Yes - we all know all of that, but the "argument" here is whether the ones sold for lighting should be called "
electronic transformers" or "
SMPSs"
Nobody is arguing about the differences.
Some people are arguing that they should not be called "
electronic transformers" because they are not "
transformers"
That was purely from technical point of view, not from general point of view that where the public need not know the difference between the two.
(sorry I have to use different colour to reply as I haven't worked out how to reply to your each point in quotes.)
I see their argument or point, SMPS are not quite like Transformers, so this is why they are objecting to it, but now it is far too late, across the industry it is now accepted as Electronic Transformer.
But some people here seem to be suggesting that those problems would go away if the supplies were labelled as SMPSs instead of "
electronic transformers".
We and I all have to agree that Electronic Transformer is another name for an SMPS, this may help standardise things overall. Any problems associated with using such power supplies won't make them go away obviously, but knowing what exactly they employ can help in avoiding such like problems.
But those problems won't go away if we change the wording on the supplies from "
electronic transformer" or "
SMPS",
and that is what this debate is about, so please don't be surprised if what you write is assumed to be a contribution to that debate, and not to another one.
May be I have lost the track somewhere of the argument, I think I have been confused as to exactly what the argument was about, but yes you are right that if it was about whether problems would go away if it was correctly identified as either SMPS or Electronic Transformer, in my opinion, Nope, unless the buyer of such power supplies was aware of the implications of mismatch or incompatibility issues beforehand, if he was not aware then those issues may arrise when he puts that item to use and it would be a learning curve for him.
Nobody is claiming that they are the same.
OK I thought some people were claiming they are the same, its my misapprehension, sorry.
Some people are "saying" that this must not be called an "
electronic cigarette" because it is not a "
cigarette"
I am a smoker, I have tried them, they don't quite feel like the real thing, they are not the same as a tobacco cigarette that you can light up, I agree and I would personally understand that these devices are called an Electronic Cigarette, in order to differentiate between real and substitute, I have accepted that this is and will be the term chosen for this device, but there will be some who may argue about its true nature, or its accepted name, they could have been called something else but that sure does not alter its function, technically it is a Nicotine Inhaler that is designed to replace a real cigarette. Perhaps a very handy device for those who are not allowed to smoke a real cigarette, but yes I agree its name would not change what it does, but for sure we cannot call it a Cigarette, we have to add something in front of it such as the term Electronic.
