Dėl kai kurių bendrųjų technikos terminų

Stasys ZAJANKAUSKAS ON SOME GENERAL TECHNICAL TERMS First, the system of general technical terms should be put in order. Linguists suggest adhering to the principle that terminology standards should include only terms currently in use, already established, and beyond doubt. Unfortunately, no group of terms has yet been properly standardized or systematized. As for terminology, new terms should be published in appropriate publications, discussed, criticized, and corrected in a timely manner. Unfortunately, there are practically no such suitable publications. For example, in preparing standards for electronics terminology, the ambiguities in the unsettled relationships among the general technical concepts “device,” “apparatus,” and “element” came sharply to the fore. The terms meaning and value, mode and operation are also insufficiently clear. We will briefly discuss them. What is the difference between a device and an element? I would say that, in deciding what is the better name for a particular object—a device or an element—it is important to understand certain strategic aspects of language properly. An example will make the point clearer. For example, a jacket can be called an element of clothing, but that is worth saying only when we really want to talk about the structure of clothing and its individual components. In all other cases, a jacket should be called a garment, not some kind of element. One can, after all, argue that essentially everything is an element of something more general, but I think the term element should be used sparingly. The same relationship should hold between the terms device and element. I think the term element should be used only when we really want to emphasize that we are examining the structure of some construction, device, apparatus, or installation and its individual components. In other cases, an appropriate term should be found to name the specific kind of object. 65 For example, this is precisely why a transistor, diode, or thyristor, although most often used as a circuit element, is defined as a semiconductor device (it is defined similarly in many other languages: English – semiconductor device, French – dispositif à semiconducteurs, etc. Only the Germans call these “semiconductor construction elements”). What is the difference between a device and an apparatus? A general name is needed for integrated circuits, semiconductor converters, sensors, diodes, transistors, and thyristors. Most of them are merely elements or parts, but some are not suitably called elements. Many have been named semiconductor devices. For many, this is unfamiliar or even unacceptable. An apparatus is another matter. The devices mentioned may also be independent products, like individual elements of an assembly (in which case they are called components). They may also be elements of a more complex monolithic structure, without even leads and invisible even under a microscope. For example, the basic structural elements of integrated circuits are essentially transistors, of which there may be thousands or millions. Yet international standards classify a semiconductor circuit in the broader, larger class of semiconductor devices (English semiconductor devices), that is, the same class to which transistors belong. Thus, when defining, for example, a transistor, it should be called a device. Moreover, this concept immediately encompasses both an elemental and a component transistor! Some call them devices, others apparatuses. Russians and Poles call them “apparatuses,” Germans “construction elements,” while the English and French use the most general term, which, in my opinion, means a device, but not an apparatus. Lithuanians also need such a general name. I think the word device would be the most suitable name, since its lexical meaning has not yet become unambiguous or been systematically restricted. In fact, apparatus should mean only a certain “device intended for end-user use.” A device is one of the basic general technical terms used consistently in many fields— 66 —in technical terminology. Dictionaries, however, do not quite define it that way. For example, in the second edition (1972) of the Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, device is “something installed, a component of a piece of equipment or an apparatus,” whereas in the third edition (1993) it is “something installed; some simple piece of equipment (apparatus).” Meanwhile, the second edition describes an apparatus as “some kind of special tool, apparatus,” while the third defines it as “an arrangement (? – St. Z.), an apparatus operating on the basis of complex physical phenomena.” I think the attempt to distinguish the concepts “device” and “apparatus” in this way is unjustified—what is complex to one person seems simple to another! Who can judge? Moreover, the names of academic subjects, such as electronic and quantum microwave devices, pulsed and digital devices, encompass both devices and apparatuses. After all, the concept of “apparatus manufacturing industry” has never included the manufacture of transistors or integrated circuits! An apparatus (French appareil) should be brought closer to an appliance! Thus, let us call any unit of material means used to achieve some purpose a device, especially material equipment that has no independent or end-use function. Or when its function or purpose is not understood, making it difficult to choose a more specific systematic name. An apparatus, meanwhile, would mean only a unit of material equipment intended for a particular independent end use. This revision of the concept and term device does not overturn much, since components of a structure can continue to be called what they have been called—devices. It is also worth looking at our neighbors. When finally systematizing the concepts mentioned, it is important to consider matters of international communication as well. Suitable Lithuanian equivalents are needed for terms in other languages. The English term device is first and foremost rendered as įtaisas, meaning “a creation,” that is, something created, invented, or devised (see Webster’s dictionaries, for example, Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1918, or Webster’s New World Dictionary (of American English), 1989). When there is no doubt that a particular device needs a more precise name, its designation is specified: instrument, apparatus, equipment, and so on. Devices without an end-use function, and groups of mixed devices, are named by the more general term devices. 67 The French equivalent of device, dispositif, denotes both the arrangement of the parts of something and a general or auxiliary device (see, for example, Larousse Universel (en 2 volumes), Paris, 1922 and Le Robert Dictionnaire d’aujourd’hui, Montreal, 1992). Thus, it is the totality of the parts that make up any mechanism or apparatus (or instrument); it can also refer to any such mechanism or apparatus (instrument) (see Petit Larousse en couleurs, Larousse, 1989). Devices intended for a specific, understood end use are always called by specific names: appareil, instrument, machine. For example, even a simple millimeter is already called an appareil, whereas a transistor or diode is not, because they have no end-use function. In such cases, the term dispositif is used. Meaning and value Mathematicians get by almost entirely without the term value. For them, there are the value of a function, value of a quantity, mean value, and so on. The “Dictionary of Mathematical Terms” (1994) lists only these four terms containing the element value: scale division value, value of a game, lower/upper value. Radioelectronics specialists would essentially agree, but they would also find more terms denoting value (worth) in the true sense of the word. These would primarily include the values of units of physical quantities (but not the physical quantities themselves), standards or reference measures for reproducing physical quantities, the end and initial graduations on measuring-instrument scales, the value of any physical constant, and certain estimates: effective or root-mean-square values of functions. In all other cases, the term magnitude would be a good fit, especially when speaking of dimensionless quantities. The “Dictionary of Physics Terms” (1979) does not include the term magnitude at all. Thus, physicists, acknowledging only their own truth, impose it indiscriminately on others. For example, the textbook “Tamašauskas, A. et al. Physics, vol. 3, 1992,” p. 168, has a section entitled “Values of Certain Integrals.” Mode and operation Physicists at Vilnius University want to replace the word mode with the term opera- 68 tion. The Lithuanian character of terms is very important. If we can overcome the difficulty, let us translate—but let us be careful with words! In radioelectronics, the concept of “mode” encompasses both the internal... and external operating conditions of devices, their operating voltage (for example, maximum permissible operating modes), the manner or order of operation, operating states, and types or classes of operating characteristics. Lawyers use the term operation, as I understand it, to denote the consequences or result of an activity. Thus, even at a superficial glance, operation in radioelectronics could not mean something entirely different—operating conditions: electrical, thermal, climatic, radiation-related, and so on, as well as operating states, etc. We use the term weak-signal mode. Now we would have to say weak-signal operation! But the signal is not what operates here! We could call it weak-signal conditions. Clearly, one term, operation, will not suffice here. When certain devices are kept in storage, they require a particular so-called storage mode. This involves not only environmental conditions, but also preservation and other maintenance, such as periodically charging batteries, etc. You cannot call that storage operation! We used to say that a device operates, for example, in transmission mode. Suppose that at this moment it is not transmitting anything because there is nothing to transmit. Let us try using the new term: the device operates in transmission operation. Another awkwardness here is that the instrumental case of the word “operation” coincides with its nominative case. We would also need the term operational operation. A state is being renamed as operation. Of course, the concept could be divided and several terms used. 69