Is the word "amperage" correct
Gerald Kelly
Amperage is not correct term.
I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same category.
Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
correct terms?
gkelly
Steve Alexanderson
"Gerald Kelly" <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote in message
news:3d8b8c20$1...@news.csolutions.net...
Sir Charles W. Shults III
watt rating is that resistor" or "how many watts is that resistor rated for?"
Or similarly, "what is the amps rating of this unit" or "how many amperes can
this safely carry" or "what amps is this?" Clearly, amperage comes in handy
here: "what amperage is this?" You would not say "what volts is this" because a
term was invented to handle this linguistic situation.
Many terms come into use in popular language because they are very useful.
It is only after the fact that they may show up in a dictionary. In cases where
technology is involved, it is often due to the fact that useful or necessary
terms have not yet been coined. This is a field where, in lieu of other useful,
descriptive terms, we make up the language.
So you will often hear of wattage and amperage when dealing with
electronics, although the terms may not be considered "proper". The need for
such terms sort of forces their creation. After all, where did the term
"voltage" come from?
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
EEng
Richard Steven Walz
Everybody uses them, engineers and physicists included. They are english
usages, and they are understood, so they are, by definition, correct.
-Steve
Miles
the amperage of a generator at a particular power station was x volts(!)
Dictionary definitions too can mislead. You need to consider the manner in
which you use the term to know if it is appropriate or not.
Your professor is probably technically correct, because while the term
"Amperage" is in common use, it is a lazy term that doesn't on its own
clearly distinguish between maximum safe "rating", and the "actual" current
carried by the device under defined conditions (voltage, motor loading etc).
The question "What amperage is this" is an ambiguous question and when
electrical safety is at stake, ambiguity is a total no-no. You are best to
avoid the term "amperage" altogether and phrase it as "what current is this
rated for" or "how many amps does this appliance draw". The term
"amperage" is also unnecessary because the English language has the useful
word "current" that identifies this concept clearly (and can be expressed in
Amps, kA or other units of current density).
The same confusion doesn't apply to wattage, because this typically refers
to an actual power drawn when fed with a particular voltage, not how much it
_could_ take.
The term Voltage is far less ambiguous but you still need to be mindful of
whether you are talking "max rated", or "nominal rated" voltage, or an
actual voltage reading. You need to use the term "Voltage" because unlike
current, there isn't another word to express the concept.
"Gerald Kelly" <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote in message
news:3d8b8c20$1...@news.csolutions.net...
Miles
"Richard Steven Walz" <rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
news:3d8bca79$0$79553$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
John Popelish
>
> Sadly even www.howstuffworks.com gets it wrong too. It even mentioned that
> the amperage of a generator at a particular power station was x volts(!)
> Dictionary definitions too can mislead. You need to consider the manner in
> which you use the term to know if it is appropriate or not.
>
> Your professor is probably technically correct, because while the term
> "Amperage" is in common use, it is a lazy term that doesn't on its own
> clearly distinguish between maximum safe "rating", and the "actual" current
> carried by the device under defined conditions (voltage, motor loading etc).
In my experience, amperage normally is used to refer to a current, not
a current rating. Ampacity is the word used to describe current
capacity or rating.
(snip)
--
John Popelish
Richard Steven Walz
Sure it does, that's HOW language OCCURRED!
Steve
Richard Steven Walz
JoeBloe <theguyattheendofthebar__nicepingeh?> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:34:51 +1200, "Miles"
><Miles_NG(Remove)@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>
>>"usage" doesn't make it "correct".
>>
>
>"accepted use".
>
> One wouldn't say "henryage", or "faradage" though.
----------------------------
That's because we wouldn't say amperance or voltance or Wattance.
-Steve
> To say:
>"What's the amperage in this circuit element?"
>
> Is just as acceptable as:
>"What's the current in this circuit element?"
>
> To say:
>"What's the "wattage" being consumed?"
>
> Is just as acceptable as:
>"How many watts are being consumed?"
>
> To say:
>"What is the "voltage" present at this node?"
>
> Is just as acceptable as:
>"What is the "EMF" present at this node?"
>
> Anyone trained in the discipline could not possibly misinterpret any
>of these questions.
Mjolinor
"Richard Steven Walz" <rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
news:3d8bca79$0$79553$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
I have to agree that usage does not make it correct.
In the UK (not so much in the US) people say
"He was sat on the chair"
This is absolutely incorrect, he was sitting on the chair. He was sat on the
chair is the same as saying he was ran down the road and how incorrect does
that sound.
The single most important reason for the English language being so popular,
particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it wrong
here :)).
Another popular one is refering to the eigth letter of the alphabet, "H" as
Haitch when it is Aitch. All dictionaries have it in if you look it up but
people still insist on naming it incorrectly.
Language does develop through common usage but in order for changes to be
accepted into the likes of the Oxford English dictionary the development has
to be complete and I suspect that Amperage and other new words are not
developed and defined enough to be included in the English language.
It's a kind of wierd way that language works but it is one of the things
that we must all be grateful for otherwise confusion would creep in, then
anarchy and then before you know it we are all living a Mel Gibson and Tina
Turner rerun. :)
Gavin Kerr
> "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
It does in English. Sorry.
The Oxford English Dictionary is updated yearly to take account of new
words, modified usage of old words and words which are no longer used.
In English the words that are used are the words of the language. It's
not like French.
[snip!]
HTH,
Gav
Mjolinor
> > "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
>
> It does in English. Sorry.
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary is updated yearly to take account of new
> words, modified usage of old words and words which are no longer used.
>
> In English the words that are used are the words of the language. It's
> not like French.
But they do not do it purely on usage, they fairly strictly police the
changes and will not include anything that has obvious or even slight
ambiguities. I will admit it is nowhere near as ridiculous as the French
system where their long term effect will be to kill the language, as has
happened throughout history. Where languages will not change they die.
Ed Price
"Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oaWi9.9$4n.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
English is the Borg of languages. Resistance is futile; your useful
expressions will be assimilated and the carcass of your language discarded.
<g>
Ed
Mjolinor
"Ed Price" <edp...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WdXi9.50320$S32.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
Mostly true but can I suggest:-
"your useful expressions will be approximated"
as being slightly more accurate :)
Bob Masta
wrote:
>I have to agree that usage does not make it correct.
>In the UK (not so much in the US) people say
>
>"He was sat on the chair"
>
>This is absolutely incorrect, he was sitting on the chair. He was sat on the
>chair is the same as saying he was ran down the road and how incorrect does
>that sound.
>
Well, there is *one* case where it would be correct: If he was
physically placed on a chair by another, as one would do with a
child. <grin>
>The single most important reason for the English language being so popular,
>particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
>ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it wrong
>here :)).
>
>Another popular one is refering to the eigth letter of the alphabet, "H" as
>Haitch when it is Aitch. All dictionaries have it in if you look it up but
>people still insist on naming it incorrectly.
>
>Language does develop through common usage but in order for changes to be
>accepted into the likes of the Oxford English dictionary the development has
>to be complete and I suspect that Amperage and other new words are not
>developed and defined enough to be included in the English language.
>
Typically, a dictionary will note the usage, such as "slang" or
"obsolete". The on-line dictionaries seem to have a faster
response time (for obvious reasons). For a while now my
pet peeve has been "apoptosis", which is properly pronounced
"Ah-po-toe-sis". The "pt" sounds as in "pterodactyl"
or (in this case) "ptosis". But the illiterati (including many
scientists who work on this subject) pronounce it
"Ay-pop-toe-sis". When some well-known visiting investigator
does that in a seminar, nobody jumps up to correct him.
So what do the students and others in the audience pick
up from this? "Gee, <famous scientist> says it that way,
so it must be correct."
Now a much worse case has arisen: One of the on-line
dictionaries lists "nuke-u-lur" as an acceptable alternate
pronunciation for "nuclear". Apparently we have so
many morons in govenment saying this (including the
Chief Moron) that it became expedient to change the language!
>It's a kind of wierd way that language works but it is one of the things
>that we must all be grateful for otherwise confusion would creep in, then
>anarchy and then before you know it we are all living a Mel Gibson and Tina
>Turner rerun. :)
>
Bob Masta
tech(AT)daqarta(DOT)com
D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
Shareware from Interstellar Research
www.daqarta.com
Bill Shymanski
>
>
> The single most important reason for the English language being so
popular,
> particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
> ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it
wrong
> here :)).
>
You apparently have never been in your entire life involved in a dispute
between a contractor and a client over what the specification really means.
You also apparently have never taken part in union negotiation of a new
contract.
Anyone who actually uses English knows it can be ambiguous. Why do you
think legal language is so stuffy? It's because every boilerplate clause
has been chewed on by generations of lawyers and courts so that that there
is now only one possible way to interpret the clause.
Bill
( let alone Mr. Clinton's recent discussion on what the meaning of "is"
is. )
John Fields
> Now a much worse case has arisen: One of the on-line
> dictionaries lists "nuke-u-lur" as an acceptable alternate
> pronunciation for "nuclear". Apparently we have so
> many morons in govenment saying this (including the
> Chief Moron) that it became expedient to change the language!
---
I don't think it's so much moronic as it is a case of "I'm the President
and I'll say it the way I damned well please". I'm sure he's been told
more than once by his staff, speechwriters, etc. about the generally
accepted pronunciation, yet I'm equally sure he prefers to consciously
use the localism as part of his personna. Just as an aside, I was
listening to NPR the other day and heard "nucular" from someone who
should have known better, (I forget whether it was a govenrment or media
person speaking) so there ya go!
The word that seems to me to be losing its position as a superlative is
"unique". "That's one of the most unique things..." and its cousins is
appearing more and more on the media, especially the network news. Now
_there's_ a bunch of ignorant self-serving fucking morons for ya!
---
John Fields
Professional circuit designer
http://www.austininstruments.com
Mark Mastrocinque
"Gerald Kelly" <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote in message
news:3d8b8c20$1...@news.csolutions.net...
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
I still am amused by the number of broadcast journalists who say
"ash-phalt". All-mond is a close second. :-)
Tom
Sir Charles W. Shults III
"orient". Or people who say "ex-shure-size" for exercise. There is no "sure"
in there! Just two offerings from a steaming pile of ignorance.
Tom Del Rosso
If you measure length in feet, you may call it "footage", and if you
measure distance in miles, you may call it "mileage", but these terms
are acceptable only in specific contexts. We never refer to volume as
"gallonage".
We measure current, power, and electro-motive force (EMF) in amperes,
watts, and volts. We say "current" and "power" because they are
conveniently short words. The term EMF can't be shortened because it
must be distinguished from other kinds of force, but EMF is too awkward,
so we use the term "voltage" instead.
Peter Bennett
<Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>
> Ampacity is the rating for maximum allowable current in a circuit
>element, or device.
Ampacity is the maximum allowed current in a conductor, as established
by electricial code or other regulations.
The ampacity for a given size of wire can vary depending on insulation
and environment - in marine applications, the ampacity of a wire in
engine compartments (where it is hot) will be less than for the same
wire elsewhere.
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver-webpages.com/van-ps
Keith R. Williams
aic...@cfl.rr.com says...
> The problem you run into is this - "what watts is that resistor" or "what
> watt rating is that resistor" or "how many watts is that resistor rated for?"
How about - "how much power is that resistor rated for?"
> Or similarly, "what is the amps rating of this unit" or "how many amperes can
> this safely carry" or "what amps is this?" Clearly, amperage comes in handy
> here: "what amperage is this?"
How about - "What is the current rating of this unit?" or "What
is the ampacity of this circuit?" or "How much current is in
R1?" These are different issues and use different words. What is
your definition of "amperage"? Is it universal?
> You would not say "what volts is this" because a
> term was invented to handle this linguistic situation.
True. I might say "how many volts are across C1", which would be
different that "what's the voltage rating on C1". OTOH, "What's
the voltage of C1" might be confusing.
> Many terms come into use in popular language because they are very useful.
> It is only after the fact that they may show up in a dictionary. In cases where
> technology is involved, it is often due to the fact that useful or necessary
> terms have not yet been coined. This is a field where, in lieu of other useful,
> descriptive terms, we make up the language.
When there are already terms in general usage, making up more
gets in the way of communication.
> So you will often hear of wattage and amperage when dealing with
> electronics, although the terms may not be considered "proper". The need for
> such terms sort of forces their creation.
There is no point in making up new words when there are already
perfectly useful ones.
> After all, where did the term "voltage" come from?
Volta? ;-)
----
Keith
EROMLIGNOD
In "The Art of Electronics", by Horowitz & Hill, they state, "...don't call
current 'amperage'; that's strictly bush-league". So it is bad form, but not
incorrect.
In the study of semantics and lexicography, if a word is generally accepted as
referring to or meaning something in particular, then by god that's what it
means. That's the way a dictionary is made--they take examples from literature
and infer the definition from a word's context. Language came before
dictionaries; not the other way around.
There are standard spellings and there are rules governing grammar, but the
meanings of words are not bound by such restrictions. New words and existing
words that take on additional meanings are a daily-evolving occurence.
Don
Tom MacIntyre
What is the emoticon for a standing ovation? :-)
Tom
Vicky Firehose
a box.
I think it's ok using terms amparage.
dob
1. There is no such animal as voltage.. the correct and meaningful term is
voltage difference as in What is the voltage difference between the
following two named points. This is not an abstract notion
2. I would be less definitive in regard to Wattage. .. the correct term
would of course be power.. as in what is the power consumed (in watts)
3. The first term refers to current and so should be phrased as .. What
is the current ( in amperes) in the following ....
It would however be logical to say that a certain fuse or wire had a
specific amperage, indicating that it could sustain a constant value of that
amount of current.
Watson A.Name
aic...@cfl.rr.com talked about...
[snip]
> After all, where did the term "voltage" come from?
I looked out the window and it's on just about every power pole. :-)
I guess poeople couldn't handle using the term electromotive force or EMF.
Voltage is just more convenient.
> Cheers!
> Chip Shults
> My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you put NOSPAM in the
Subject: line. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
Ed Price
"Bill Shymanski" <wtsh...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9z_i9.6738$nU2....@news1.mts.net...
I always thought that each clause of legalese had been optimized to mean
everything and anything that suited the moment. Or to be sufficiently
self-contradictory as to mean nothing at all.
Ed
Frontline Electronics
Mjolinor wrote in message ...
>
>The single most important reason for the English language being so popular,
>particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
>ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it wrong
>here :)).
One could ponder how to write the question "How many (2's, two's to's,
too's)
are (there) in the english language" not to mention 4, there or others.
Jeff
The little lost angel
<k...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> After all, where did the term "voltage" come from?
>Volta? ;-)
I was sure the guy was Voltaire and not Voltron.
:P
The little lost angel
>I always thought that each clause of legalese had been optimized to mean
>everything and anything that suited the moment. Or to be sufficiently
>self-contradictory as to mean nothing at all.
Nope, it means exactly whatever the previous winner wanted it. If you
don't like it, you get to challenge the definition and change it if
you win :P
Don Kelly
"Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j%Vi9.6$4n....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> I have to agree that usage does not make it correct.
>
> In the UK (not so much in the US) people say
>
> "He was sat on the chair"
>
> This is absolutely incorrect, he was sitting on the chair. He was sat on
the
> chair is the same as saying he was ran down the road and how incorrect
does
> that sound.
>
> The single most important reason for the English language being so
popular,
> particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
> ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it
wrong
> here :)).
--------------------
I disagree
English, even with proper usage, does have ambiguities, and lots of them.
This is why it is a hard language to learn. A given word may have a variety
of meanings or different words may sound the same. This is part of what is
exploited by the designers of cryptic cross words. When it comes to popular
usage, the ambiguities often become double entendres. To be "knocked up"
means quite a different thing in Britain than it does in North America.
"Bonk" in New Zealand is not what is meant in Canada.
French and German are actually more precise than English so that, in fact,
word usage is much more tightly controlled. The flexibility of English is
its strength -it adapts and that adaptibility and versatility is what makes
it popular.
>
> Another popular one is refering to the eigth letter of the alphabet, "H"
as
> Haitch when it is Aitch. All dictionaries have it in if you look it up but
> people still insist on naming it incorrectly.
---------
Ah, those Cockneys.
-----------------
>
> Language does develop through common usage but in order for changes to be
> accepted into the likes of the Oxford English dictionary the development
has
> to be complete and I suspect that Amperage and other new words are not
> developed and defined enough to be included in the English language.
-------------
My Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) does give a definition of "Amperage" as
"the strength of an electric current in amperes" It does not substitute
"amperage" for "current".
I note that a similar sort of expression is used for "voltage" as an "emf
expressed in volts"
However, we colonials , even in our dictionaries, recognise both "or"and
"our" spellings of words such as honour/honor. Damned American influence
corrupting us :-).
Also note that English dictionaries follow usage. It is the nature of the
language.
Note that current can be expressed in different units; Statamperes,
abamperess, amperes, coulombs/second etc. Ditto for electromotive forces.
Voltage has been formally accepted as a substitute but amperage is an
informal substitute for current.
Is there confusion as to what is meant? If not, then it isn't a big deal.
>
> It's a kind of wierd way that language works but it is one of the things
> that we must all be grateful for otherwise confusion would creep in, then
> anarchy and then before you know it we are all living a Mel Gibson and
Tina
> Turner rerun. :)
-------
It is weird but the language is alive- that is what makes it so useful in
the world- it changes ,borrows, and adapts. We have medieval words (Saxon
based) such as "shit" and the -one word covers all- "fuck" along with modern
words such as "radar" and "electronics"
Some old words die away (i.e. swive) but others, particularly the "common"
or "slang" words, live on.
no offense intended :)
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Don Kelly
"Vicky Firehose" <vi...@bobsknob.net> wrote in message
news:3D8CEA03...@bobsknob.net...
> How many dollars and how many money inside a box and outside
> a box.
> I think it's ok using terms amparage.
>
-------
Could you express this in comprehensible English?
Roger Johansson
>> After all, where did the term "voltage" come from?
>I looked out the window and it's on just about every power pole. :-)
>
>I guess poeople couldn't handle using the term electromotive force or EMF.
>Voltage is just more convenient.
I am surprised that nobody has even mentioned the word "tension".
I thought that was the correct word which has now been replaced by
"voltage".
I think people should learn the correct words from some technical
standard instead of using dictionaries.
But of course we will have to change the standard terms if most people
are using another word.
Tension has become voltage, but I certainly hope we will be able to
teach youngsters more correct terms in the future.
I heard the other day that new american cars use a unit called KPH.
I guess it means Kelvin-Pascal-Henry.
Kilometer per hour is kmh, k for kilo, m for meter and h for hour.
That unit is used in all cars I have ever travelled with.
(there should actually be a slash between km and h (km/h) but the
slash is often omitted in cars)
American car manufacturers are not making it easier for the car owners
and others to learn the correct units.
k means kilo, K should never be used to mean kilo.
Roger J.
Mjolinor
"Frontline Electronics" <frontline_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message news:7P9j9.38883$1C2.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Mjolinor wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >The single most important reason for the English language being so
popular,
> >particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
> >ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it
wrong
> >here :)).
>
>
> One could ponder how to write the question "How many (2's, two's to's,
> too's)
> are (there) in the english language" not to mention 4, there or others.
> Jeff
>
A point of how ambiguities can creep in if English is not written correctly.
I assume this means how many different ways are there of spelling a word
that sounds like "2"?
Maybe?
Mjolinor
So is this then a coulombage per secondage or a coulomb per secondage?
:)
sorry I couldn't resist.
Mjolinor
"JoeBloe" <Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:irsqouk4vmi8vr1lr...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:08:39 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
> <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>
> >I still am amused by the number of broadcast journalists who say
> >"ash-phalt". All-mond is a close second. :-)
> >
> >
>
From what I've seen of him you should be grateful he can talk.
Tom MacIntyre
<Joe...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:08:39 GMT, Tom MacIntyre
><tom__ma...@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>
>>I still am amused by the number of broadcast journalists who say
>>"ash-phalt". All-mond is a close second. :-)
>>
>>
>
> Even our current president pronounces "nuclear" incorrectly.
My 9-year-old son got asphalt and nuclear right, but not almond. My
11-year-old daughter got asphalt right but not almond, and she's still
in bed so I'll check her on nuclear later.
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
<frontline_...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Mjolinor wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>The single most important reason for the English language being so popular,
>>particularly for technical issues, is that when used correctly it has no
>>ambiguities (sweeping statement that, I am sure someone will prove it wrong
>>here :)).
>
>
>One could ponder how to write the question "How many (2's, two's to's,
>too's)
>are (there) in the english language" not to mention 4, there or others.
>Jeff
>
About 10 minutes in a chat room would cover most of the incorrect
ones, I'd think. :-)
Tom
John
"Miles" <Miles_NG(Remove)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:j1Qi9.8667$Y3.17...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
>
> "Richard Steven Walz" <rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
> news:3d8bca79$0$79553$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
> > In article <3d8b8c20$1...@news.csolutions.net>,
> > Gerald Kelly <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote:
> > >In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the
> word
> > >Amperage is not correct term.
> > >I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same
> category.
> > >
> > >Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> > >correct terms?
> > >
> > >gkelly
John Fields
> From what I've seen of him you should be grateful he can talk.
---
We are, and we're also grateful that he can act.
Tom MacIntyre
>usage made the term " doesn't " correct ?
If usage is okay, then amperage must be also... :-)
Tom
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
You mean you didn't have the capacity (capacitance?) to put up enough
resistance. :-)
Tom
Keith R. Williams
l...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com says...
Voltron? Voltaire? ;-)
Alessandro Volta, the inventor of the first electric battery.
----
Keith
John Fields
>
> Hi Roger!
>
> I did it! :)
>
> But, I first posted my message today...
>
> I am also surprised about that, because since I started been
> interested on Electricity (around 10 years old) I learned the word
> "Tension" to mean "Potential Difference" between two points and I have
> been using it until today. I studied Engineering in Brazil and during
> all my studies I have never heard a professor naming "Tension" as
> "Voltage". There might be an english linguistic expression that
> permits such nomenclature. In Brazil or even in Germany (were I live
> now) just people that doesn't know the first thing about electricity
> use the term "Voltage".
---
Well, fuck you, you pompous little cocksucker. If you can pull your
head out of your ass long enough to look around you may come to the
realization that the restrictions to which you have become accustomed
don't fetter everyone. Perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "When in
Rome do as the Romans do."? Hang around here for a while and after you
get your ears pinned back enough maybe you'll learn a little etiquette.
Grrrrr...
Mjolinor
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kkkrougt3svl5krcf...@4ax.com...
That is correct. My resistage capacitage is very low threshold(age)
Stanley Hess
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=amperage
What is wrong is "amp draw" :-)
--Stan
"Gerald Kelly" <gke...@advancefiber.com> writes:
> In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the word
> Amperage is not correct term.
> I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same category.
>
> Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> correct terms?
>
> gkelly
>
>
--
-------------------------------------- /"\
/~~\_ Stanley Hess \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/| '` *\ snoop...@sasquatchBONE.com X Against HTML Mail
\| ___/ Remove the bones to email me. / \
John Fields
>
> He, he, he!
>
> So polite spoken as you do, I have even only heard in the USA...
---
Then you've either lived a very sheltered life or you're a liar as well
as an uninformed little prig. With an attitude like yours I'm sure many
derogatory comments have been made about you, although perhaps behind
your back or perhaps you didn't understand them.
---
> If you are intelligent enough to discuss about any theme, try to
> choose at least a couple of words you would say to your children.
---
You're a spoiled, spoiled, self important little ass and you _certainly_
don't deserve the kindness with which I treat my well brought up,
beautiful children.
---
> Be more careful they might be watching this thread too! :)
---
Why should _I_ be more careful? I hope they _are_ watching; they enjoy
seeing Dad shoot down assholes.
---
> I stop here.
---
Really? Then I guess I can just relax and assume you've stuck your head
back up your ass when I don't see any more replies. Otherwise you will
have _proven_ yourself to be a liar.
---
> When you come with a high level language we can continue
> our discussion. My opinion about the Subject stays unchanged.
---
I'll use any kind of language that pleases me, your petty little "rules"
be damned, and if you feel that's a hindrance to your participation in
_anything_, then just go away. Just so you won't miss my meaning,
pussy,
1. You don't like the way I write? Too bad.
2. Do I care whether you live or die? Not in the least.
3. Is your opinion of _any_ importance? See 2.
Hoping to hear your silence,
Watson A.Name
a?n?g?e?l...@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com talked about...
But it'll cost you! Why do you think they call them landsharks?
Peter Bennett
<alexh...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Hi Roger!
>
>I did it! :)
>
>But, I first posted my message today...
>
>I am also surprised about that, because since I started been
>interested on Electricity (around 10 years old) I learned the word
>"Tension" to mean "Potential Difference" between two points and I have
>been using it until today. I studied Engineering in Brazil and during
>all my studies I have never heard a professor naming "Tension" as
>"Voltage". There might be an english linguistic expression that
>permits such nomenclature. In Brazil or even in Germany (were I live
>now) just people that doesn't know the first thing about electricity
>use the term "Voltage".
In my experience, the term "voltage" is universally used in English,
by everyone (from layman to scientist/engineer) for "potential
difference" or "electromotive force", or your "tension".
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver-webpages.com/van-ps
Don Kelly
"John Fields" <jfi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3D8DF97A...@texas.net...
---------------
And the above answer is an example of etiquette? He said nothing to elicit
such a boorish response.
Wouldn't it simply be better to point out politely that usage in the
English language (and endorsed by IEEE) is "voltage" whereas "tension" is
used in many other languages but rarely in North America (i.e. High Tension
transmission lines" )?
It is simply a characteristic of English, that common terms tend to be
incorporated in the language relatively quickly.
Don Kelly
"Alexandre Heil Franca" <alexh...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:akdroukjuju3o4i0b...@4ax.com...
> Hi there!
>
> Why not using the correct physics terms: current, tension, power, etc?
>
> If you use them you are correct and will be understood by technicians
> everywhere in the world.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Alexandre Heil França
>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:53:54 -0600, "Gerald Kelly"
> <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote:
>
> >In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the
word
> >Amperage is not correct term.
> >I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same
category.
> >
> >Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> >correct terms?
> >
> >gkelly
> >
----------
Current and power are fine but tension, although once used extensively in
English, has generally disappeared with respect to potential difference.
Tension is slightly more correct than voltage in that it implies a stress of
some kind rather than a unit, but is not really any more understandable
within the English speaking world. It depends on where you are. Certainly,
going from one country to another, one must be able to change gears to use
the terms as understood in that country. In Brazil, I would have to use
"tension"
Part of the problem is that English, compared to many other languages such
as French, German, etc is relatively sloppy and changes more rapidly. There
are no "language purity" laws in English speaking countries.
John Fields
No, and neither was it meant to be.
---
>He said nothing to elicit such a boorish response.
---
I disagree.
---
> Wouldn't it simply be better to point out politely that usage in the
> English language (and endorsed by IEEE) is "voltage" whereas "tension" is
> used in many other languages but rarely in North America (i.e. High Tension
> transmission lines" )?
---
Not necessarily. I ran out of cheeks a long time ago and as a
consequence I tend toward the 2X4 school and prefer to hit back with a
bigger stick than I was hit with.
---
> It is simply a characteristic of English, that common terms tend to be
> incorporated in the language relatively quickly.
---
I agree, and I thank you for the nicely phrased, polite commentary.
Roy McCammon
>
> In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the word
> Amperage is not correct term.
> I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same category.
>
> Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> correct terms?
well, I suppose that current would be expressed as a
number with units of amps and amperage would be
unitless as in "The current is fifteen amps; the amperage
is fifteen." But I'd know what you meant either way.
--
Thank you for reading and or replying
If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like
you.
Local optimization almost never yields global optimization.
Roy McCammon
>
> "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
it would in Texas
John Fields
>
> "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
---
In a dynamic language like English, usage is _precisely_ what makes it
correct. I like to grouse about 'unique' being used incorrectly, but
the fact is if it's used incorrectly long enough by enough people then
its meaning changes and the then conventional meaning becomes correct.
There are many examples of this transition occurring. 'Gay' comes to
mind as an example where the shift in meaning occurred almost overnight
and the use of the word to convey the previously accepted meaning has
all but died out.
Tom MacIntyre
wrote:
>Miles wrote:
>>
>> "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
>
>---
>In a dynamic language like English, usage is _precisely_ what makes it
>correct. I like to grouse about 'unique' being used incorrectly, but
>the fact is if it's used incorrectly long enough by enough people then
>its meaning changes and the then conventional meaning becomes correct.
>There are many examples of this transition occurring. 'Gay' comes to
>mind as an example where the shift in meaning occurred almost overnight
>and the use of the word to convey the previously accepted meaning has
>all but died out.
>---
I can't think of any examples right now, but the previously accepted
meaning was used in several songs from years ago, and of course that
puts a totally different spin on those songs now.
Tom
John Popelish
I use the words amperage and voltage to refer only to comparative
values of current or tension, like "more amperage", or "higher
voltage", or to specify implied predefined ranges, like "high voltage"
or "low amperage", where the words are direct replacements for current
or tension (emf).
If a specific value is to be expressed, then I either skip the word
for current or tension and just say "that path has 9 amps through it",
or "there is about 10 volts across that component", letting the units
imply the effect under consideration. Only when I am trying ot be as
formal and clear as possible do I refer to the current being 43
amperes, or the EMF being 19 volts, etc.
--
John Popelish
The little lost angel
<tom__ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:01:32 GMT, John Fields <jfi...@texas.net>
>wrote:
>>There are many examples of this transition occurring. 'Gay' comes to
>>mind as an example where the shift in meaning occurred almost overnight
>>and the use of the word to convey the previously accepted meaning has
>>all but died out.
>>---
>
>I can't think of any examples right now, but the previously accepted
>meaning was used in several songs from years ago, and of course that
>puts a totally different spin on those songs now.
Folks back then appeared to change their orientation at the drop of
the hat :P
"Singin' a song I will be gay, I found a love and love is here to
stay"
"To think that only yesterday, I was cheerful, bright and gay"
"There were times when love was new and both our hearts were gay
Now, the signs say we're through and bound for separate ways"
Gerald Kelly
who do not likewise will continue
to not them, whether based on logic, grammar, usage or popularity. (should
I have used 'use' instead of 'usage')
I generally agree that in communication priority number one it be understood
and number two is to communicate
correctly. Just as in theology, two people can do exactly the same thing.
One can be wrong and one can be right. The one who was wrong was wrong
becuase he had a conviction tjat it was wrong before doing it, the other did
not.
I will continue to avoid the use of the terms (words) in question in this
thread because of conviction. But in the end,
who cares?
gkelly
"Gerald Kelly" <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote in message
news:3d8b8c20$1...@news.csolutions.net...
> In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the word
> Amperage is not correct term.
> I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same category.
>
> Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> correct terms?
>
> gkelly
>
>
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
daestrom
> Hi Roger!
>
> I did it! :)
>
> But, I first posted my message today...
>
> I am also surprised about that, because since I started been
> interested on Electricity (around 10 years old) I learned the word
> "Tension" to mean "Potential Difference" between two points and I have
> been using it until today. I studied Engineering in Brazil and during
> all my studies I have never heard a professor naming "Tension" as
> "Voltage". There might be an english linguistic expression that
> permits such nomenclature. In Brazil or even in Germany (were I live
> now) just people that doesn't know the first thing about electricity
> use the term "Voltage".
>
If you judge people's knowledge of electricity based on their usage of the
term 'Voltage', I'm afraid you exclude many knowledgable and experienced
people (only to your detriment). Frankly, I've always thought of the term
'tension' as more of an analogous description of the phenomenon, not a
proper name for it.
When discussing transmission lines, how do you describe the force applied to
the conductors to keep them from sagging? If you refer to it as 'tension'
or 'tensile force' than we have the term meaning two different ideas (the
electromotive force between conductors, or the mechanical force applied to
hold the conductor up). Certainly the mechanical force was in usage long
before electrical theory. To re-apply it in a new way is ambiguous.
daestrom
daestrom
> Miles wrote:
> >
> > "usage" doesn't make it "correct".
>
> ---
> In a dynamic language like English, usage is _precisely_ what makes it
> correct. I like to grouse about 'unique' being used incorrectly, but
> the fact is if it's used incorrectly long enough by enough people then
> its meaning changes and the then conventional meaning becomes correct.
> There are many examples of this transition occurring. 'Gay' comes to
> mind as an example where the shift in meaning occurred almost overnight
> and the use of the word to convey the previously accepted meaning has
> all but died out.
> ---
>
Yes, and my father's formal name was 'Richard', so he grew up with a
nickname that is not very pleasant today ('Dick'). I can't imagine a kid
growing up in school today with that nickname ;)
daestrom
John Fields
> >
> >I can't think of any examples right now, but the previously accepted
> >meaning was used in several songs from years ago, and of course that
> >puts a totally different spin on those songs now.
>
> Folks back then appeared to change their orientation at the drop of
> the hat :P
>
> "Singin' a song I will be gay, I found a love and love is here to
> stay"
>
> "To think that only yesterday, I was cheerful, bright and gay"
>
> "There were times when love was new and both our hearts were gay
> Now, the signs say we're through and bound for separate ways"
---
We have an old song (My Old Kentucky Home) which seems to indicate that
for black folks it was seasonal:
"The sun shines bright on my old Kentucky home,
'tis summer, the darkies are gay..."
---
John Fields
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I must agree with you that my surprise should not apply to the english
> language. In an other message I posted in this thread (but in other
> branch) I explicitly changed my way of thinking regarding to english.
> But when you say "my" tension, as the term could be an invention of
> mine, I must disagree with you. Tension is well used in english and
> you can prove it your self. Just do a search in Internet.
> I did it. Result: ~ 500 texts using the exact match for "electrical
> tension". Seems to be quite a few used!
---
A search for "Electrical Tension" on Google will get you about 253,000
hits. A search for "voltage" will get you 4,690,000.
The little lost angel
<alexh...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Hi there!
>Can you explain the meaning of "gay" in these cases?
The word used to mean happy/cheerful.
We had an amusement place here back in the 60s/70s that was called Gay
World. Fortunately it closed down before the new meaning became
prevalent... or maybe that's why it closed down *grinz*
Keith R. Williams
daes...@twcny.rr.com says...
How about the NASCAR driver; Dick Trickle? I think I'd kill my
parents for that one!
...then there was a politician who named his daughter Ima Hogge.
We had a guy at work: Purdy Outhouse. The list of these parental
insults is endless!
----
Keith
Michael A. Terrell
There was a sign on a barn in Kentucky years ago that advertised for
a small town lawyer: IMA SHYSTER
--
An old fart since August 5th, 2002!
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Check out my web site and tell me what you think.
I'm up to 160 pages,
over 200,000 parts,
and still working on it.
Don Kelly
"Alexandre Heil Franca" <alexh...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:js3vou0flnsqc52eq...@4ax.com...
> ----------------
>
> Hi Don,
>
> Yes, I agree. Actually I didn't reflect objectively about the usage of
> "voltage" in English. Of course it if very much used! Any book you may
> get uses it, except maybe that which tends to threat the subject
> concerning to physics. I am even accustomed to read such books, but
> never stopped to think about it. I must be more careful the next time
> and take care to associate the a term to a specific usage, respecting
> the its usual form for that language.
>
> Bye,
>
> Alexandre
------------------
Within reach I have a circuit analysis text as well as a text on fields
(heavy duty physics oriented) and both use "voltage" which has become
acceptable in physics and engineering texts. However, amperage (ugh) as not
made that jump- possibly because it is supplying a longer word for a shorter
one- I'm sure governments regret this.
Cheers,
Don Kelly
"John Fields" <jfi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3D8F0FE2...@texas.net...
> Don Kelly wrote:
> >
> > "John Fields" <jfi...@texas.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D8DF97A...@texas.net...
> > > Alexandre Heil Franca wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Roger!
> > > >
> > ---------------snip--------------
> > And the above answer is an example of etiquette?
>
> ---
> No, and neither was it meant to be.
> ---
>
> >He said nothing to elicit such a boorish response.
>
> ---
> I disagree.
> ------------------
We will agree to disagree. I see it as someone coming from a different
background -not a big deal.
-------------------
>
> > Wouldn't it simply be better to point out politely that usage in the
> > English language (and endorsed by IEEE) is "voltage" whereas "tension"
is
> > used in many other languages but rarely in North America (i.e. High
Tension
> > transmission lines" )?
>
> ---
> Not necessarily. I ran out of cheeks a long time ago and as a
> consequence I tend toward the 2X4 school and prefer to hit back with a
> bigger stick than I was hit with.
--------------------
Sometimes that's like throwing shit at a fan. Most of it comes back.-
Pureed. :-)
------------------------------------
>
> > It is simply a characteristic of English, that common terms tend to be
> > incorporated in the language relatively quickly.
>
> ---
> I agree, and I thank you for the nicely phrased, polite commentary.
> ---
Thank you.
Cheers
John Fields
> Yes, and my father's formal name was 'Richard', so he grew up with a
> nickname that is not very pleasant today ('Dick'). I can't imagine a kid
> growing up in school today with that nickname ;)
---
There used to be a wonderful Italian restaurant here owned by a man
named Dick Eletto, and after a few visits there he started calling me
"Big John", so of course I had to reciprocate!^)
John Fields
> > ------------------
> We will agree to disagree. I see it as someone coming from a different
> background -not a big deal.
> -------------------
---
Someone coming from a different background, hurling insults, is
nevetheless hurling insults. My personal view is that I don't like
being insulted so if I am I will insult the insulter to give them a
taste of their own medicine and make them stop.
---
> --------------------
> Sometimes that's like throwing shit at a fan. Most of it comes back.-
> Pureed. :-)
> ------------------------------------
---
You have to be very careful to either throw it between the blades or to
throw it at the suck side of the fan!^)
Steve Alexanderson
"Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:THXi9.54$4n.2...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Ed Price" <edp...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:WdXi9.50320$S32.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
> >
> > "Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:oaWi9.9$4n.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
> > English is the Borg of languages. Resistance is futile; your useful
> > expressions will be assimilated and the carcass of your language
> discarded.
> > <g>
> >
> > Ed
>
> Mostly true but can I suggest:-
>
> "your useful expressions will be approximated"
>
> as being slightly more accurate :)
Shoudn't that be "ohmage is futile"?
Rich Grise
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:22:57 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
...
> >"He was sat on the chair"
> >
> >This is absolutely incorrect, he was sitting on the chair. He was sat on the
> >chair is the same as saying he was ran down the road and how incorrect does
> >that sound.
> >
> Well, there is *one* case where it would be correct: If he was
> physically placed on a chair by another, as one would do with a
> child. <grin>
No, actually, that's wrong. The word in that case would be "set"
as in "he was set in the chair," which is still a little awkward.
'set' is transitive active: "Set the bomb down."
'was set' is transitive passive: "He was set on the chair by his mom."
'sit' is intransitive: "I will now sit on the chair."
People make the same mistake with 'lay' and 'lie' or 'leave' and 'let.'
And hearing 'unique' used as if it's comparative makes my skin crawl.
Cheers!
Rich Grise
Self-Appointed Chief, Apostrophe Police
Don Kelly
"John Fields" <jfi...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3D9061A4...@texas.net...
> Don Kelly wrote:
>
> > > ------------------
> > We will agree to disagree. I see it as someone coming from a different
> > background -not a big deal.
> > -------------------
>
> ---
> Someone coming from a different background, hurling insults, is
> nevetheless hurling insults. My personal view is that I don't like
> being insulted so if I am I will insult the insulter to give them a
> taste of their own medicine and make them stop.
-------------------
Sorry, I don't read what was said as an insult. In particular, it wasn't a
personal insult. I read it as someone who was puzzled and while proficient
in English, wasn't well versed in the fine nuances of a second, third or
fourth language. However, I'm going to drop this subject.
Mjolinor
>
And there you have it, an "almost unique" expression of the correct use of
English.
:)
Bob Masta
wrote:
>no_...@aol.com (Bob Masta) wrote in message news:<3d8c6a3...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:22:57 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>...
>> >"He was sat on the chair"
>> >
>> >This is absolutely incorrect, he was sitting on the chair. He was sat on the
>> >chair is the same as saying he was ran down the road and how incorrect does
>> >that sound.
>> >
>> Well, there is *one* case where it would be correct: If he was
>> physically placed on a chair by another, as one would do with a
>> child. <grin>
>
>No, actually, that's wrong. The word in that case would be "set"
>as in "he was set in the chair," which is still a little awkward.
>'set' is transitive active: "Set the bomb down."
>'was set' is transitive passive: "He was set on the chair by his mom."
>'sit' is intransitive: "I will now sit on the chair."
Example:
"His father grabbed him by the arms, marched him across
the room, and sat him firmly in the chair."
Bob Masta
tech(AT)daqarta(DOT)com
D A Q A R T A
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
Shareware from Interstellar Research
www.daqarta.com
Bob Masta
wrote:
>no_...@aol.com (Bob Masta) wrote in message news:<3d8c6a3...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 09:22:57 +0100, "Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>...
>> >"He was sat on the chair"
>> >
>> >This is absolutely incorrect, he was sitting on the chair. He was sat on the
>> >chair is the same as saying he was ran down the road and how incorrect does
>> >that sound.
>> >
>> Well, there is *one* case where it would be correct: If he was
>> physically placed on a chair by another, as one would do with a
>> child. <grin>
>
>No, actually, that's wrong. The word in that case would be "set"
>as in "he was set in the chair," which is still a little awkward.
>'set' is transitive active: "Set the bomb down."
>'was set' is transitive passive: "He was set on the chair by his mom."
>'sit' is intransitive: "I will now sit on the chair."
>
Hi, Rich. Yes, I am aware of the "set" usage, but I was
thinking of "sat" in a more active sense, as in "forced to
assume a sitting position" instead of simply "placed".
But I admit it's not a common usage... maybe not even
common enough to be correct!
Don Kelly
"Mjolinor" <mjol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4vdk9.146$q15....@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
If you were present, at the present time, I would happily present you with a
present.:-)
Rich Grise
> Example:
> "His father grabbed him by the arms, marched him across
> the room, and sat him firmly in the chair."
>
> Bob Masta
> tech(AT)daqarta(DOT)com
Why does this make me think of the euphemism, "He grabbed me
by the hair, dragged me kicking and screaming out into the
parking lot, and slept with me up against the wall."?
Cheers!
Rich
Don Pearce
<gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote:
>In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the word
>Amperage is not correct term.
>I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same category.
>
>Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
>correct terms?
>
>gkelly
>
The correct word is "Current". Voltage is fine, Wattage should be
"Power".
d
_____________________________
Telecommunications consultant
http://www.pearce.uk.com
R. Lewis
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:ga3mvu0o8llop1qko...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:53:54 -0600, "Gerald Kelly"
> <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote:
>
> >In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the
word
> >Amperage is not correct term.
> >I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same
category.
> >
> >Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> >correct terms?
> >
> >gkelly
> >
>
> The correct word is "Current". Voltage is fine, Wattage should be
> "Power".
>
The unit of Voltage is a Volt
The unit of Current is an Amp
The unit of Power is a Watt
Wattage, Amperage have never been engineering terms - but between
consenting adults behind closed doors use whatever terms you like.
Don Stauffer
However, I agree with R. Lewis that 'voltage' is extremely common, even
in professional conversations.
--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stau...@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
Brooks Van Pall
Brooks
Repeating Decimal
don...@pearce.uk.com wrote on 12/14/02 2:52 AM:
I always teak my wife when she refersm to "square footage" instead of area.
I say that it really should be square yardage. It never does any good.
Bill
Repeating Decimal
h.l...@connect-2.co.uk wrote on 12/14/02 5:05 AM:
> The unit of Voltage is a Volt
> The unit of Current is an Amp **Do you mean ampere?**
> The unit of Power is a Watt
Bill
cpemma
> "Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> news:ga3mvu0o8llop1qko...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:53:54 -0600, "Gerald Kelly"
>> <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that
>>> the word Amperage is not correct term.
>>> I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same
>>> category.
>>>
>>> Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these
>>> are correct terms?
>>>
>>> gkelly
>>>
>>
>> The correct word is "Current". Voltage is fine, Wattage should be
>> "Power".
>> Yes
> The unit of Power is a Watt
>
Unless you have 746. Save the Horse ;)
Pratik Patel
I prefer potential difference because it never lets me forget that voltage is nothing more than the scalar potential function of the electric vector field, ie E = -del(V)
obsidian
errrr, how does one "teak" a wife?
--
obsidian
"Repeating Decimal" <Salm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA20C970.3A842%Salm...@attbi.com...
> in article ga3mvu0o8llop1qko...@4ax.com, Don
Pearce at
> don...@pearce.uk.com wrote on 12/14/02 2:52 AM:
>
[snip]
Sir Charles W. Shults III
news:qlOK9.600$Ih.4...@news.chello.be...
>
> errrr, how does one "teak" a wife?
Wood you really like to know or knot?
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Dude
> <gke...@advancefiber.com> wrote:
>
> >In one of my classes at USU 12 years ago, a professor stated that the
word
> >Amperage is not correct term.
> >I've heard another say that Voltage and Wattage fall in the same
category.
> >
> >Can anyone with authority :) state once and for all whether these are
> >correct terms?
> >
> >gkelly
> >
>
> The correct word is "Current". Voltage is fine, Wattage should be
> "Power".
shouldn't you then use "potential" instead of "voltage" ?
Repeating Decimal
obsi...@leuven.vlaanderen.terra.sol wrote on 12/14/02 2:33 PM:
> errrr, how does one "teak" a wife?
Sorry. It is should have been *tweak*.
Bill
obsidian
now, this is getting interesting....
tell us all about tweaking a wife
--
obsidian
"Repeating Decimal" <Salm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA217787.3AA59%Salm...@attbi.com...
Thinker
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:ga3mvu0o8llop1qko...@4ax.com...
Gibbo
>Is the word Ampacity correct referring to electrical equipment.?
>
I'm not sure if it's a real technical term but it's generally used only for the
current carry ing capacity of cable. amp-acity amp-capacity. I've not seen it
used for anything else.
Gibbo
daestrom
"Thinker" <th...@spamy.com> wrote in message
news:c%%K9.2909$az.20...@monger.newsread.com...
> Is the word Ampacity correct referring to electrical equipment.?
>
Most people in the trade would see this as a contraction of sorts of the
term 'amperage capacity'. Refering to the rated current the device is
designed for. I don't think it is ambigous, and it is widely understood in
those terms.
As far as 'correct', well, I'll leave that to the jury.
daestrom
Don Stauffer
Peter Bennett
>Is the word Ampacity correct referring to electrical equipment.?
>
In North America, Ampacity is the maximum current permitted in a
conductor by the electrical code.
The ampacity of a given coductor will depend on its environment - a
single conductor in open air will have a higher ampacity than a number
of conductors in a cable or conduit.
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver-webpages.com/van-ps