can be drivers.
This is clearly not the case therefore Bernard cannot be correct.

As for LED drivers, what does the term actually denote? What does driving current mean?
Surely it just means controlling or maintaining a specific current therefore they could just as easily be called current controllers or current maintainers.
As the same can be said about devices which control or maintain a specific voltage then there can be no reason for these not to also be drivers.

To chose a perfectly ordinary English word with several meanings already (driver, transformer, converter, inverter) for a device, cannot limit its usage to the original device, or specific method of operation of a device, when later devices which do the same thing by a different method are introduced.



As a matter of interest, surely inverter must be the daftest and most random.
If you look at the definition of invert, there is no mention of anything electrical, yet inverter brings the definition of an electrical device one would expect with 'something that inverts'.

Is AC really upside-down DC?

 

[JohnW2]

Bernard's argument is that drivers are constant current devices therefore none of your examples can be drivers. This is clearly not the case therefore Bernard cannot be correct.

If Bernard was suggesting that "driver", per se, implied 'constant current', then he would clearly be incorrect, even by his own admission - since he has, for example, reecently mentioned bus drivers which (in an electronic sense!) are certainly not constant-current devices. It seems to be "LED driver" which he seems to think implies constant-current - but, even if it 'should' (and I'm far from convinced even of that), it would be far too iffy to make that assumption.

As a matter of interest, surely inverter must be the daftest and most random. .... Is AC really upside-down DC?

Yes, I've often wondered about how that came about - and I suppose it is an example of why I am rather fascinated by "evolution of language", whereas you appear to just despise it

Interestingly, most of the mainstream dictionaries give only the electrical (DC-AC {or DC-DC} conversion, with or without voltage change) and electronic/logic (analogue or digital inverters - which sort-of do 'true inversion') definitions, without any reference to "invert", and sometimes the mathematical meaning (e.g. relating to matrix inversion, which is 'true inversion').

As far as I can make out, the most common explanation of the derivation of the word is that a DC-AC inverter "inverts" the polarity of the output once every half cycle (of output waveform) - but I don't know how true that is.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I suppose it is an example of why I am rather fascinated by "evolution of language", whereas you appear to just despise it

Yes, I do - because it is the result of mistakes due to ignorance.

How can it be otherwise unless someone decides to do it on purpose for some mysterious perverse reason?

Should I invent an electric device, I will call it a chimney.