Monday, Jan 02, 2023 at 11:32
Hi Allan, I agree on the correct use of terms FOR THE DESIRED OUTCOME. ;-) . A discussion I have had (with, I have to add, some amusement) with my engineering friends and colleagues (one of whom is a lecturer in engineering). As a non-practicing philosopher (
well, I exaggerate a little, I have not quite graduated yet, but have been studying the field of philosophy of science for decades)I have to disagree. ;-) You are using the term as you see it in your particular field.
So how do you define this situation (genuinely interested)? If I wish to
cook a roast using the least amount of power using the system I have, which is the most "efficient", with or without the converter? As you say, there are "losses" (there are always losses) but which ones are the relevant ones appropriate to use?
The word efficient is simply that, a word, with varying definitions dependent upon context and perspective. In fact, from a linguistic perspective, there are few
places words have definitive meaning without relation to context (scientific nomenclature being one and, even here, there are variances), as I'm sure you are aware.
I'd agree, though, effectiveness may be a clearer way to express this to this audience, but to me it is not sufficient.
Pedantic you were. In the context of your field reasonably so... I also used to analyse and define systems when working in quality and process management fields, I share your frustration with relevant terminology and its misuse!
Thanks for the help with the converter.
Cheers,
Mark
FollowupID:
922024