I don't understand why English speakers object and sometimes resent eloquent use of their language

Because that behavior is associated with deception.
Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061678/
The Flim-Flam Man
Pretty much any snake oil peddler or politician in a black&white movie.

Those are only the imaginary examples. Real examples exist.

 

Because that behavior is associated with deception.
Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061678/
The Flim-Flam Man
Pretty much any snake oil peddler or politician in a black&white movie.

Those are only the imaginary examples. Real examples exist.

Well ok @#12 but when ppl use eloquence to deceive it's only b/c they know it makes them appear to know what their talking about, right? So that's saying ppl who speak eloquently are more likely to know what their talking about!

I know exactly what you mean though! If I said my name was "John Smith" most ppl would doubt me even though it has the highest statistical probably of being accurate (for male Caucasian US residents anyway) Go figure!

 

when ppl use eloquence to deceive it's only b/c they know it makes them appear to know what their talking about, right?

That's why it works for purposes of deception.
A majority of the general population is not as intelligent as the denizens of AAC. Some of them are fooled and some of them just get suspicious. May I remind you that I have been in places where, if you want to buy a used car, it is obligatory to inquire about the health of the recent farrow of piglets. Compare that to the writing style of HP!

 

#12, I well remember that movie, "The Flim Flam Man". I wonder why it's not on Netflix?

 

That's why it works for purposes of deception.
A majority of the general population is not as intelligent as the denizens of AAC. Some of them are fooled and some of them just get suspicious. May I remind you that I have been in places where, if you want to buy a used car, it is obligatory to inquire about the health of the recent farrow of piglets. Compare that to the writing style of HP!

HP said in this post: http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/t...n-and-construction.113504/page-17#post-959783

that she wants the tutorial to "...be as near 'universally accessible' to all English 'speakers' as practical", and in other posts she has asked for constructive criticism.

I took a course in technical writing in college, and I've been an EE for some decades. I've written a lot of technical reports and descriptions, generally following the conventional wisdom: http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/Technical-Writing-Compared-With-Other-Writing.pdf

My criticism of HP's style is that it is not simple, direct, concise, clear, etc., as recommended in the referenced article. The article says that good technical writing does not attract attention to itself. That's one of the biggest problems I have when reading HP's tutorial. The writing style cannot be ignored--it calls out for attention to be paid to the style itself. It's also very wordy, not concise. HP uses many acronyms and abbreviations without following the usual rule that acronyms should be parenthetically explained at first use. I find myself spending time searching for explanations of acronyms better spent absorbing other content.

I hope HP takes this as constructive criticism. Her tutorial could be improved substantially IMHO by following the advice in the referenced article.

 

That's why it works for purposes of deception.
A majority of the general population is not as intelligent as the denizens of AAC. Some of them are fooled and some of them just get suspicious. May I remind you that I have been in places where, if you want to buy a used car, it is obligatory to inquire about the health of the recent farrow of piglets. Compare that to the writing style of HP!

I get it @#12 but then THIS IS AAC Thank heavens!

My criticism of HP's style is that it is not simple, direct, concise, clear, etc., as recommended in the referenced article. The article says that good technical writing does not attract attention to itself. That's one of the biggest problems I have when reading HP's tutorial. The writing style cannot be ignored--it calls out for attention to be paid to the style itself. It's also very wordy, not concise. HP uses many acronyms and abbreviations without following the usual rule that acronyms should be parenthetically explained at first use. I find myself spending time searching for explanations of acronyms better spent absorbing other content.

Thanks @The Electrician I'll bring this to Hp's attention! Abt the acronyms, she and Aleph are addressing that and other potential ambiguities with the addition of a glossary. I believe it's thought that too many expansions of common abbreviations in the text would irritate the readers so maybe it's a matter of deciding what abbreviations are generally known to the target readership and which should be expanded on the spot?

To the style itself I can't speak for Hp b/c she's very definite about not "teaching down" it's like a religion with her, so I doubt she has much regard for the "conventional wisdom" of, as she puts it, "the academic establishment" which she says assumes the students are dimwitted, disinterested slackers learning just to pass tests and move on w/o intent to impart true understanding (FWIW I totally agree with her about that).

I hope HP takes this as constructive criticism.

You can bet on that! When Hp says something you can believe it! I know I'm on solid ground to say she'll address anything troubling to sincerely interested readers! If modification of style is needed maybe it will come in the form of post publication rephrasing of text in response to reader's questions and comments, now THAT 's in keeping with Hp's result oriented paradigm!

PS @Hypatia's Protege I hope you see this post as a sincere attempt to convey your values regarding education b/c that's just what it is! Hp, honestly! If being your sycophant would help me that's exactly what I'd be! But it wouldn't and that's not what I'm doing now!

 

It's not perfectly clear to me who the intended audience for the tutorial is, but assuming it's the electronic hobbyist, HP's obvious extensive knowledge of medical terms and use of a number of them in the tutorial may be offputting. I fear that the typical hobbyist isn't likely to know these terms. It would be better to find some more commonly known synonyms.

ligature
fume hood
central aspect
peripheral aspect
resistance indicator (instead of ohmmeter)
debriding
medial
distal labra
excise
carotid
stirrups

Regarding acronyms--unless they're really well known, I suspect it would be more irritating to the reader to have unexplained acronyms than the occasional possibly unnecessary explanation of one the reader already knows. So if there's a possibility not everyone knows an acronym, explain it. Here are 4 that I culled with a quick scan:

DST
LOPT
CPVC
PTFE

Some people know that PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene but I suspect that a lot more know it as Teflon, so one could just say Teflon rather than PTFE.

 

Electrician tnx for specific examples that's what we find most helpful! Anyhow cuz I have some _ownership_ in development of the tutorial I can give MY point by point reply but I can't totally speak for HP either

It's not perfectly clear to me who the intended audience for the tutorial is, but assuming it's the electronic hobbyist

It's that and also for ppl with special interest in high voltage supplies and particle accelerator systems

HP's obvious extensive knowledge of medical terms and use of a number of them in the tutorial may be offputting.

Electrician in fairness to HP we all have to play our strong suit! Anyhow I say those words aren't all that discipline specific

Electrician I appreciate you're taking time to elaborate so it's only right that I do too so maybe we can come to consensus or at least just better understand each other

So here:

carotid

1) Form a carotid of 0.093" (AKA "93/1000'ths") PTFE sheet stock as per item #1 in the image (immediately below):

Electrician TNX FOR NOTICING THAT! That's overlooked auto-speller error! It's supposed to be cardioid! And I missed it during proofing too! That's just embarrassing! It'll be fixed as soon as HP is back cuz I'll put it at top of proofing list! Ha ha! I guess we caught it in the neck from Firefox

distal labra
Electrician I agree! At my suggestion HP revised that a while ago plz see post 626 on EHT thread for details. Also the latest revision of tutorial is post 625


fume hood
I think most ppl interested in scientific hobbies are familiar with basic lab setup? Anyhow iirc HP wrote they could do it outdoors too so she's not insisting they have proper lab

ligature
debriding
excise
stirrups
Electrician you're right abt those being used in medical contexts but they're in general use too!

central aspect
peripheral aspect
medial
I say those are self explanatory? But I understand how nobody loves ANY terms of relative reference. Like when someone tells me they meant my OTHER left!

resistance indicator (instead of ohmmeter)
I used to argue with HP about _unit meter_ vs _quantity indicator_ a lot! But she won me over on that!
Her arguments were that one measures quantities not units thereof and that in scientific usage _meter_ more frequently appears as a verb for _regulate_ than a noun for _measuring device_ Anyhow when it all comes down I say it's probably just dialectical difference

Regarding acronyms--unless they're really well known, I suspect it would be more irritating to the reader to have unexplained acronyms than the occasional possibly unnecessary explanation of one the reader already knows.

I agree! Having to chase down abbreviations and acronyms is too distracting from the text! All the same for too many external links or footnotes

DST
LOPT
Electrician I'm surprised those aren't familiar to electronics buffs I mean are CRT displays THAT extinct? Now I feel old! But it's painless so I promise we'll expand them in text!

CPVC
Electrician that's a good call cuz construction materials aren't necessarily under purview of electronics hobbyists so we'll expand that too with differential description!

Some people know that PTFE is polytetrafluoroethylene but I suspect that a lot more know it as Teflon, so one could just say Teflon rather than PTFE.

Electrician other fluoropolymers are sometimes called _Teflon_ too and vendors usually call PTFE just PTFE to avoid trademark infringement. So to prevent ambiguity and help readers find suppliers I say generic name is best. So we can meet halfway by saying like _Teflon (PTFE)_?
TNX!

 

Grateful to The Electrician for being more articulate than I am.

The article says that good technical writing does not attract attention to itself. That's one of the biggest problems I have when reading HP's tutorial. The writing style cannot be ignored--it calls out for attention to be paid to the style itself. It's also very wordy, not concise.

That's the button I was looking for!

 

@#12 quoted Electrician:

The article says that good technical writing does not attract attention to itself. That's one of the biggest problems I have when reading HP's tutorial. The writing style cannot be ignored

Dudes! It's not supposed to mirror conventional education style cuz traditional education is a total failure for a lot of ppl! Now about claim that words get in the way of concepts I say that's way more of a problem with conventional education's disgusting habit of dumbing everything down which is exactly what the linked guide advocates! So for just simple practical example of this sort of thing think on "ohm meter" it's NOT an Ohm meter it's a resistance meter! Ohms are just unit of resistance they're not measurable! Maybe that seems petty but I say illogical words beget illogical thought! So I say any student so lazy that they don't care abt the difference between abstract and concrete concepts needs a less cerebral subject cuz they're clearly not really interested anyhow!

@#12, @The Electrician I know you're smart guys that are just concerned that intellectual approach to practical subject won't set well with many readers and I say you're probably right about that! But they aren't who we're reaching out to! They have a whole world willing to give them hows without whys if that's all they want! Cuz we talked about it at the time I can tell you that HP's _universal accessibility to English language readers_ meant not letting dialects and like that be a problem! I know she did NOT mean we should pander and cater to anti-intellectuals which would be a terribly insulting way to treat serious students!

So my hands aren't lily white either cuz it was at my suggestion that HP withheld abstract mathematical treatment (which is moot for rebuilding tutorial anyhow). I was just thinking, thanks to the West's sorry excuse for education, that a lot of really interested and enthusiastic people have like a phobia about math so I thought we should introduce it on a practical basis until they get like their sea legs then they'll be comfortable with more abstraction! So HP and I disagree on that cuz she says calculus and analytic geometry are not advanced subjects and I see what she means but I say we need to treat it that way cuz I personally know a lot of ppl who don't have those concepts after four years of post secondary school

Now If you totally disagree or haven't read anything else on this post plz read this:

We totally appreciate feedback! Positive or negative! But what is most helpful are specific examples (like in electrician's last post), but subjective impressions like "the style calls attention to itself" not so much, cuz it's too vague and too subjective.
TNX

 

Please provide a link to any other dissertation, literature, etc. which uses a similar style.
I feel a need to find out which audience expects this kind of style.

 

I can't speak for my fellow dude, #12, but I'll be interested to hear what HP has to say.

 

Please provide a link to any other dissertation, literature, etc. which uses a similar style.
I feel a need to find out which audience expects this kind of style.

#12 I don't have links right to hand but I say style is that of the descriptive treatise. Also I don't think HP's style is necessarily British as it is just very formal. Fwiw she calls it _very formal tone_ but if you want to see similar delivery you can look at Gray's Anatomy (reference volumes not TV series!)

I can't speak for my fellow dude, #12, but I'll be interested to hear what HP has to say.

Ok! To help here's tag: @Hypatia's Protege Plz see discussion and editorial suggestions starting at post 18

#12 and Electrician just so you know: HP is unable to post now cuz network at Ontario hotel she's staying at forces use of _startpage_ proxy which doesn't allow submission of forms so she can't login. But sometimes she's able to view AAC fora as guest by connecting through her cloud server which is run on her usual nonsecured Wisconsin ISP account. Anyhow I didn't think to ask if she's read suggestions yet cuz we had too much else on with arranging importation of salvaged tubes But we usually follow each others activity by looking at each others profile page so maybe she's seen here already Anyhow I'll post a link on EHT PS thread so she can't miss these posts even if alerts fail Fyi It's not looking like she'll have time to stopover at EFA so she probably can't post this weekend but you can expect her back on here Tuesday for sure!

Oh! One more thing!

I can't speak for my fellow dude

Electrician and #12 I'm honestly sorry if _Dudes_ sounded disrespectful In my generation using it like that is just interjection to draw attention to a possible misunderstanding! It's nothing derogatory or like that! I promise! Like HP I really value feedback even when I don't always agree!

 

if you want to see similar delivery you can look at Gray's Anatomy (reference volumes not TV series!)

I know you're smart guys that are just concerned that intellectual approach to practical subject won't set well with many readers and I say you're probably right about that! But they aren't who we're reaching out to!

That explains a lot. If the high voltage treatise is written for physicians, then it is written in a language they must understand, or they would never finish doctor school (That's "matriculate" for P.O.S.H. crowd). For everybody else on the planet, I don't think it's working. Now that I understand the intended audience, I have no objections.

 

That explains a lot. If the high voltage treatise is written for physicians, then it is written in a language they must understand, or they would never finish doctor school (That's "matriculate" for P.O.S.H. crowd). For everybody else on the planet, I don't think it's working. Now that I understand the intended audience, I have no objections.

@#12 and @The Electrician I say the whole trouble is that you were expecting technical articles but that's not what they're supposed to be at all! We insist on purely conceptual approach cuz that's faithful to original objective of liberal arts education instead of current travesty which is just jumping over super low hurtles for _job ticket_ with some political indoctrination thrown in on the side!
So concept centric approach can look strange for literal handiwork of rebuilding FB transformer but it will come into its own in installments of more abstract subject matter (like driver topologies) where we can have pure concept which I agree is also totally more aesthetic as well as intellectually satisfying.

If the high voltage treatise is written for physicians,

#12 you implicitly asked for example of very formal descriptive tone, so Gray's Anatomy was one I knew offhand! But that style isn't limited to medicine!

For everybody else on the planet, I don't think it's working.

Only time can tell us that! But like HP says if we reach the 3% who want comprehension instead of _recipes_ then we'll be 100% successful!

So anyhow if you're tired of talking about this to _officious Jr. partner_ Be happy Cuz HP should be back on here sometime tomorrow

 

There can be a fine line between articulate communication and obfuscation.

Crutzschow that's right but unfortunately the line is different in the perception of every reader! So to help that HP is extensively using pictures to illustrate tasks cuz that's the universal language!

---Emphasis added---
@Aleph(0) - Exactly! @crutschow et al. inasmuch as - style aside - 'a picture is worth many more than one thousand words' -- you may rest assured that the current and all future tutorials will be 'illustration intensive'

A majority of the general population is not as intelligent as the denizens of AAC.

Agreed! - said cognitive superiority manifesting as (among other virtues) sincere interest, industry and initiative! -- as opposed to 'dabbling', 'cramming' and rote 'kit building' -- A fortuitous state of affairs indeed as I am neither willing, nor, frankly, able to accommodate the general population (so defined)

that she wants the tutorial to "...be as near 'universally accessible' to all English 'speakers' as practical"

My remark (quoted above) was with reference to improvement of the (rather sloppy) earlier drafts via increased emphasis upon formality (Spec. removal of jokes, emoticons, figures of speech, references to popular culture, and all manner of 'sloppy analogy') such that the text would be without 'culture bias' --- That said: it is certainly correct that I wish the tutorial to be accessible to all sincere, interested readers having demonstrated said 'qualities' via acquisition of the basal 'prerequisites' by any means whatever -- Said prerequisites being; secondary (aka 'high-school') level physics, fundamental math skills (i.e. 'through' vector algebra) and a 'working knowledge' of basic electronics -- A 'low bar' indeed! Howbeit, IMO, a workable starting point!

and in other posts she has asked for constructive criticism.

Indeed I have! -- and continue to welcome same!

I took a course in technical writing in college, and I've been an EE for some decades. I've written a lot of technical reports and descriptions, generally following the conventional wisdom: http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/Technical-Writing-Compared-With-Other-Writing.pdf

And here we arrive at the veritable 'crux' of our misunderstanding! -- The tutorials are neither intended nor offered as 'technical' literature! -- Quite the contrary! --- It's concept - start to finish! -- À la: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime..." --- To those concerned about 'orphaned technique' - I feel @Aleph(0) summed it up quite nicely - To wit:

They have a whole world willing to give them hows without whys if that's all they want!

+1000!

My criticism of HP's style is that it is not simple, direct, concise, clear, etc.

That's one of the biggest problems I have when reading HP's tutorial. The writing style cannot be ignored

While I'm truly sorry you find my style lacking in perspicuity, I'm bound to add my voice to Aleph's in asserting that concrete examples are far more helpful than general impressions or declarations of personal taste...

It's also very wordy, not concise.

Now I'm confused? -- the principal criticism I've received (with regard to the steps/tasks) is that of excessive brevity? -- Again - explicit examples are nothing short of priceless!

I hope HP takes this as constructive criticism.

No fear of that!

Her tutorial could be improved substantially IMHO by following the advice in the referenced article.

Inasmuch as I have no desire to relegate the tone and/or intent of the tutorial to that of a technical paper -- we'll have to agree to disagree on that score! -- That said I remain open (and, quite frequently, responsive) to feedback (as you will see in the following)

HP uses many acronyms and abbreviations without following the usual rule that acronyms should be parenthetically explained at first use. I find myself spending time searching for explanations of acronyms better spent absorbing other content.

---Emphasis added--
My sincere apologies! Undue distraction from the text is unacceptable!

Below is a 'case by case' examination of the 'dubious' terms and abbreviations -- Please feel free to copy and paste any remaining points of contention if desired for ready reference!

fume hood

I think most ppl interested in scientific hobbies are familiar with basic lab setup? Anyhow iirc HP wrote they could do it outdoors too so she's not insisting they have proper lab

@The Electrician while I concur with Aleph on this point -- It strikes me that a monition as to the inadvisability of substitution/confusion of a proper laboratory fume hood with a residential 'range hood' is warranted! -- Especially as many low-end installations of the latter fail to exhaust to the outside air! -- Flagged for elaboration -- Thank you!

ligature
debriding
excise
stirrups
Electrician you're right abt those being used in medical contexts but they're in general use too!

central aspect
peripheral aspect
medial
I say those are self explanatory?

@The Electrician -- The above cited terms would indeed seem to be in common use? If you care to 'expand' upon your objections to same, I'll be genuinely pleased to further {re}consider their use

DST
LOPT

@The Electrician -- Indeed! -- abbreviations applicable to obsolete television components are hardly 'household words' - even to electronics hobbyists --- Flagged for correction -- Thank you!

CPVC

@The Electrician - I see your point! -- Last I checked this site's moniker was not All About Plumbing --- Flagged for correction -- Thank you!

PTFE

'PTFE' Explicitly describes the polymer in question (isomers notwithstanding) Whereas 'Teflon' is merely a (potentially ambiguous) trademark -- Moreover, I have no desire to be perceived as a shill for (reputedly) 'rabidly litigious' Dupont/Chemours!

@The Electrician - In deference to your concern I will include a 'PTFE vs. Teflon' entry (via FAQ format) in the glossary -- Thank you!

As an aside, a strongly worded monition as regards the exceeding avian toxicity of PTFE pyrolysis products will be presented in the glossary and linked in the text wherever appropriate!

Electrician in fairness to HP we all have to play our strong suit!

Aleph, While I genuinely appreciate your support, I'm bound to say that 'playing one's strong suit' (i.e. 'framing' one's perspective/reference upon her area of expertise/experience) is a poor excuse for faulty tuition -- While I feel I have avoided said 'pitfall' (albeit rather 'narrowly' at certain junctures) I remain open to explicit citation of counter-examples

That explains a lot. If the high voltage treatise is written for physicians, then it is written in a language they must understand, or they would never finish doctor school (That's "matriculate" for P.O.S.H. crowd). For everybody else on the planet, I don't think it's working. Now that I understand the intended audience, I have no objections.

Hey @#12 -- I'm pleased you have no objections to the tutorial's style! - Howbeit I promise it's not for "medicos" only!

So anyhow if you're tired of talking about this to _officious Jr. partner_ Be happy Cuz HP should be back on here sometime tomorrow

Aleph!!! As you well know - You are in no way, shape or form a 'junior partner' in this effort! -- The tutorial and, for that matter, the entire series is as much yours as it is mine! As you've seen - nothing 'goes' sans your explicit, affirmative editorial input/ok --- Know that your significant creative, technical and scientific contribution is much appreciated as are your editorial efforts! -- So enough with the self effacement routine!


Many thanks all around!
HP

 

@Electrician , @#12 , @crutschow , @Aleph(0) , @Jazz2C -- And all interested parties:

Kind friends

Re: The tutorial -- It is my considered opinion that the abbreviations/symbols (tabulated below) in addition to standard 'denominating prefixes' will not require expansion/explanation -- Thoughts?

Please note that, for these purposes only, I've taken the decision to make no distinction between derived vs. fundamental quantities... As I see it, it's down to reasonable expectation of the reader's knowledge -- as opposed to said quantities relationships...

Moreover, following much soul-searching, I have concluded that some may find magnetic quantities/concepts (such that they are) sufficiently 'esoteric' as to warrant expansion and, indeed, comprehensive treatment of same -- FWIW it has been my observation that 'magnetics' are not-uncommonly rather poorly understood by engineers, physicists and hobbyists alike


Again! Should you feel any of the following abbreviation/symbols require expansion/explanation please tell me about it!!!

Common physical quantities/parameters having direct or collateral application to electrical engineering:
Legend:
Quantity symbol(Expansion) | Unit symbol(Expansion)

E(Electromotive force) | V(Volt)
I(Current) | A(Ampere)
R(Resistance) | Ω(Ohm)
Z(Impedance) | Ω(Ohm)
X(Reactance) | Ω(Ohm)
G(Conductance) | S(Siemen)
Y(Admittance) | S(Siemen)
B(Susceptance) | S(Siemen)
P(Power) | W(Watt)
Q(Reactive 'Power') | VAR(Volt Ampere Reactive) --- Context to preclude confusion with Quality Factor or Charge
L(Inductance) | H(Henry)
C(Capacitance) |F(Farad)
Q(Charge) | C(Coulomb) --- Context to preclude confusion with Quality Factor or Reactive Power
F(Frequency) | Hz(Hertz) -OR- Rads/Sec (Radians per second)
λ(Wavelength) | Units of linear measure
∅(Phase) | Units of angular measure
E(Energy) | J (Joule) --- Context to preclude confusion with Electromotive Force
Q(Quality Factor) | N/A - dimensionless ---- Context to preclude confusion with Charge or Reactive Power

Many advance thanks
HP

 

What! No "apparent power"?

 

Hello, @Sinus23 -- Thanks for your response!

What! No "apparent power"?

I felt symbolic reference to 'Complex Power' (and, hence, polar magnitude thereof) might 'strike' some novices as annoyingly "outré" sans introduction? -- Granted! Reader conversance with vector concepts/operations is assumed and expected! - Howbeit the symbols and, indeed, the quantities themselves mightn't rise descend to the level of 'common knowledge'? Perhaps the glossary should include a vector diagram illustrative of the four quantities 'related' via an arbitrary phase angle? --- That said, if you feel said concepts are sufficiently 'main stream' as to be readily recognized by the intended readership (succinctly: electronics enthusiasts having secondary-level physics and math skills) - I'll be happy to omit elaboration! -- It'd mean a little less work for me and much less annoyance to the readers!

Another issue I could use some feedback on (please!):
Representation of the imaginary unit via "j" as opposed to "i" fairly 'chaps my hide'! I expect said convention is by way of avoidance of confusion with the symbol for electric current ("I") howbeit capitalization (to say nothing of context) would seem to preclude any such confusion? - Moreover such precaution is not observed in areas fraught with greater liability to error (e.g. 'm' milli- vs 'M' Mega-)...
Thus, with the aim of maintenance of scientific vs. mathematical continuity, I prefer universal use of "i" -- While such has occasioned me little difficulty (in an EE/consultancy capacity) I've not 'applied' same to a instructional context -- While it is my intent that the tutorials should be, as nearly as possible, 'pure' -- as opposed to technical/utilitarian -- I recognize the fact that absolute purity is an unattainable (would you believe?) absolute -- Hence my question; In the opinion of everyone and anyone wishing to 'chime in' - Can I 'get away with it'? Or do I take a deep breath, avert my eyes, and throw myself under the wheels of convention

Very best regards
HP

 

That said, if you feel said concepts are sufficiently 'main stream' as to be readily recognized by the intended readership (succinctly: electronics enthusiasts having secondary-level physics and math skills) - I'll be happy to omit elaboration! -- It'd mean a little less work for me and much less annoyance to the readers!

Well... I've read most of the posts in that thread and it's pretty much more than a bit over my head yet I recognized every concept on that list. Which "most likely" means that those that will follow the tutorial will have/need a deeper understanding of electronics than I. Not to mention more experience.

So my thought was that, that list of abbreviations was meant to be a little bit sarcastic

Then I noticed that apparent power was missing