Sooo....although my paper catalogs are long gone, Thank God I wasted a lot of money on useless Patents that clearly state the use of the term PHOTON COUPLER, The latest reference appears to be 1980. see patents 4,206,390 & 4,217,616.

 

Funny -- I graduated in 1969 and spent 50 years in the industry and never heard them called Photon Couplers.

Take a google look at patents 4,206,390 & 4217616

 

Take a google look at patents 4,206,390 & 4217616

Patents use different terms than industry. They use "patentese".

More often than not, I would expect that the description used in a patent to *not* reflect what is used by the manufacturers and uses of real devices.

 

The also used to use "condenser" for capacitor, "cps" for Hz and μμF for pF.
Anyone nostalgic for those?

 

CC, I do prefer micromicrofarads, but not strongly enough to argue about it. As for optoisolators, I find that therm a bit more descriptive than photon couplers. And the emphasis is on isolation rather than coupling.
Besides that, fiber optic couplers (connectors) were being marketed and some confusion may have seemed to be coming.
Also, there are lots more serious issues to be concerned about. Computer driven cars are going to start killing people and it will take our government a year to do something about it. THAT bothers me a lot more.
Maybe this makes sense.

 

I suppose a solar cell should be a "transphotonic electronator"?

More space-agey than "photovoltaic".

 

I've always thought of them as optocouplers. I think that sounds far better than "photon couplers".

 

Using "photon" seems like it is over-explaining it.

 

I've been working in electronics, first as a technician and then as a design engineer, since 1965. In all that time, I've seen the terms "optoisolator" and "optocoupler" frequently, and "photon coupler" only rarely.

Frankly, I don't think it matters much which term you use to designate these devices; everyone, save possibly the rawest of raw newbies, knows they all refer to the same thing.

I would love to know when the change was made...By WHOSE authority

I don't see why anyone would need the permission of some "authority" to call these devices whatever they want, nor do I think there is any such authority.

....and mostly WHY would the industry do this?

They probably did it on purpose, to vex you.

 

The also used to use "condenser" for capacitor, "cps" for Hz and μμF for pF.
Anyone nostalgic for those?

I kinda like condenser, but that's just cause l started as an audio guy and the mics are still called condenser mics. When I was young and fresh in the world of audio, I knew conceptually how they worked, and that it was all about capacitance. I didn't realize capacitor and condenser were synonyms and that was the origin of the name. I didn't put those facts together until many, many years later. Anyway, still love condensers!

 

I think capacitor is far more descriptive, acurate, and better sounding. pF is less repetitive, and Hz sounds better.

 

I'm glad nano replaced millimicro. It's easier to read, spell, and say.

 

definitely. me too

 

I will admit that my sense of time is probably wrong. I graduated from Tech school in 1967. My Patent Number 4,206,390 mentions PHOTON COUPLER. >> "While light-emitting diode 10 is shown as the "motor-controlling means" and as a part of a photon coupler 116, it will be understood by persons skilled in the art that other devices may be used instead, such as an electric lamp, a relay type read switch and the like. The motor-energizing circuitry is conventional, containing a photo-sensitive switch, a relay or the like which is activated in response to the "motor-controlling means" to close a motor controlling relay switch to apply power to the motor.

The fact that YOUR patent uses a term that you are fond of means very little. Even if it wasn't your patent, it wouldn't be authoratative in any way as far as establishing whether a particular terminology was widely used. In fact, it might indicate just the opposite since patents often try to invent new phrases that are so generic that they can later be claimed to cover new things that the author was completely unaware of at the time of filing.

 

When I first learned of them in the late 80's they were "optocouplers" and "optoisolators".

Take a google look at patents 4,206,390 & 4217616
Well....this was fun...still no answer, but a lively duscussion nonetheless. Thank you to all.

 

The also used to use "condenser" for capacitor, "cps" for Hz and μμF for pF.
Anyone nostalgic for those?

No. But I do miss mickey-mikes a bit.