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.
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.
Le Lundi 15 Mai 2006 03:42, Tony a écrit
Same bet here. Full text can be found at
and please search for "autotransformer 2202".
Well, at least she/he is an enthusiast and knows her/his trade, so I don't feel uncomfortable.
Thank you for your effort.
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?
Even now, many engineers and engineering students do not think that proper English is worth the bother.
Bill
-- Ferme le Bush
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
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?
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.
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.
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
True, as you so ably demonstrate.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required