Fair enough - so do I take it that your "Yes" answer actually means "No"?
Kind Regards, John
Use of the word "transformer"
- Thread starter JohnW2
- Start date
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
It boils down to this, according to you and Winston:
Rule 1. Only certain things may be transformed by transformers.
Rule 2. Only certain types of transforming may be called transforming
Rule 3. Other things may be transformed but this is NOT done by transformers even though the device transforming it has done the transforming.
To clarify, not all transforming is actually transforming.
Some methods of transforming must be given another name because transforming is limited to the devices referred to in Rules 1 and 2.
Rule 1. Only certain things may be transformed by transformers.
Rule 2. Only certain types of transforming may be called transforming
Rule 3. Other things may be transformed but this is NOT done by transformers even though the device transforming it has done the transforming.
To clarify, not all transforming is actually transforming.
Some methods of transforming must be given another name because transforming is limited to the devices referred to in Rules 1 and 2.
Yes (qualitatively, if not also quantitatively). However, as I said, you could not really use the argument that it was appropriate to use the same word because bottom-line functionality had remained essentially the same (merely 'achieved in a different way) - since, in the pre-SMPSU days, something which converted AC into DC was never called "a transformer".
Kind Regards, John
No - although, in practice, the word "transformer" is only used for a very small number of things which transform. Transformers who are people, or groups of people, are a totally different issue.
No. Well, I can't speak for winston, but I have said nothing about "transforming"
As above - although there are countless 'transformations', by convention/normal usage, the word "transformer" is used only in relation to a very small number of them.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
That's a good point but it is not I who am limiting the use of these words; perhaps you should ask yourself or Winston.
For example, are there, today, any rectifiers (or anything else) which are NOT rectifiers (or anything else) because they use different methods and materials than did the original ones?
There are fuseboxes that aren't fuseboxes because they use MCBs instead of fuses...
I thought you were the one who was often critical about words being used 'incorrectly' (i.e. with a different meaning from what they originally had? Indeed, in this very discussion you have suggested that it was 'incorrect', all thsoe decades ago, for the wire-wound components we've been discussing to be called "transformers"
I don't think there can be (in the case of "rectifiers") since it is a generic term defined in terms of functionality - whether one is talking about a thermionic diode, a germanium or silicon diode, a metal stack rectifier etc.
Kind Regards, John
Just like the IEC definition of "transformer" then.
Yes, linguistically.
I have never said they should not be called transformers. It's you who is saying that nothing but them (w-w lumps of iron) and certain types of current should be called transformers.
My point is that ANYTHING which transform is a transformer.
Wriggling ??? They can't all have been first.
What did that mean?
Winston accused me of confusing 'transformer' and 'transforming'.
That's not my confusion but your (both of you) lack of reasoning in disassociating them and NOT connecting the two.
Transformers transform by transforming.
Indeed, in the sense that it is a purely functional definition, with minimal reference to mechanism (really only 'no moving parts'). To remind people, the definition you quoted was:
I have to wonder whether they really thought that one through (in relation to what they actually intended). As written, it would seem to include a box with a resistor or three in it, yet would exclude a 1:1 isolating transformer. In the context of this thread, it would also exclude most SMPSUs because of the extensively-discussed frequency change (from 50Hz to "kHz" or zero).IEC said:
Do the IEC definitions offer any suggestion as to what we should call a 1:1 wire-wound "device"?
Kind Regards, John
In terms of dictionaries, that's clearly correct. However, as I have said several times, normal ('common') usage does not refer to many things which transform as transformers. An almost endless list of things - from an electric kettle, through my car or table lamp to a plant or my liver - undoubtedly 'transform', but virtually none of them are usually called "transformers".
'First' is irrelevant to what you asked. As I said, the (I assume 'original') definition of 'rectifier' (at least in ordinary dictionaries - I don't know about the IEC!) is purely functional, regardless of the physical form or mechanism of function - so it does not matter what order they came in, since they all satisfy that definition.
Kind Regards, John
I wouldn't call it 'confusing' but, as I've just written, although the dictionaries would allow what you are suggesting, in practice the fact is the vast majority of things 'which transform' are never called "transformers".
Kind Regards, John
You could start here: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev...d+field+Language=en&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=0
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
