Bank of Batteries ?

[Harry]

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

 

[Alec McKenzie]

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.

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.

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

Try a dictionary then, not friggin google. Google is for popular
items. I am quite sure that discussions on the meanings of words like
battery garner few hits there. Hell, even wiki covers it right. There
are more than one search engine out there, ya know.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/battery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery

Engineers and other folks in the industry with any brains at all have
ALWAYS known the difference between a cell and a battery.

Consumers, on the other hand, have ALWAYS simply followed what was put
in their face buy the industry. Some "battery" makers (cell makers) mark
their packages correctly, some do not.

Hell, some even state it right in their brand name (DuraCELL).

Fact is, a single unit is a CELL. A pack of cells is a BATTERY.

So single cells are cells, and a nine volt, which is a stack of single
cells in a single package IS a battery.

A car battery is a package of cells.

Some of us never experienced this confusion you seem to possess.

 

[Alec McKenzie]

Fact is, a single unit is a CELL. A pack of cells is a BATTERY.

Not really -- a pack of cells is a pack cells. They could be
made into a battery by connecting them together.

 

[Spurious Response]

Not really -- a pack of cells is a pack cells. They could be
made into a battery by connecting them together.

A "pack of cells" such as that which would be found in a nine volt
battery IS a battery, and they ARE connected together.

I don't need semantical baby bullshit. I was not referring to a
blister pack of cells as would be found in a store, like you mentioned
earlier.

We are talking about voltage sources, so the reference to "a pack of
cells" would of course, be referring to their intended method of use, as
in a four pack of cells in a camera... a battery.

A bunch of artillery pieces on a transport plane is still a "battery"
even before it gets to its intended destination and actually gets set up
as "a battery" of artillery pieces, however, the same is not true of a
package of cells at the store. I do know the difference.

Also, even before one closes the "battery door" on a camera, the cells
inserted into STILL constitute a battery, even before the door is closed,
and they actually become connected together. So it is more about
intended purpose or use, than actual configuration at the time of
observation.

Sheesh.

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

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.

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

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.

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

Parallel or series, if more than one cell is used, it STILL constitutes
a battery. It makes no difference what the final voltage of a given
configuration is. If it is a multiple cell configuration, it IS a
battery. If it is a single unit, it IS a cell. There are no exceptions.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/battery

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

Even then, when they were wrapped in card stock paper, they were "less
obvious".

The fact is that the marketing arms of the manufacturers are to blame for
the shift in what everyday folks call their portable, chemically based DC
voltage sources.

 

[HVS]

On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

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.

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".

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

Yes, and the convention IS that a single unit is a cell, and any array,
whether packaged together or assembled together in their destination
device is a BATTERY of cells.

THAT IS the convention in the electronics industry, and the rest of the
world, as well as any in our realm that believe otherwise is faltering,
not us.

 

[Spurious Response]

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.

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

Posters to this group tend to choose their language carefully,

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

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".

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.

 

[HVS]

On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

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.

[shrug]

It's marginally amusing to watch posters like you trying to defend
their sloppy reading, writing, and thinking skills.

 

[LFS]

On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

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.

[shrug]

It's marginally amusing to watch posters like you trying to defend
their sloppy reading, writing, and thinking skills.

Cross-posting sometimes throws up some quite interestingly cross
posters, doesn't it?

 

[Peter Duncanson]

Try a dictionary then, not friggin google. Google is for popular
items. I am quite sure that discussions on the meanings of words like
battery garner few hits there. Hell, even wiki covers it right. There
are more than one search engine out there, ya know.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/battery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery

Engineers and other folks in the industry with any brains at all have
ALWAYS known the difference between a cell and a battery.

Consumers, on the other hand, have ALWAYS simply followed what was put
in their face buy the industry. Some "battery" makers (cell makers) mark
their packages correctly, some do not.

Hell, some even state it right in their brand name (DuraCELL).

They do. But let's look at the Duracell website:

http://www.duracell.co.uk/Shop/duracellplusaa.html

There is an image of a blister pack of 4 AA cells.
The text says:

DURACELL PLUS AA BATTERIES
(Pack Of 4)

Some of the people replying here are reading this thread in
alt.usage.english (Peter Moylan, HVS and me, at least).

We are well aware of differences of wording between technical
terminology and the common names for things.

Duracell use the common name "battery".

Consumers do not need to know the difference between a cell and a
battery. They just need to buy an item with the correct label.

It is simple and straightforward for the consumer for all
purchasable items of this type to be called batteries.

 

[Don Phillipson]

Hi again, I recently posted a question looking for plural nouns (MURDER of
crows . . . 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.

1. These are properly known as collective nouns, not plural nouns.

2. The word battery is itself a collective noun (for battery of cells,
cf. the army term battery of guns.) Early domestic radio receivers
(approx. 1925) required low-voltage direct current, which was
supplied by an acid-filled device that had to be recharged at
intervals. Only in the 1930s was circuitry marketed so that a
receiver could generate its own DC voltage internally.

The modern automobile battery still exemplifies the word.
It is still a set of interconnected acid-filled cells, i.e. a
battery of cells.

 

[HVS]

On 24 Jul 2007, Mike Lyle wrote

On Jul 24, 8:49?am, Spurious Response

I don't need semantical baby bullshit. [...]

You do need some manners, though, and the calmness to read what
Prof. Moylan actually wrote.

Fat chance, methinks....

 

[Spurious Response]

On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:14:22 +0100, HVS


On 24 Jul 2007, Spurious Response wrote

Posters to this group tend to choose their language carefully,

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



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".

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.

[shrug]

It's marginally amusing to watch posters like you trying to defend
their sloppy reading, writing, and thinking skills.

Cross-posting sometimes throws up some quite interestingly cross
posters, doesn't it?

Hell, "HVS" even your supporters cannot construct a properly worded
sentence.

 

[Spurious Response]

Consumers do not need to know the difference between a cell and a
battery. They just need to buy an item with the correct label.

The correct label would be and is "Cell". If that label had been used
all these decades, you and any other dope would have no problem referring
to them in that manner, and your discussion here would have a completely
different spin.