Talk:List of archaic technological nomenclature

Intial discussion

Is there a award for most awesome Wikipedia article titles? I vote for this one. Talk about glorious use of the English language.

At least one item on this list isn't obsolete. I happen to live in range of a television station, WCFE-TV in New York State that goes into closedown every night at 12:35 AM., after a playing of the national anthem. 20:42, 13 November 2006

Does Wikipedia policy allow the odd page with a more humorous, POV stance or do we have to stick totally to the rules? I suggest this page could be more fun to read if we don't Infilms 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suppose that the policy is fairly rigid. This article sticks out like a sore thumb with its un-encyclopaedic style.203.206.249.161 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Set to it and formalise, fellow wikifolk Infilms 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Alternator - Old term for an alternating current ("AC") generator. All mechanical electromagnetic generators produce alternating current(...)" As far as I know, this is NOT true as depending on the configuration of the generator it could as well produce continuous current.

Gilles

Alternators

What a load of semantic bickering.

As I understand it, "Generator" is the generic name for a device that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. Now an "alternator" is one specific type of generator with an AC output. (I also heard once that a "dynamo" is a generator with a DC output, but I'm not 100% certain if this is the correct definition.)

To say that all generators produce alternating current (AC) is like saying all electric motors are AC motors, and that DC motors don't exist. A "DC motor" using this reasoning is just an AC motor with a built-in synchronized mechanical polarity inversion switch, aka the commutator.

Of course, we use the terms "DC motor" and "AC motor" to distinguish between those motors which require external AC power, and those motors which can run on external DC power and contain their own commutator or internal switching circuit to make the armature spin.

So back on the topic of generators, it is convenient to distinguish between those device which when rotated will output direct current (DC), and those which will output alternating current (AC).

In the automotive world, the terms "generator" and "alternator" were traditionally used to distinguish between the modern-day devices which contain a diode rectifier, and older devices (generally up to the 1950's or early 1960's) which used a commutator.

Granted, the SAE has a valid point in discouraging the use of the term "alternator" for the electrical generating device onboard most vehicles. After all, the rectifier is internal, and the electrical output from the self-contained device is DC. Why should we make a nomenclature distinction between solid state electronic rectification and mechanical switching for rectification purposes? After all, we accept that motors with commutators and brushless motors with internally electronically switched coils are both still "DC motors".

But to say that the term "alternator" is meaningless and does not distinguish anything is simply incorrect. Perhaps for vehicles the term should only be used when the diode rectifier is an external device, and therefore the generating device alone outputs AC. (Though I have never seen a vehicle built like this, since it would be more expensive to manufacture and offers no advantages to built-in diodes.)

However, I do think the term "alternator" is appropriate for the generators in large electrical power plants, since these devices do not have any rectifiers and they output AC. In fact, the alternating current is of particular importance here since these generators are connected directly and synchronized to the distributed utility AC power.

The small generators that power some bicycle lights could also be correctly called alternators, since they all generate AC. These generators are simply a rotating magnet surrounted by a fixed coil. (Commutators and brushes would wear out too quickly and add unnecessary expense. Diode rectifiers would add unnecessary expense, along with slip rings and brushes that will still eventually wear out. And there is no practical advantage to running the light bulbs on DC instead of AC.)

-Justin Frim

I live in three countries and am yet to see one where all TV stations broadcast 24 hours a day and so do not have closedown.

I see nothing obsolete with the vinyl terminology. It may not be mainstream anymore, but it is still available and a substantial minority have one. See for instance in The Economist http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/techview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8506578 (subscription may be required).

I can't think of any other word than "warming up" to describe what I do before using my brand new lamp amplifier.

I'm not a big user of radio, and the only radio I have (which is still sold and may be the cheapest radio you can get) requires "tuning in".

I think that the idea of this list is interesting, but it mixes really obsolete terms (I had forgotten how "transistorised" used to mean "small and modern") and words related to technologies that may not be very popular with the average teenager.

Finally, I can't see at all what could be obsolete about "dial tones". It is true that GSM phones do not have one, but landlines are in use as far as I now in all countries in the world.

Vitezslav 14:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What?

"Hi-Fi", "dial tone", "alternator" and "dynamo" are certainly not obsolete. They may have been deprecated in certain technical applications, but are commonly-used terms nonetheless. Oli Filth 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mandate

What exactly is this article for, anyway? Is it a list of technical terms that are no longer used, or still-current technical terms for objects that are no longer used? Also, do things that are obsolescent but not obsolete really belong here to begin with? (I don't see the dial tone disappearing as long as we still have POTS land lines, for example...) Haikupoet 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I started this page because I felt that there were a whole load of words related to technology that form a rich part of collective heritage but which are no longer in common use and that deserved documentation. It's been renamed from 'list of obsolete technological nomenclature' which I think was a good move as 'obsolete' has to be a judgement call. I am wondering if the title 'list of archaic technological nomenclature' would be a better title because the wikiarticle on archaism inspires me to believe that's a better classification - comments? If anyone knows how to change the title of an article my vote says go ahead and do that Infilms (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags

written in the formal?

Any suggestion on how to improve this? J. D. Redding 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

factual accuracy?

What is disputed factually? Please list them ... J. D. Redding 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that specific items are disputed, merely that I can't see how the addition of items to this list can be any more than someone's opinion or experience. How can one definitively (in the sense of an encyclopedia) state that words X, Y and Z are "obsolete"? Except in very specific circumstances, there is no authoritive body that declares terminology as "obsolete".

The fact that items are frequently being removed from this list indicates that they were originally added with very little research or forethought. Oli Filth 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Has the "change in the title" and "change in the purpose" of the article helped with the factual accuracy? I hope so ... J. D. Redding 04:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I did change the title to a more objective one. "historic technological nomenclature". obsolete can be hard ... but being historical is easier (and it removed certain connotations I think ...) ... J. D. Redding 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely helps. As the originator of the page, Thank You Infilms (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

references or sources?

Any particular item that needs a reference or a source? Please list them ...J. D. Redding 13:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Any item that doesn't have a source needs one; or at minimum, for a list, there should be a link to an article with appropriate sourcing of the fact. Dicklyon 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a easy to find list ... but I am still searching... J. D. Redding 04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See if i can find a list somewhere in a book or online ...

Any particular ones thatare of concern? Could put a fact tag on them too ... J. D. Redding 16:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we add 8 Track players?

35.10.81.123 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

definitely. Go for it. A classic example of an obsolete technology. Infilms (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not so clear. This page is about historic nomenclature, not obsolete technology. Is 8-track "historic"? Or just a generic term for the Stereo 8 cartridge and other tape systems with 8 tracks, as its disambig page indicates? Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

it's not generic. if you say "8 track" everyone knows what you're talking about, and it's not stereo 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

leftist radio

"Left of the dial" : Refers to the location on an analog radio band selector where most independent or college stations were (and are) located.

National Public Radio stations are generally in the low part of the FM band, but I haven't noticed such a pattern for college stations let alone "independent" stations (whatever that means). And if it's still true, why is this listed as "archaic"? —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"The White Dot"

I have never heard this as a proper term (warranting capitalization), though I've of course heard those words in that order used to refer to that phenomenon. And that phenomenon was commonly seen until around 2010, not just the 1970s (??). I think what's archaic here is the phenomenon and knowledge of it, while the term is just a generic and obvious descriptor that would be naturally applied in any year in which the phenomenon is seen. – PointyOintment ❬‽ · ✍❭ 02:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)