Use of the word "transformer"

[JohnW2]

I am attempting to start a new, more appropriate, thread for the discussion about the way in which the word “transformer” is being used. In this thread, after a lot of previous exchanges, I wrote:

".....As I think many/most of us actually believe (but few seem prepared to admit), IMO winston is right - but I just wish he would stop going on about it (and the other bees in his bonnet), since it's very tedious/annoying, confuses many of the forum members and is never going to achieve anything. However, given the very-long-established meaning of "transformer" in the fields of engineering and electronics, it really made no sense for some parts of industry to start using the word (concurrently) to refer to something else in those same fields, particularly since perfectly reasonable well-established terminology (PSU) was available. I've been doing things with PSUs, some of them 'switch-mode', for decades, but (no matter what dictionaries may say) I'd never come across anyone even dreaming of calling them "transformers" before the lighting industry started doing that (and it has 'spread' a bit since).

However, as I said, absolutely nothing is gained by winston re-starting this discussion at every possible opportunity. No-one is going to reverse these (IMO regrettable) changes in language which have arisen."

 

[JohnW2]

... in reply, EFLIimpudence then wrote:

“I'm surprised at you, John, saying that when you have frequently defended the actual misuse of ordinary words on the grounds that the language 'evolves' and, in any case, we know what they mean.

Yet in terms of manufacturing and technology progression, a name should only apply to the design and method in use when it was invented.

So, it may literally be a transformer but due to evolution of the language but not engineering, we shall never know.”

.....

 

[JohnW2]

... to which I responded”

I'm surprised at you, John, saying that when you have frequently defended the actual misuse of ordinary words on the grounds that the language 'evolves' and, in any case, we know what they mean.

This one is different. In this case, we are not talking about just 'evolution' of language (e.g. coming to use a previously existing word, 'incorrectly' by past definitions, to refer to a wire-wound transformer). Instead, we are talking about inventing a new meaning of a technical term whilst the old meaning (in the same technical field) is still used and required - a certain recipe for confusion. In other words, we do not necessarily "know what someone means" when they talk of a "transformer".

Essentially it is introducing a potentially unfortunate ambiguity - in the past, I could have walked into a supplier and asked for a "230V to 12V 50VA transformer" and would have known exactly what I would be getting but, today, I would not. Conversely, if the meaning of "transformer" you are defending came to be fully accepted, I could ask for "a transformer" when I wanted an SMPSU, and be surprised when I was given a wire-wound component. Ambiguities are not good.

However, as you know, I am a pragmatist, and I do not believe that we (or winston) has any choice but to accept that what has happened is very unlikley to ever be reversed, so we have to accept it (and the ambiguities it creates). However, unlike you (albeit, as I've recently written, probably only in the face of 'provocation'), I would not attempt to defend or justify the use of words that has arisen, even if I have to 'accept' it. However, in the context of domestic lighting, wire-wound transformers are far from extinct - so, again, in this particular case, we do not necessarily "know what they mean" when a poster here talks about their 'lighting transformer'.”

 

[JohnW2]

... and then EFLI replied”

... in the past, I could have walked into a supplier and asked for a "230V to 12V 50VA transformer" and would have known exactly what I would be getting but, today, I would not.

Yes, because that's all there was and because a word with a huge range of uses was misappropriated to mean a specific object (or perhaps they used to be called voltage transformers or electrical transformers or electrical induction transformers, I don't know but, if that were the case, then you are using an inappropriate abbreviation) Like:
Go into Curry's and ask for a "telly"; will the assistant take you to the 'phone display? We get used to things; it doesn't mean they are actually correct. Go into the grocer's and ask for an apple; might the grocer ask you what kind you want? You wouldn't go into the baker's and just ask for a loaf.

Conversely, if the meaning of "transformer" you are defending came to be fully accepted, I could ask for "a transformer" when I wanted an SMPSU, and be surprised when I was given a wire-wound component. Ambiguities are not good.

So what? Things have evolved. You will now have to qualify your request and be specific about the type of transformer you require. Ask for what you want.

... in the context of domestic lighting, wire-wound transformers are far from extinct - so, again, in this particular case, we do not necessarily "know what they mean" when a poster here talks about their 'lighting transformer'.

Why would you expect to know what they mean if they do not give the correct or enough information?I do not know what people mean when they mistakenly say socket when they mean switch when asking questions on the forum.”

 

[JohnW2]

... in the past, I could have walked into a supplier and asked for a "230V to 12V 50VA transformer" and would have known exactly what I would be getting but, today, I would not.

Yes, because that's all there was and because a word with a huge range of uses was misappropriated to mean a specific object ...

Oh, so are you’re now saying that that it was the ‘incorrect’ adoption ( think some 150+ years ago) of the word “transformer” to refer to the wire-wound component that was the primary cause of ‘the problem’?

Go into Curry's and ask for a "telly"; will the assistant take you to the 'phone display? We get used to things; it doesn't mean they are actually correct. Go into the grocer's and ask for an apple; might the grocer ask you what kind you want? You wouldn't go into the baker's and just ask for a loaf.

As I said, the problem with the case we’re talking about is that it ‘undermines’ (and ‘ambiguates’) the previous and long-established meaning of the word (in the same field), in a way which is not the case with “telly”, “apple” or “loaf”. “Telly” (and “TV”) is simply an abbreviated colloquial term that has evolved. Although, as you go on to say, increased choice may require that further qualification is now required (would actually also have often been required in the past), “television”, “apple” and “loaf” still have the same meanings that they have always had (within their respective fields). None of those words had previously come to have (for over a century) established meanings that related to just one specific type of TV, apple or loaf.

... in the context of domestic lighting, wire-wound transformers are far from extinct - so, again, in this particular case, we do not necessarily "know what they mean" when a poster here talks about their 'lighting transformer'.

Why would you expect to know what they mean if they do not give the correct or enough information?

As above, evolution of choice may mean that further information is now needed for clarification, but the ‘previously well-established term’ (which might have required additional information - even ‘back then’) should not really have come to (possibly, or maybe commonly) refer to something clearly different from what that term used to mean.

I do not know what people mean when they mistakenly say socket when they mean switch when asking questions on the forum.

That’s simply an error (accidental or deliberate), which is a totally different matter.

I may be wrong, but I still remain of the opinion that, had winston not repeatedly raised the issue, it would probably never have occurred to you to be defending/justifying the use of “transformer” to refer to a SMPSU

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

You have agreed with Winston that an English word "transformer" shall be limited to one specific design of apparatus, when invented, which does the same thing as another newer apparatus when that word simply means something which changes (something else or itself) and can clearly, equally be applied to all.

Apart from the English definition, which is my argument and dislike, limiting a word to the original design means that:

National Express have no coaches,
London Transport has no buses.
No one has a printer.
Electric cars are not cars.
Flat screen TVs are not Television Receivers.
Modern boats are not yachts.
There are no electric fires.
Very few telephones exist

etc. etc.

Actually, telephone is a good example.
According to you and winston, a telephone must be a fairly large (bakelite?) machine with mouth and ear trumpets containing magnetic diaphragms and switches for transmitting sound over long distances.
Therefore none of us has a telephone today (maybe one in W2 tower, I suppose).
Yet the word merely means 'distant sound' and so, obviously, applies to anything which does the same job.



There are also ridiculous names coined by the ignorant.
What about "quad bike"?

Plenty more.

 

[bernardgreen]

containing magnetic diaphragms

before the transistor was there to amplify the weak signals from a magnetic microphone there were carbon granules compressed by a carbon button attached to a diapragm that was vibrated by the pressure waves created by the source of the sound.

That said an un-amplified magnetic microphone could create enough audio power to be heard in a sensitive ear piece over several miles of cable.

Ex army DLR 5 headphones made perfect sound powered telephone units.

 

[bernardgreen]

London Transport has no buses.

It has omnibuses, buses that are available to all ( who can afford to pay the fare )

 

[JohnD]

Language does not follow grammarians' rules.

Grammarians' rules have to follow language.

It is a nice point, but is presently understood.

 

[JohnD]

 

[^woody^]

It's like when my missues asked me to get the Hoover out, and she found the washing machine in the front room.

 

[JohnW2]

You have agreed with Winston that an English word "transformer" shall be limited to one specific design of apparatus, when invented, which does the same thing as another newer apparatus when that word simply means something which changes (something else or itself) and can clearly, equally be applied to all.

I have not agreed that it "shall be limited". I am talking about what I believe probably would have been better (and less potentially confusing), but (unlike winston) accept what has happened, doubt that it is reversible and therefore see no point in 'going on about it'.

Apart from the English definition, which is my argument and dislike, limiting a word to the original design means that: ... <lots of examples> .... Actually, telephone is a good example. According to you and winston, a telephone must be a fairly large (bakelite?) machine with mouth and ear trumpets containing magnetic diaphragms and switches for transmitting sound over long distances. .... Yet the word merely means 'distant sound' and so, obviously, applies to anything which does the same job.

Things obviously evolve and, as you say, if the functionality remains much the same, then the same word can reasonably continue to be used. Certainly any current-day technological item (TV, telephone or whatever) will be completely unrecognisable 'within' in comparison with items of similar functionality a few decades ago, yet it remains totally reasonable to continue using the same words, since (all) the items have changed/evolved.

However, my point is that, in the case we are discussing, the items have not (all) changed/evolved but, rather, something different has appeared in addition to what the item original was (and still is). The word "transformer" had a specific technical meaning for many decades, relating to a component which still exists and still needs to be talked about today.

If (as with TVs, telephones etc.) we had merely seen a technological evolution which had resulted in (all) transformers having evolved into something very physically different but with similar functionality (i.e. if wire-wound transformers had 'become extinct' as a result of that evolution process), then it would probably be reasonable to use the old word for whatever (all) such items had evolved into. However, given that wire-wound transformers do still exist, and do still need to be talked about, the situation is, IMO, very different.

You are relying heavily on dictionary definitions of "transformer" but, if one took those definitions literally, we would describe such things as kettles, ovens, 'light bulbs' and loudspeakers as "transformers", but I assume that you would not advocate that. In fact, other than the more recent use in relation to toys and the description of people (or groups of people etc.) as "transformers", I can't say that I have seen the word being used to describe anything which 'transforms' other than per the electrical definition.

There are also ridiculous names coined by the ignorant. What about "quad bike"?

Agreed, but that's a different matter. However, I suspect that if you look you will find that a vast number of words which were 'coined' or 'defined' centuries ago were given meanings that were (and remain) inappropriate (iincorrect'?), even silly in some cases, in terms of their derivation (some, like "quad bike" being oxymorons) - so it's by no means a a new phenomenon.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Another thread raises a very good reason for not calling SMPU ( or any other electronic power convertor ) a transformer.

Provided it is not overloaded or other wise abused a traditional wound transformer has very little risk of failing and becoming a fire hazard. An electronic convertor has several components which age and will at some point in time fail. The failure of a single component in an electronic power convertor can, depending on the quality of build, create a fire hazard, even a good quality unit could become a fire hazard depending on which component(s) have failed.

A door bell transformer fitted in 1952 is still in use, a few door bells have been worn out but the transformer is still in good working order.

 

[ericmark]

Although we speak and write English, many of the words in English come from Latin. And we can work out what a word means by going back to the Latin, so a telephone is speech at a distance, or "distance speech", so a telefax is a copy of the original at a distance, clearly this has nothing to do with speech, where fax/phone is clearly combining the function of a telephone and a telefax. But the photocopy machine is really a better unit to have the name "Fax Machine".

As to transformer these change the electric in order to do work, where a transducer does the same to enable measurement. So a current transformer should really be called a transducer in most cases, although with air craft ground lights it is a transformer.

The odd one is the isolation transformer, it really does not transform anything. But we have a host of words for a coil of wire, reactor, choke, or simple loop. We do not call the induction loop placed in the road a transformer even if it is a coil of wire and it transforms vehicle movement into an electrical signal, we don't even call it a transducer.

There are cases where when the simple transformer is replaced with a better more modern device we coin a new name, a welding inverter for example, but in the main if we replace a wire wound device for a more complex device we just add the word "Electronic" so an Electronic transformer or Electronic ballast.

In the main adding the name electronic stops and confusion and is reasonable. There is one exception to my mind, that is the "Driver" a driver in electrical terms was a fixed current power supply in the main used to feed a string of LED's. However it seems fixed voltage power supplies which are used to supply LED's are also called drivers. Unlike the "Electronic Transformer" there is no word or phrase to differentiate between fixed current and fixed voltage.

There is to my mind no real problem calling a device an "Electronic Transformer" we all know this device replaces a wire wound transformer so it is a reasonable name, and however much we complain the "Electronic Transformer" does have a better claim to the word "transform" than an isolation transformer.

There are far worse, decimate from the Latin means to kill one in ten, yet even dictionaries seem to "transform" the meaning to getting rid of nearly everything. So all in all the Electronic transformer is not even worth arguing about. We know what it means, and as long as we all know what it means we can call it anything we want. The late Terry Pratchett in his disc world novels used words like headology instead of intelligence, I am sure every reader worked it out. When the astrozoooligist were trying to work out the sex of the turtle in the film Terry Pratchett asks the question "Does it matter" and I feel the same with electronic transformers, we know what they are, so does it really matter if they are not transformers in the way we have come to accept.

 

[Edddd]

Don't all switching power supplies with a 230/240V AC input invariably contain a transformer? It's difficult to achieve the necessary isolation and fault protection otherwise.
They just have extra electronics to run it at a higher frequency and regulate the output.