Let me guess, it's one of those PLA chinesium energy weapons they are always bragging that they have invented!

 

Let me guess, it's one of those PLA chinesium energy weapons they are always bragging that they have invented!

Those energy weapons are real.

We have countermeasure weapons flashlights

 

And “980 hours” is the part number.

No that is the expected lifetime. It does not say per charge.

Basically, all of you are assuming things not in the ad.

 

Here are the specifications given in an EBay listing:

Model: LED Flashlight

Material: Aluminum alloy

Bulb: Q5 LED Light

Color: White

Shell Color: Black

Lighting Mode: High / low / strobe(SOS)

Low light/flash/COB mode can last for 3-5 hours

Battery: Built-in 600mAh lithium battery rechargeable

Charging Method: Micro USB charging

Voltage: 3.7V-4.2V

Shooting distance: 300 meters

Waterproof Rating : IPX4 life waterproof

Size: 8.5*2cm (Length x Head dia.)

Nothing about current or power, run time listed as 3-5 hours on low.

 

Basically, all of you are assuming things not in the ad.

Here are the specifications given in an EBay listing:

Nothing about current or power, run time listed as 3-5 hours on low.

Basically we are reading the screenshots of the temu listing in the OP and not some unrelated eBay listing.

Here is a link to the temu listing.

 

I'm still trying to figure out just what the heck that "Soldering Iron" is on TEMU.

 

Here are the specifications given in an EBay listing:

Nothing about current or power, run time listed as 3-5 hours on low.

That ad is not the one we are talking about.

You are ignoring the pervasive ridiculous claims made by flashlight sellers in particulate, usually in terms lumens rather than W, and runtime. You are also ignoring the absurd distance claim.

Yes, we are assuming the most likely thing while you are assuming that there is some reasonable interpretation of the numbers, like ”lifetime”—something I’ve never seen in a flashlight ad of this sort.

You can try to be contrary but it’s a waste of time. It’s not as if there aren’t hundreds of similar examples, and you are creating ambiguity as if the ad is innocent until proven guilty. Are you really attempting to defend this random seller of junk flashlights, and if so, from what harm?

You are also not having any fun, which is perfectly OK as a choice for yourself but it would be nicer if you’d leave the wet blanket somewhere else if you‘d like to join us in this off-topic bit of amusement.

 

I'm still trying to figure out just what the heck that "Soldering Iron" is on TEMU.
View attachment 298056

It’s got to be a vape thingy. But who knows... maybe it is an innovative new “welding pipe”.

 

To be off-topic in my own off-topic thread (I may have to report myself, then remove my own off-topic post and warn myself not to do that (but probably not))…

There are a couple of terms common to Chinese English usage that rankle me.

I don’t think, when it comes to language, there is something that is Right™. I know that language evolves (and sometimes devolves, which is problematic but unavoidable). Still, sometimes my feelings lie on (what I consider) the legitimate boundary between complaints about loss of expressive power as words become first conflated and then confused losing the chance to express the original difference between the two; and purely æsthetic (yes, I used a ligature, sue me) complaints which I am allowed to have but that reason and ethical considerations do not allow me to impose on others.

The two examples are buckling for latching, and welding for soldering. The latter also has companions like oil for flux (viz. welding oil).

Latching connectors are, for Chinese sellers “buckling connectors” and latches are “buckles”. I suspect this is from some machine translation but it has well and truly settled in and is now normative. Native English speakers now learning their technical terminology from AliExpress ads rather than Newark, Mouser, or RS ads, have almost certainly now internalized “buckling“ and “buckle” and don’t even know what latching is.

This is much closer to pure æsthetics than to expressive concerns. Really there isn’t much loss here. The only thing I can see is if the etymology is unknown (and it surely will be) people will reason backwards from “buckle” and imagine the name derived from that rather than latch. This will not harm expression, only the much more abstract realm of language nerdiness.

The use of “weld” where “solder” is correct is the other side of the line. These are not the same things. Right now, there is more than enough use of solder to preserve it, but for how long? And the use of “welding oil” for “flux” runs the risk of all sorts of confusion, including using 3-in-1 as a quick substitute for it because I don’t have any, or maybe Tap Magic would work…

Anyway, we now return you to regularly scheduled programming, already in progress…
(I really like that so many of you will understand this last comment, being old and stuff…)

 

If the verb “weld” replaces the verb “solder”, what happens to the noun “solder”?

 

If the verb “weld” replaces the verb “solder”, what happens to the noun “solder”?

It becomes “welding wire”, of course.

 

It becomes “welding wire”, of course.

Oil-cored welding wire?

 

That ad is not the one we are talking about.

It contains the exact same illustration you posted.

That poster does not say it uses (or emits) 98000 Watts of power. That is your interpretation. You would lose in court if you you said they had made that claim.

 

That ad is not the one we are talking about.

You are ignoring the pervasive ridiculous claims made by flashlight sellers in particulate, usually in terms lumens rather than W, and runtime. You are also ignoring the absurd distance claim.

Yes, we are assuming the most likely thing while you are assuming that there is some reasonable interpretation of the numbers, like ”lifetime”—something I’ve never seen in a flashlight ad of this sort.

You can try to be contrary but it’s a waste of time. It’s not as if there aren’t hundreds of similar examples, and you are creating ambiguity as if the ad is innocent until proven guilty. Are you really attempting to defend this random seller of junk flashlights, and if so, from what harm?

You are also not having any fun, which is perfectly OK as a choice for yourself but it would be nicer if you’d leave the wet blanket somewhere else if you‘d like to join us in this off-topic bit of amusement.

Whenever I see an advertisement for a 30,000mAh battery, instead of a 30Ah battery, it always looks to me like a “marketing breakthrough”, like claiming my car does 100,000 yards to the gallon*.

*that’s a British gallon, it only does 75000 yards to a US gallon.

 

Oil-cored welding wire?

Excellent. Maybe “soft welding wire” to distinguish from other possibilities.

 

It contains the exact same illustration you posted.

That poster does not say it uses (or emits) 98000 Watts of power. That is your interpretation. You would lose in court if you you said they had made that claim.

What the heck, Bob. Do you not understand this is about a fun post, not a lawsuit or pursuing the ultimate truth. I don’t even agree with you that the intent of the original ad was not to be misleading but instead just happened to have very misleading choices for model numbers and specifications but even if I accept your interpretation, arguendo, who cares?

It is actually irrelevant and in my opinion additionally has a chance of being correct so vanishingly small that it seems silly. Are you being sarcastic? Trolling?

Seriously, what‘s up?

 

I don’t even agree with you that the intent of the original ad was not to be misleading

Of course you don’t because I never said that.

I am not trolling or being silly. I read ads with the attitude that I am expressing here, that one must determine what they actually say, not what the imply at a glance. In other words, I approach them skeptically rather than gullably.

 

Of course you don’t because I never said that.

I am not trolling or being silly. I read ads with the attitude that I am expressing here, that one must determine what they actually say, not what the imply at a glance. In other words, I approach them skeptically rather than gullably.

Yes, my gullibility is well documented here. I am just a gormless dupe. I suppose I am lucky to have you around to explain my errors and should just be grateful instead of annoyed. Thanks.

 

As ag would say 98,000 Whats.

 

As ag would say 98,000 Whats.

Or “98000W pmpo (3W sine-wave)”
. . . to quote the usual audio specmanship.