My experience ranges from small modules to fair sized machines. And the others who may become involved with a project may not grasp technical jargon. So a "non-biased" segment is less likely to confuse them.

 

some things are just remnants of old jargon where things used to be named using analogy with liquids (water or mercury). nevertheless, they exist and are in use. personally i would prefer to use Galvanic isolation or lack off...

 

My experience ranges from small modules to fair sized machines. And the others who may become involved with a project may not grasp technical jargon. So a "non-biased" segment is less likely to confuse them.

Surely as this point in your long career you are aware that domain-specific nomenclature exists in various industries that is neither "technically" accurate nor self-evident to an outsider—no matter their knowledge of underlying principles.

These terms are not formulae, nor are they intended to communicate anything beyond identity. They cannot be reverse engineered except possibly heuristically on a statistical basis—but this makes them far from useless.

To users of these terms they are as obvious as a theoretically grounded alternative would be to you. Conversely, your "technically accurate" choice is as obscure to them as their naming is to you.

Language gets meaning from usage and as uncomfortable as it is to hear strange names for things you know intimately under much more informative labels, there is nothing you can do about it except add it to your lexicon. The use of translated Chinese, for example, has turned LED "emitters" into "beads" and renamed several other common items in the minds of users of them who have only a practical interest and not a theoretical or historical one.

Add these to your lexicon as you hear them. Whinging about never having heard them before makes you seem too inflexible and self-important to be taken seriously—and that would be a shame because your knowledge is an amazing resource for anyone here.

 

"Y" makes a valid point in post #63.
I did explain the basis of .my attitude in another post this morning. Accuracy in descriptions can be worth thousands of dollars at times.

 

"Y" makes a valid point in post #63.
I did explain the basis of .my attitude in another post this morning. Accuracy in descriptions can be worth thousands of dollars at times.

Yes, and if you are speaking to technicians who zero to little general or theoretical knowledge in an industry that, say, called a diode a "one way resistor" for historical reasons, "diode" has no accuracy at all. You might as well call it a puppy. On the other hand, one-way resistor is perfectly accurate.

It's all about words-as-labels and the context of the communication.