Two appliances in one plug

[sparkticus]

This reminds me of Anatomy. Since its a pretty 'static' discipline (or, at least, one which evolves incredibly slowly), in order to justify their existance, academic anatomists seem to spend much of their time sitting on committes that regularly re-name everything - seemingly just to make sure that earlier generations become confused!

In doing so are they dispensing with the many of the latin and greek names?

A few years ago, I executed a long term interest and studied anatomy & physiology. I went on a part time course which contained sessions of regional anatomy. It was absolutely fascinating making me realise that living organisms (human and other) are "the" most complex and sophisticated machines! Of particular interest to me was the peripheral nervous system and the endocrine system. Even a cadaver seemed to be more than the sum of its parts. I'm still trying to rationalise that point which seems more than philosophical to me.

 

[Paul_C]

So if you come to my neck of the woods you'll be in step and everyone else will be out of step will they.

But just because many people have somehow taken to using a nonsensical, misleading, or just plain incorrect term doesn't mean that somebody who shuns that modern adoption and instead sticks with the conventional, long-standing, logical, or correct term is wrong.

The misuse of "RJ45" is another prime example which has been mentioned here before. "DB9" is another.

 

[JohnW2]

[The mathematicians too - did you know that today is τ Day?

....and Chemists. I understood ferrous/ferric, cuprous/cupric, bicarbonate etc. etc., and didn't regard them as 'broken'. However, chemical academia decided to 'mend' them, as a result of which my offspring don't understand what they mean, and I have to think carefully in order to translate their chemical language into mine.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps 'wrong' was not the correct word to have chosen but I cant think of a more appropriate one in this situation, otherwise I'm in total agreement with your comments. I think other plugs are not described as plugtops because generally they are used in a 'professional' environment [ie non domestic] such as theatres.

If, for some obscure reason, the decided that 'plug' was no longer an acceptable word for BS1363 plugs (although it apparently remained OK for all other plugs), they might at least have chosen a replacement word which made at least a vestige of sense - maybe 'plugfuse', 'fuseplug', 'fusedplug', 'Angloplug', 'Britplug', 'UKplug' etc. etc.!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

When wall-warts appeared, they were known as "plug-top power supplies", on account of them being built onto or into the top of a plug. Enough people who were not good at thinking started believing that "If this is a plug-top power supply then that must be a plug-top"....

Now that's the most sensible suggestion as to the possible explanation for the non-sensible word that I've heard. Good lateral thinking!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Paul_C]

I understood ferrous/ferric, cuprous/cupric, bicarbonate etc. etc., and didn't regard them as 'broken'.

Dare I ask, what terms are they trying to use as replacements?

 

[OwainDIYer]

I understood ferrous/ferric, cuprous/cupric, bicarbonate etc. etc., and didn't regard them as 'broken'.

Dare I ask, what terms are they trying to use as replacements?

Probably ferus and kuprus.

A chemistry set with Kopa Sulfate just isn't the same as blue vitriol or chalcanthite.

 

[echoes]

They'll be changing Finisterre to Fitzroy, Jif to Cif next. And what's all this 'new pence' about? Why can't they just leave things alone? I will be writing a strongly worded letter to Mr Wilson.

 

[Paul_C]

I will be writing a strongly worded letter to Mr Wilson.

I hope you'll be using proper quarto or foolscap paper, and not that funny A4 stuff.

 

[JohnW2]

In doing so are they dispensing with the many of the latin and greek names?

No, not really, just a few gestures in terms of 'anglicising' some of the Latin - but that hardly notices. Indeed, even when new names are created using 'modern medical English', they still look like Latin (or ocacsionally Greek), because nearly all the words in a medical dictionary are very closely derived from those languages.

A few years ago, I executed a long term interest and studied anatomy & physiology. I went on a part time course which contained sessions of regional anatomy. It was absolutely fascinating making me realise that living organisms (human and other) are "the" most complex and sophisticated machines! Of particular interest to me was the peripheral nervous system and the endocrine system. Even a cadaver seemed to be more than the sum of its parts. I'm still trying to rationalise that point which seems more than philosophical to me.

Very true. The thing which has always amazed me is that such an incredibly complex machine has managed to evolve out of the earliest multi-cellular organisms over a period of 'only' around 500 million years. I know it sounds like a very long time but, assuming one broadly accepts the concepts of Darwinian evolution, that has all happened as a result of a 'trail and error' process, involving usually minute random changes followed by 'survival of the fittest'. Think about it - do you imagine that anyone (or group of people) could design a human being by starting with a microscopical organism and going through a 'trial and error' process of minute changes (most of which would be rejected), and achieve that in 'only', say 50 million 'steps'? As you suggest, these subjects get as close to philosophy as anything else!

... however, I fear this counts as rather severe thread drift

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

I understood ferrous/ferric, cuprous/cupric, bicarbonate etc. etc., and didn't regard them as 'broken'.

Dare I ask, what terms are they trying to use as replacements?

It seems that they changed from using words to numbers to indicate valency (which now seems to be called 'valence'!) at least a couple of decades ago. Hence, my understanding is:

• FeO (which I call ferrous oxide) is now Iron-2-oxide
  Fe2O3 (which I call ferric oxide) is now Iron-3-oxide

NaHCO3 (which I call sodium bicarbonate - which admittedly was always a bit of a misnomer) is now Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate - and similar changes have been made to many other inorganic compounds of that type.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[echoes]

FeO (which I call ferrous oxide) is now Iron-2-oxide
Fe2O3 (which I call ferric oxide) is now Iron-3-oxide

Is it not Iron II oxide / Iron III oxide, or have they changed to Arabic from the Roman numerals? I am genuinely not being pedantic or flippant!

 

[sparkticus]

assuming one broadly accepts the concepts of Darwinian evolution, that has all happened as a result of a 'trail and error' process, involving usually minute random changes followed by 'survival of the fittest'. Think about it - do you imagine that anyone (or group of people) could design a human being by starting with a microscopical organism and going through a 'trial and error' process of minute changes (most of which would be rejected), and achieve that in 'only', say 50 million 'steps'? As you suggest, these subjects get as close to philosophy as anything else!

Oh yes, I accept the concepts of Darwin, in fact, it is difficult not to do so if you study the subject in any depth. It makes perfect sense too me as does the natural filtration process which results in successful characteristics best suited to survival within a given environment. Though the fact that I work as an electrician and was not born with an integral faraday cage makes me wish that evolution had a sales, marketing and complaints dept.

... however, I fear this counts as rather severe thread drift

Yes, I will reluctantly drop this subject now before I am "sieved out" by a phenotype filter

 

[echoes]

I will be writing a strongly worded letter to Mr Wilson.

I hope you'll be using proper quarto or foolscap paper, and not that funny A4 stuff.

Absolutely! Now where's my blotting paper...

 

[JohnW2]

FeO (which I call ferrous oxide) is now Iron-2-oxide
Fe2O3 (which I call ferric oxide) is now Iron-3-oxide

Is it not Iron II oxide / Iron III oxide, or have they changed to Arabic from the Roman numerals? I am genuinely not being pedantic or flippant!

Oh, you may well be right. I only discovered the chage when trying to help my daughters with GCSE Science, about 15 years ago, and haven't really thought about it much since.

Hang on ... I'll ask Mr Google .... Yes, you're almost right ... it seems to be:

• Iron (II) oxide and Iron (III) oxide

... but I got the idea right!

Kind Regards, John