|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > May 2006 > Help with a sentence
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Help with a sentence
|
|
| Eiffel 2006-05-14, 11:21 pm |
|
Hello,
Sentence is
" Transformer adjusts the system AC voltage to the charging circuitry
composed of resistor R and diode D at other than the system AC voltage"
and it is the "at other than the system AC voltage" part which puzzles me.
Could someone be so kind as to explain what is meant?
Thank you very much in advance.
--
Eiffel
| |
|
| tough call, but I'd guess the xformer is used to change the voltage to
something other than the system voltage before rectification.
Back when I went to school we were required to write understandable
sentances: too bad whover gave that one to you didn't worry about
understandability.
| |
|
| tough call, but I'd guess the xformer is used to change the voltage to
something other than the system voltage before rectification.
Back when I went to school we were required to write understandable
sentances: too bad whover gave that one to you didn't worry about
understandability.
| |
| Eiffel 2006-05-15, 12:21 am |
| Le Lundi 15 Mai 2006 03:42, Tony a écrit
> tough call, but I'd guess the xformer is used to change the voltage to
> something other than the system voltage before rectification.
Same bet here. Full text can be found at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7&RS=PN/6900617
(supposed to be one line, no space)
and please search for "autotransformer 2202".
> Back when I went to school we were required to write understandable
> sentances: too bad whover gave that one to you didn't worry about
> understandability.
Well, at least she/he is an enthusiast and knows her/his trade, so I don't
feel uncomfortable.
Thank you for your effort.
--
Eiffel
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2006-05-15, 12:21 am |
| "Tony" <ajw27703@yahoo.com> wrote:
>tough call, but I'd guess the xformer is used to change the voltage to
>something other than the system voltage before rectification.
Not too tough, that is rather clearly what it says.
>Back when I went to school we were required to write understandable
>sentances: too bad whover gave that one to you didn't worry about
>understandability.
Of course you can speak and write perfect Japanese or Korean, or
whatever the native language is for the person who wrote
originally wrote that sentence. Right?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Salmon Egg 2006-05-15, 1:21 am |
| On 5/14/06 6:42 PM, in article
1147657325.187303.180180@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Tony"
<ajw27703@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Back when I went to school we were required to write understandable
> sentances: too bad whover gave that one to you didn't worry about
> understandability.
Even now, many engineers and engineering students do not think that proper
English is worth the bother.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
| |
| Salmon Egg 2006-05-15, 1:21 am |
| On 5/14/06 7:40 PM, in article 871wuwrowu.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
> Of course you can speak and write perfect Japanese or Korean, or
> whatever the native language is for the person who wrote
> originally wrote that sentence. Right?
Then it should have been written in Japanese of Korean. I would not have
bothered to look at it. There would be no snide remarks about poor grammar.
Just because someone does cannot write well in English does not mean that
responders are obligated to spend much time trying to understand what was
meant.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
| |
| Paul Hovnanian P.E. 2006-05-15, 1:21 am |
| "Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
> "Tony" <ajw27703@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Not too tough, that is rather clearly what it says.
>
>
> Of course you can speak and write perfect Japanese or Korean, or
> whatever the native language is for the person who wrote
> originally wrote that sentence. Right?
Or whatever it is that they speak in Odessa, Texas (see the URL posted
elsewhere in this thread).
I've often wondered about some of the obfuscations used in patents. Are
they used:
1) because of some obscure legal requirements
2) because the applicant doesn't know any better, or assumes that the
patent clerks don't
3) to reduce the probability of a text search returning similar terms in
previous work and as a result, make the application look like its prior
art?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to
handle.
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2006-05-15, 5:21 am |
| Salmon Egg <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 5/14/06 7:40 PM, in article 871wuwrowu.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Then it should have been written in Japanese of Korean. I would not have
>bothered to look at it. There would be no snide remarks about poor grammar.
>Just because someone does cannot write well in English does not mean that
>responders are obligated to spend much time trying to understand what was
>meant.
I disagree absolutely.
Where I live the majority of people speak English as a second
language, and it is *obvious* that the point of any conversation
is to communicate... which *requires* an effort be made at
understanding what a speaker is trying to say. That is
regardless of the speaker's ability to say it according to
whatever set of rules you would like.
Strangely enough though, in this case it did *not* turn out to
be an instruction book written by a non-native speaker of
English, which is what I was assuming. Instead it is part of a
patent application, which is *not* English as you are taught in
school. It is a mixture of legalese, techno babble, and
academic muttering.
Regardless, to me the meaning was very specific, and quite clear,
so I just didn't see any problem at all with the grammar.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2006-05-15, 5:21 am |
| "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote:
>
>Or whatever it is that they speak in Odessa, Texas (see the URL posted
>elsewhere in this thread).
>
>I've often wondered about some of the obfuscations used in patents. Are
>they used:
>1) because of some obscure legal requirements
>2) because the applicant doesn't know any better, or assumes that the
>patent clerks don't
>3) to reduce the probability of a text search returning similar terms in
>previous work and as a result, make the application look like its prior
>art?
How about one that will no doubt boggle the minds of many: The entire
idea is to be pedantically unspecific. That is, to cover as much as
is possible with as few words as is possible, in a way that allows it
to be broadly interpretted at a later date to mean something that the
writer never imagined, but would have if asked at the time.
In other words: it privides fodder for patent infringment law suits.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
| |
| Salmon Egg 2006-05-15, 7:21 pm |
| On 5/15/06 12:38 AM, in article 87odxzrb4j.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree absolutely.
>
> Where I live the majority of people speak English as a second
> language, and it is *obvious* that the point of any conversation
> is to communicate... which *requires* an effort be made at
> understanding what a speaker is trying to say. That is
> regardless of the speaker's ability to say it according to
> whatever set of rules you would like.
>
> Strangely enough though, in this case it did *not* turn out to
> be an instruction book written by a non-native speaker of
> English, which is what I was assuming. Instead it is part of a
> patent application, which is *not* English as you are taught in
> school. It is a mixture of legalese, techno babble, and
> academic muttering.
>
> Regardless, to me the meaning was very specific, and quite clear,
> so I just didn't see any problem at all with the grammar.
Fine! You have the right to communicate and attempt to communicate. I have
the right to not do so. In most circumstances, I also have the right not to
communicate and understand.
There was no conversation.
Just because someone gets a high priced education at an American college or
university is no guarantee, that they can write well, speak well, or even
think well.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
| |
| Floyd L. Davidson 2006-05-15, 8:21 pm |
| Salmon Egg <salmonegg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 5/15/06 12:38 AM, in article 87odxzrb4j.fld@apaflo.com, "Floyd L.
>Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Fine! You have the right to communicate and attempt to communicate. I have
>the right to not do so. In most circumstances, I also have the right not to
>communicate and understand.
>
>There was no conversation.
>
>Just because someone gets a high priced education at an American college or
>university is no guarantee, that they can write well, speak well, or even
>think well.
True, as you so ably demonstrate.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
|
|
|
|