Bank of Batteries ?

Hi again, I recently posted a question looking for plural nouns (MURDER of crows, PARLIAMENT of owls, BANK of batteries, etc) but I was seeking only
technical or engineering terms. Someone posted a reply that a BATTERY is in fact a plural noun, for cells (guns etc)! I have since been googling for knowledge.
So the next question is; if I go to the local supermarket to buy an AA "battery", should it not be called an "AA cell" since it is a singular, not a plural? Yes, I know, this is trivial, but I just want to clarify the correct use of the word BATTERY.
H
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it should be called an "AA cell". If you you buy a pack of several, it should still not be called a battery -- it is a pack of several cells. These cells would become a battery when connected together.
However, the sellers of AA cells are likely to describe them as 'batteries' because that is the word the majority would use, incorrect though it might be.
--
Alec McKenzie
usenet@<surname>.me.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alec McKenzie wrote:

Even though I'm an electrical engineer, I'm on the side of the majority here. The single cells come in a variety of sizes, which all happen to produce about the same voltage. What's the difference between a C cell and a 9V battery? They're a different shape, but there's no electrical or chemical reason for this. The shapes are different purely because the squarish shape of a 9V battery fits better into the sorts of devices (e.g. portable radios) that commonly need a 9V supply. The only way to find out that the C "battery" consists of a single cell and a 9V battery contains six cells is to pull them apart, and it's impossible to do that without inflicting severe damage on the casing.
The voltage produced by an electrochemical cell depends on the materials used, but the technically savvy know that practical cells almost always produce a voltage somewhere in the range 1 to 2 volt. (And the most common of them produce 1.5 volt.) That's how we can deduce that a 9V battery must contain several cells. Many people don't have that knowledge, and there's no good reason for insisting that non-technical people should have it.
By the way, it's possible to connect two 1.5V cells in parallel, to produce a 2-cell battery whose output is indistinguishable from that of a single cell. (The motivation for this is to provide a higher current and/or to extend the battery life.) Depending on how it's packaged, even the technically educated might not realise that there's more than one cell inside.
Back in the days of vacuum tube portable equipment, when it was common to need something like a 96V battery, it was more obvious to the observer that the battery was built up as a huge array of little bricks, so that the distinction between "cell" and "battery" was clearer to everyone. Now that everything's hidden inside the outer casing, the distinction is less obvious.
I can even give a technical defence. If we define a battery to be a voltage source made up internally of N cells, what is so special about the case N=1? It's on a level with quibbling whether 0 is a natural number. The answer is a question of convention, not physical law.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Last week when I was doing my lab test --- electronic class. Professor said "for G-d sake use an "acid battery" with pot circuit -- wasn't happy when students were usig 1k pot with 30V!!!! We were suppose to create two circuits on breadboard. Series Parallel Circuits, and Magnetic circuits.
He has always used word "battery" to meant a single cell dc source.
This is a scanned copy of my last lab work -- one of the question came in our lab test. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id 09966438&size=l
To make long story short.
Battery means = one cell -- one AA, or AAA source
Batteries means = pack of cells two or more AA or AAA source
Personally I think this argument makes as much sense as a^X+b^x=c^x where x>2
Of course, Fermat's meant a^X+b^x=c^x where x=2 but of course his cannibal' son thought otherwise. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Note:
Fermat's son had all his father's books bound in Human Skin. Yes, he also ate the heart of these victims!!!
Book Bound in Human Skin
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0411_060411_skin_book.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

AIRC, he really meant that there are no solutions for a^X+b^X=c^x where X is any whole number > 2
Hard to write what he meant without using a "not equal" sign in the equation. You can use the ! sign concatenated to the = sign to mean "not equal" and then write: a^X+B^x!=c^X for all X integers > 2 to express Fermat's last theorem.
It would be easier if there was an ascii character consisting of an equal sign with a slash through it - it would be more intuitive, but you can use != for that, so all is not lost. :-)
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:29:36 +1000, Peter Moylan

Bullshit.
A single cell is a single cell. A nine volt battery CONTAINS SIX 1.5 Volt SINGLE CELLS INSIDE in a SERIES CONNECTED STACK, and IS a battery.
THAT IS the difference.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:29:36 +1000, Peter Moylan

Bullshit. It had to do with delivery of a specific amount of Ampere Hour support. Many nine volt applications simply did not require the same current draw as lower voltage devices, and in the lower voltage class, note that many cell sizes and capacities are made and available.

Unrelated tripe.
Even the most lay person, basic electronic/electricity course covers cell construction, and the carbon zinc single cell is the primary example/tool for such instruction.
Even a base level dope mechanic knows that each fluid cap on a car battery was for filling the individual CELLS within said battery, much less the bright mechanics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:29:36 +1000, Peter Moylan

Still, consistent package labeling over the years would have conveyed such information, without doubt.
Do you know what the construction of the old 72 Volt lamp/B+ batteries were? Are you gonna tell us that it was 48 1.5 cells in a stack? (It was)
Also, placing yourself above the average Joe makes you less than an average Joe. Nice job.
Most average Joe's are fairly capable of discerning more "technically savvy" information than you might (apparently do) think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

Where did Peter say anything at all about the "average Joe"?
He mentioned "many people" and "non-technical people"; averages -- or even majorities -- weren't cited or implied.
Posters to this group tend to choose their language carefully, and it's thus reasonable to assume that Peter was referring to "many" "non-technical" people when he wrote those terms, rather than to "an average Joe".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sure was. He placed himself above others in his remarks, and that IS the inference. Try again.

Apparently not, and some apparently do not interpret it very carefully either as is shown by your post here.

It is not reasonable. What IS reasonable is to assume that my expression was and is synonymous with his, which it quite clearly is.
Perhaps except to pedantic, tunnel visional dolts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

[shrug]
It's marginally amusing to watch posters like you trying to defend their sloppy reading, writing, and thinking skills.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HVS wrote:

Cross-posting sometimes throws up some quite interestingly cross posters, doesn't it?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:38:43 +0100, LFS

Hell, "HVS" even your supporters cannot construct a properly worded sentence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:34:47 -0700, Spurious Response

Wha? The sentence is perfectly, and cleverly, constructed. Yours, though, is missing a cell: a comma. Deduct 1.5 votes.
--


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tony cooper wrote:

On reflection, I retract the "interestingly" although I do still wonder why anyone would want to call themselves "Spurious Response". Does the expression have some technical meaning among electrical engineers? If not, the poster might like to consider the OED definition:
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Of persons: Begot or born out of wedlock; illegitimate, bastard, adulterous.
b. fig. or in fig. context.
c. Characterized by bastardy or illegitimacy.
d. Supposititious. rare.
2. Having an illegitimate or irregular origin; not properly qualified or constituted.
3. Superficially resembling or simulating, but lacking the genuine character or qualities of, something; not true or genuine; false, sham, counterfeit: a. Of material things. Freq. in more or less specific use in Anat., Bot., etc.
b. Of qualities, conditions, etc.
c. In the specific names of animals, birds, etc.
d. In medical or pathological use.
4. Of a writing, etc.: Not really proceeding from its reputed origin, source, or author; not genuine or authentic; forged.
b. Similarly of words or passages.
5. Characterized by spuriousness or falseness. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It does have a technical meaning in electrical engineering, pretty close to the dictionary meaning, with the added connotation of nuisance or noise. Seems appropriate. -- John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Except you missed the target.
My post is not spurious. I respond to spurious posts with a clean signal.
Try again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:18:49 -0700, John O'Flaherty

Game, set, and match!
--
Al in St. Lou

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:22:21 +0100, LFS

Absolute proof that the last place you belong is in a technical group.
Your post is spurious. My reply is the response to that, resulting in a clean signal to those with at least half a brain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:12:23 -0700, Spurious Response posted:

She isn't IN a technical group.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.