Transormer quibble
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
As I'm sure you are aware, almost all such discussions result from the behaviour of just one member, who makes his point about the word "transformer" (or sometimes "nominal voltage") on every possible occasion, in innumerable threads. If he could be persuaded or forced to stop doing that, I think you would find that all such discussions would immediately vanish.
Kind Regards, John
What a carp definition.
Surely a motor would come under the same definition.
"A machine with moving parts that, by way of controlled burning, converts stored chemical energy into kinetic energy and thus motion"
I think you've missed a question mark.
That's what John meant and I conceded.
That's what John meant and I conceded.
D
Deleted member 18243
It's quandary not quandry!
Oh dear, very sorry. 
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
Yeah, I was taught that at college. Strictly that a battery is two or more cells connected together. If there was only one it was called a cell.
In the same way it was drilled into us that a lamp is the whole thing and the bulb is only the glass part....
But then battery also has a criminal meaning and a military one. The military one is similar to the electrical one, in that a battery (military) can be a collection of weapons, ie more than one.
Oh dear, all these words that have more than one meaning....I can't take it...
Then there's assault and battery…arghh.
It's not simple for some. It would be if it were agreed that definitions require updating.
You are discounting the definition of one to include something which does not comply and relying on the definition of another to exclude something to suit your beliefs.
If the definition of a car includes an internal combustion engine then the Tesla cannot be a car but you are saying something which transforms (voltage) is not a transformer.
You are discounting the definition of one to include something which does not comply and relying on the definition of another to exclude something to suit your beliefs.
If the definition of a car includes an internal combustion engine then the Tesla cannot be a car but you are saying something which transforms (voltage) is not a transformer.
As I've said before, definitions follow usage, not the other way around, so let's be sensible with usage. (But since the definition of transformer is already "A device consisting of two or more inductively coupled windings" I don't see the quandry...)
Last edited:
Precisely, but you're only applying that to one of the examples.
As Himmagin so often likes to remind us "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck..." An electric car looks like a car, walks like a car... An SMPS does not look like a transformer, nor walks like a transformer...
It doesn't look like the original type but it "transforms" voltage so how simples do you want?
A transistor 'transforms' voltage, as does a resitive divider, or an optocoupler, or many other components. You're confusing the verb with the noun.