Why "Theory of Operation"? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: powersupply
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 07:29:20 am
content: I am currently reading the theory of operation manual for a HP signal generator when it struck me that what I was reading was not _theory_. These were well established factual accounts of what was inside this machine. Why call it it "theory" of operation?Is this really simple and I merely slept that day when this was answered?Thank you,powersupply

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 08:52:30 am
content: The definition of scientifictheoryis very different the what Joe Average understand theory to mean. i.e just a guess.Theory of operation is just like the theory of gravity.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 09:13:10 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 02, 2017, 08:52:30 amIt gets you down?

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 11:10:51 am
content: Quote from: powersupply on November 02, 2017, 07:29:20 amIf the device is functioning correctly, the theory of operation and factual operation line up. If the device is malfunctioning, they don't.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 11:21:23 am
content: The "theory of operation" is your starting block for hacking and that's all.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 12:19:28 pm
content: Wiki gave an answer I don't mind...Atheory of operationis a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 01:32:54 pm
content: That's just a fancier way of putting what Mr. Scram said.It all makes sense though. They are simply saying that the device they designed and built SHOULD work like this. But there are no guarantees, something could malfunction, so it can't be a Law of operation. And it's been seen to work as describes, so it's not merely a Hypotheses of operation. I think t fits right in with the science use of the term.

author: rhb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 03:53:59 pm
content: The Theory of Operation is a commonly missing element of software documentation. It explains at high level the general design and organization. Having to read thousands of lines of code to figure this out is an insult to the reader.I would add to the Wiki answer, "It provides a knowledgeable user information about design and implementation limitations."

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 03:57:00 pm
content: From macOS dictionary:So basically it's a literary device for explaining the intended operational model.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 04:16:56 pm
content: Quote from: rhb on November 02, 2017, 03:53:59 pmTheTheory of Operationdocumentation is a commonly missing element of software documentation.There, fixed that for ya.No smiley because, sadly, I'm not joking. I can't remember the last piece of commercial software I acquired that came with adequate documentation.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 04:25:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 02, 2017, 04:15:00 pmPlease no.Can youpleaseconfine any knee-jerk "I hate company X" tendencies to a thread where they have at leastmarginalrelevance.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 04:28:55 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 02, 2017, 04:16:56 pmSadly that is true across the board. Before the mid 90s you rarely if ever (I can't remember any) found datasheets for chips and the like that had mistakes in. Now it is likely that the datasheet which you are using to design is incorrect in some aspect. Much too common.I wonder if it because the expected life of a product is now so short. Back when it was 74 series and 4000 series they were years old and used everywhere but now chips appear and then disappear several weeks after you have bothered to design round them.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 04:32:08 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 02, 2017, 04:25:28 pmYup, out of order. I apologise.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 04:36:11 pm
content: Source of that is Oxford Dictionary of English for reference which is certainly respectableQuote from: Cerebus on November 02, 2017, 04:16:56 pmThe reason it doesn't come with documentation these days is that the developer would be liable for it working according to the documentation then. I just got off the phone with one of those asshat outfits earlier and they told me there are no bugs in their software. That'll be because you have no documentation defining the actual behaviour!

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 05:08:42 pm
content: Quote from: bd139 on November 02, 2017, 04:36:11 pmI used to know a lady lexicographer from the OED, she wasn't very respectable.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 05:12:57 pm
content: I bet she knew a lot of naughty words

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 05:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 02, 2017, 04:28:55 pmHate to break it to you, but I have original old Tektronix manuals with errors in them. Errors are not a new thing, they might be more prevalent, but I wonder if Chinglishing has anything to do with it.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 06:06:56 pm
content: Quote from: Cyberdragon on November 02, 2017, 05:34:07 pmEquipment documentation has always suffered. In the early 90s I bought half a dozen or so 8591 spectrum analysers and put significant effort into using the HPIB to number crunch the data so the field engineers did not need to do much other than collect the outputs. The command given by HP just did not work and their response, once I had proven the non functionality, was a very nice email telling me to not use that command. Documentation apart though I still have all of them and only one has stopped working.

author: Neomys Sapiens
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 09:36:35 pm
content: 'Theory of Operation' sounds a bit high-strung, but we can be glad if it is there. In German we would call that a 'Funktionsbeschreibung'.On the merits of this, one has only to look at the classic Nuehrmann books, where every circuit is accompanied by a description of its workings in prose.It goes like 'Transistors Q1 and Q2 form the current source providing the bias...'And it makes the diagrams understandable without any guesswork. I demand this now from anyone doing circuit/detail design in my projects. I'm getting a lot of resistance in the style 'you can deduce all from the circuit diagram' - yes, but why must I? Or the poor wretch that has to redo a circuit 10 years after the designer left?It is even worse with the software guys. They point to some sloppy comments in the code and that's it! NO WAY!There must exist a proper description of the algorithms, tasks and dependencies, accompanied my adequate high level diagrams! And it should be done before a line of code is entered. It is a proper safeguard against trial-and-error developers hiding in your team!

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 02, 2017, 09:40:05 pm
content: Couldn’t agree more. I’ve got some German blood in me

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 02:19:11 pm
content: Frankly, I think writing out how you EXPECT your design to work goes a long way towards solving problems with it. Be it hardware or software.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 02:26:50 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on November 03, 2017, 02:19:11 pmHow do you even known there's a problem if you don't specify what normal operation is?

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 03:02:33 pm
content: Vintage HP manuals often have a Theory of Operation section in it. Very useful for general education along with specific concepts of how the machine works. In conjunction with good schematics, part lists, calibration, maintenance, etc. procedures it makes for easy servicing of the equipment.That said, there is certainly variability in quality and completeness, which is natural because they were made by widely different groups over a long period. I can definitely see different styles taken by the documentation groups at the different locations.

author: rhb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 06:44:40 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 02, 2017, 04:16:56 pmI was referring to the internal source code documentation based on having to support an aggregate of over 2 million lines of OPC (other people's code, though there is some debate about the significance of the last letter).My best commercial software support horror story:I was asked to investigate problems running reservoir simulations across multiple platforms. The company was paying $80k/yr for software maintenance, but had not been able to get a workable result. I talked for a while to the support guy, looked at the code and talked some more. "If you get it working. please send me the fixes so I can give them to the other customers." They had to scrape me off the ceiling with a putty knife.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 10:06:00 pm
content: Theory is a fairy tale that usually correlates to surroundings it describes.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 10:34:51 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on November 03, 2017, 02:26:50 pmThat is the reason you don't see "Theory of operation" in SW only thing you see is assurance that it will not work, that is called EULA.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 10:51:06 pm
content: So the American English (and probably other flavors of English) has re-used a word, giving it meanings beyond the the original. Does this surprise anyone? I certainly find the body of prose described very useful, and find the usage descriptive. For any person competent to utilize such a manual section that is confused by the word a few quick google searches should straighten the issue up.At least it isn't a hapax.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 11:14:33 pm
content: You mean "theory"? I think not at all. After all, people talk (and complain) about studying too much theory and not enough practice. But the theory is what underpins every design. Without a sound theoretical basis a design is doomed.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 03, 2017, 11:24:43 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on November 03, 2017, 10:51:06 pmEh? If this is about the use of "theory" in the scientific sense or the "Theory of Operation" sense then that's a very old usage, almost certainly older than any Americanization of English. Quick check - Cassell's has it as 16th Century and as an older usage than the usage of "theory" in the sense of hypothesis. If it isn't what you're talking about, then I can't guess what you are talking about.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 04, 2017, 04:44:02 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 03, 2017, 11:24:43 pmI think we are in total agreement. I just didn't take the time to figure out if all of the other locations using the mother tongue use it the same way us Yanks do in this application. I did say that I suspected they do. I have also not checked to see which usage is the elder. One way or another English has re-used a word. One of my favorite examples of re-use is the word "dike". Which formally has several very diverse meanings and in most dictionaries does not include a meaning commonly used by many on this thread.

author: Neomys Sapiens
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 03:05:50 am
content: Dike like a dam or like the once-common abbreviation for diagonal cutting pliers?

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 04:24:30 am
content: I think "theory of operation" sounds way cooler than "owners manual".

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 05:42:51 am
content: Many people say "theory" when the correct word would be "hypothesis".

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 09:51:39 am
content: Quote from: Neomys Sapiens on November 05, 2017, 03:05:50 amI think the former is properly dijk.A dyke (alt. spelling dike) ls also:A geographical feature such as the Devil's Dike on the English Sussex Wield. This has also given its name to a punk rock band from Brighton, Sussex and a Sussex Lesbian motorcycle gang.A psychiatric affliction, peculiar to Americans, that makes them believe that they can do a Cockney accent.A earthwork fortification, or a line of fortifications.A type of dry-stone wall.Ok, so I made up the motorcycle gang, but if they don't exist theyshould. All the rest is true.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 11:13:02 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 03, 2017, 11:24:43 pmIt would be slightly more accurate to talk about the Britishisation of English since the two split. Obviously, both British and American English continued to evolve since the colonies were established. But generally speaking, where American and British English differ, it tends to be American which retained the original form!

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 11:46:33 am
content: Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2017, 11:13:02 amYou know how ridiculous that would sound if you'd said Englishisation of English.I never understand this tendency of Americans (even expatriate Swiss ones) to try and claim English as their own or lay claim to some greater authenticity or original-ness than speakers of English in England. It's a bit like if I, a curry munching Brit, tried to claim that British curry has retained the original form of Indian food better than Indian has.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 02:00:11 pm
content: American English is by far the more traditional of the two. Gotten and Fall have been replaced in English English with got and Autumn. Z has gone from English English but it used to be there a lot, it is still retained in American, pity they don't know the name of it really.Zeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee indeed.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 06:54:18 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 11:46:33 amNobody disputes that English originated in England. But frankly, no, it’s not yours any more*. And the issue of historical authenticity isn’t a matter of opinion. The authoritative books on the matter are published by the respective university presses of Cambridge and Oxford, and they support this.I wouldn’t make such a fuss about it if so many English people weren’t so smug and rude about it (both online and in real life), especially given that they lack the historical knowledge to even make statements about it. English people routinely and casually accuse Americans of being “lazy” with English whenever they spot a difference, without having any damned clue about linguistics. I studied linguistics, so yeah, I actually do have the formal background to call it bullshit when I see it.*Languages belong to their native speakers.

author: bd139
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 07:09:02 pm
content: With global communication how it is, we’ll all be speaking roughly the same dialect in the future as differences converge.Then again some places in the U.K. you can go you will find people who speak what sounds like a different language which is supposedly English (Wolverhampton comes to mind).

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 07:40:07 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 05, 2017, 07:19:48 pmWhich pedantic people?Looks to me like a discussion with opinions, no pedants here that I can see.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 08:53:21 pm
content: I think the broken English is the most spoken dialect, mine is fluent.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2017, 06:54:18 pmI wasn't aware that such an abstract concept could belong to anyone, or have the vile intellectual property lawyers finally got their hooks into that too?. The English language isn't anyone's property. The objection I have, and it's not with you, is the cultural imperialism ofsomeAmericans who insist on talking about English and British English when they mean American  and English, of expropriating original authorship of a language that existed before the first native American was displaced by British colonists and somehow giving themselves first place in it. Lots of countries speak French, but none of them that I'm aware of refer to French as spoken in France as Gallic French, or French French while generally referring to the local variety as just French. Ditto for Spanish, Portuguese, German or Dutch.Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2017, 06:54:18 pmIt's rather foolish, IMHO, to argue for the authenticity of a language; after all, what is aninauthentic language? And I've never argued for the purported authenticity of English. This started with me pointing out that the history of a particular word meaning of "Theory" predated the American Colonies and expressing some surprise and confusion at the idea that the word had originated in the US of A and somehow made it back to "British English".Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2017, 06:54:18 pmWell old chap, the fact is that they are English and you are American, and we're frightfully sympathetic and all that, but it is where you were born. Never mind, stiff upper lip and all that. Hip hip hurrah, and the last one in the pool's a stinker.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 09:00:15 pm
content: Quote from: Vtile on November 05, 2017, 08:53:21 pmYou're probably right at that. If nothing else Indian English and Chinglish have probably overtaken all the other speakers of any variant of English all put together.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 09:08:27 pm
content: The reason that French and lots of other languages are never taken from their source is that the source is defined and controlled by France. The academy France dictates how the language is. The same applies to Spanish and lots of others. English has no such control and is defined by the users.Languages change, that's a fact and in English common usage dictates.What I don't like is the incorrect usage and the English are by far the main culprit for that. You will never hear an American say "I was sat", they will always say "I was sitting", "I was sat" is exactly the same as saying "I was ran" and surely everyone will think that sounds wrong.The Americans are to blame for not knowing the difference between the sound of a letter and the name of a letter. Ay is the name of the first letter of the alphabet. A is the indefinite article. Aitch is the name of the eighth letter of the alphabet, it was never haitch. The list is huge and most of it came over from America.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 09:25:01 pm
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 05, 2017, 09:08:27 pmI've heard that "haitch" [for the letter H] used a lot by a certain class of English people who natively have an accent that they regard as 'coarse' or 'common' that naturally drops H sounds from words, and they insert H sounds where there are none. Not so much nowadays but a lot in the 70s and before. You'll catch a lot of that H sound insertion in old B&W moves where upper working class people (NCOs, butlers, landladies etc.) are talking to middle or upper class people and trying not to sound 'common'. So, I don't think that particular one can be laid at the door of the 'merkins.

author: Vtile
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 09:28:54 pm
content: To burst your bubble the English is just barbarized Latin, copied from French.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 09:40:46 pm
content: Quote from: Vtile on November 05, 2017, 09:28:54 pmYou forgot German, Greek, Indian, Old Norse, Saxon and all the rest. And our ancestors? From every nation under the sun! We're basically a nation of mongrels.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 10:15:26 pm
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 05, 2017, 09:08:27 pmI don't. There are certain usages of the past participle that are accepted correct usage. Some of these being, "I was sat at the desk", "He was stood at the door", and "The tea was spread out on the table".I have occasionally been caught out by some things that I wanted to think were wrong, but when I looked them up they were not wrong at all, for example where "wrong" and "wrongly" can be used. English is funny like that.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 10:25:39 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on November 05, 2017, 10:15:26 pmI can't agree with you. " I was sat at the desk" has a different meaning to "I was sitting at the desk". The first means that someone took you and forced you down into the chair, the second means that you did it yourself. Anyone that says they were forced to sit by physical intervention from another person is probably not telling the truth or perhaps they are a bit that way inclined (thinking wet suits, donkeys and fish here)"The tea was spread out on the table" is correct, someone spread it out unless you are talking about an upturned teapot of beverage that has been knocked over in which case "the tea spread out on the table"Lots of electronic discussions in this thread.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 10:41:25 pm
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 05, 2017, 10:25:39 pmExcept you can sit yourself down (compare with the French reflexive verb, "s'assoir"). So, "I was sat at the desk" is common shorthand for "I had sat myself at the desk". Remember, English grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. Whatever is accepted common usage becomes correct.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 10:43:02 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on November 05, 2017, 10:41:25 pmBut "I had sat myself at the desk" is incorrect. "I had seated myself at the desk" is correct.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 05, 2017, 10:45:49 pm
content: This aint going anywhere and is pointless. I have resigned myself to the fact that common usage will change the language which is in fact how it should be or a language will die and the only way to keep these useless non-changing languages is for groups of fanatics to insist on it and for us ( as taxpayers) to have to pay fortunes for signs in two languages that only fanatics understand both parts of. I sure hope that doesn't happen to English.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 am
content: Quote from: bd139 on November 05, 2017, 07:09:02 pmThat's what you'd think, but linguists have been observing the exactoppositehappening. The working theory is that humans' need for belonging leads tostrengtheningof regionalisms to signal affiliation with regional identity.Quote from: bd139 on November 05, 2017, 07:09:02 pmYes!Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pmI don't know what to tell you; I've heard countless British people say that English is "theirs" alone to declare what is and isn't correct. And this includes you, who is who introduced the concept of ownership of a language into the discussion:Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 11:46:33 amQuote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pm1. Anyone who thinks English originated in America is a moron.2. There you go again, using "English" to mean "British English". No. British English is called "British English" and American English is called "American English". "English" unqualified means "all varieties of English, as spoken by their respective native speakers".Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pmI can't speak to common usage in Dutch, but you're wrong about Spanish, Portuguese, German, and French:Spanish: "Español" means Spanish in the abstract. Within Spain, Spanish is often referred to as "Castellano" because other regions use other dialects or languages, which have their own names. In linguistics, btw, the term "Iberian Spanish" is used.German: Again, "Deutsch" means German in the abstract. Standard German is referred to as "Hochdeutsch" ("high German") or "Schriftdeutsch" ("written German"), versus the smattering of local dialects with their own names (Plattdeutsch, Bayerisch, Schweizerdeutsch, etc.).Portuguese: This is arguably the language with the situation most similar as the tension between speakers of the "home country" version and the "former colony" version that now has far more speakers. Different enough that native speakers of each don't have 100% comprehension. AFAIK, Brazilians often refer to their dialect as "Brazilian" (not Brazilian Portuguese).French: Since French has the Academie that defines what's considered proper standard French, and nobody beside the Quebecois take issue with this, French speakers everywhere learn the same official French. The actual spoken dialects vary widely, and as such, colloquial spoken French and "school French" differ significantly enough to really trip up a lot of learners. But as far as the name, "Français" means French in general, and the only dialect that differs (and cares about it!) is the Quebecois. So the French call it that. And since the French don't object to their dialect being called "French", all's good in the world!Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pmI re-read the posts in question, and I don't see that argument being made at all.Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pmI didn't say "authenticity". I said "historical authenticity". Most people (on both sides of the pond) assume that the English of 400 years ago, when the British colony in America was founded, resembled modern upper-class British English. In fact, it doesn't sound like either modern British or American English. We share a common ancestor, but neither American nor British is the same as that common ancestor. Both developed away from said common ancestor, with different things changing on both sides. But what's not really under dispute among scholars of English linguistics is that when American and British English differ, it's more common for American English to have retained the historical form. This isn't opinion, this isn't conjecture, this isn't nationalism, it's simple linguistic fact. It isn't true ofeverydifference, but it's true more often than not. That's all it is.However, I do know who did introduce the term "authenticity" to this conversation: You, again:Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 11:46:33 amQuote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 08:56:55 pmSounds like the random ramblings of a wino or cat lady!Quote from: Mjolinor on November 05, 2017, 09:08:27 pmI'm not sure what you mean about the indefinite article thing.As for "haitch", I've never heard that in American English. I have heard it in various dialects of British English, as well as Australian.Quote from: Cerebus on November 05, 2017, 09:25:01 pmIn linguistics, that process is called "hypercorrection". It's the same process that produced American dialects that say "warsh" instead of "wash". Herb-with-the-h-sound became "erb", and in some dialects, then, the reversal of that led to H being re-added to words that never had it to begin with, like "haitsch".Quote from: Mjolinor on November 05, 2017, 10:25:39 pmYep, they're different meanings.English has an unusually high number of verb tenses. It confuses ESOL students to no end! ("What do you mean that 'I go shopping' doesn't mean that you are shopping right now?!?")

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 02:22:15 am
content: Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amHaitch for Harry.Aitch for 'ArryAnything else sounds inconsistent.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 04:56:51 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on November 06, 2017, 02:22:15 amYou could look in a dictionary.I wasn't meaning that the use of "Haitch" instead of "Aitch" was Hemerican. It is my bad English that made it read that way.He had a banana"a" is a word, sometimes it is "an" but it is never "ay". That is called the indefinite article, the definite article is "the"."He had ay banana" as said by a lot of Americans is just rubbish.I think it is about people not separating the names of letters from the sounds of letters.If a word has an "e" on the end then normally the sound the preceding vowel makes is the name of the vowel rather than the normal sound of the vowel. for example "Rat" and "Rate" the "a" sound changes from normal sound to name. Yes, there are lots of exceptions and the rule comes unstuck in some seriously stupid ways sometimes.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 11:14:38 am
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 06, 2017, 04:56:51 amOh, gotcha, you mean whether to pronounce the indefinite article 'a' as "uh" vs "ey"? It's been a looooong time since I gave it any thought, but I think it's often a semantic (!) difference. "Uh" is the standard indefinite article, whereas "ey" is for emphasis. But it probably varies regionally. (Nonetheless, in American English, "uh" is the regular pronunciation for it.)Quote from: Mjolinor on November 06, 2017, 04:56:51 amNot likely, since the issues we are discussing happen in people who are illiterate. (Spelling doesn't influence pronunciation nearly as much as people intuitively think.)Quote from: Mjolinor on November 06, 2017, 04:56:51 amYep, English spelling-vs-pronunciation rules are highly irregular, because English has gone through multiple vowel shifts, but acquiring new words from various languages at different points in time along the way, leading to the same letter meaning multiple different sounds, depending on when the word was coined. It's not a total free-for-all as some people say, but kind of different "sets" of pronunciation rules. And without an official governing body for the language, all efforts to harmonize the spellings have fallen completely flat! (Literally the only change that had any sticking power was Webster's simplification of most "ou"->"o" as in colour and harbour. Even the "re"->"er" change didn't take all the way.)To all of you who have participated in this linguistic discussion (even the antagonists) I thank you for providing a thoughtful, stimulating discussion!

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 12:23:02 pm
content: Something more to think about.The herb (or name) "Basil" comes from the Greek "Vasili" but in Greece the letter V is beta (B with a tail) so that is a word that came with it's spelling but not pronunciation so it must have been a written transfer rather than a verbal transfer into English.I love this subject and spend hours thinking about it, One day later, after consultation and I reckon "I had seated myself at the table" is incorrect but not as incorrect as "I had sat myself at the table. I am lucky to have a sister who is uber qualified in languages of all sorts and her response is:Quoteand that is me now drowning in WTF!!Another one:Artic << with bearsAntarctic << without bearsPresumably meaning the constellations or maybe the huge white predators, who knowsAnother one:"Pacified", as in made peacefulIt occurred to me that someone who did pacification must themselves be pacific. Hmm, is pacific a word, I have never heard it used so a quick bit of research and pacific is indeed a word and the Pacific ocean is so named because Magellan having sailed across the Atlantic then through the straits of Magellan (probably not so called at the time he sailed through it) found the water to be so calm and peaceful he called it the Pacific ocean. Now that is interesting.I could go on but I won't lest everyone leave the forum abandoned and falls asleep.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 12:41:19 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amc.f. Swiss German, German, Algerian French, French and so on. You'd only say German German or similar to disambiguate something in a very specific context.You're just plain wrong on that point and I don't see any future in continuing the debate of the particular point, it'll just become pointless gainsaying.Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amThat's just sophistry and you know it. You might as well pick Cockney and Yorkshire out and use that to support the same claim for English.Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amI can't help you with that, it's up there.Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amAgain, qualifying it as "historical authenticity" smacks of sophistry. Historical authenticity would be talking about the use of language in say, a period novel. Not the whole language itself. You have failed to answer my implied assertion that there is no such a thing as an inauthentic language, which would be a necessary precondition for a language to be 'authentic'.Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amDecrying someone else's claim to possessing some kind of greater authenticity is not in the least inconsistent with decrying the idea that a language can beipso facto'authentic'.Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 12:11:49 amAre you not familiar with PG Wodehouse's Bertie Wooster character? He is an inane upper class English twit and that's how he speaks, as did many comedy stereotypes of the same period. If there is something he can put his foot into, he will, if there is a disaster he can precipitate by saying the wrong thing, he will, if he can create an imagined insult by innocently saying just the wrong thing to his listener, he will. Think "George" in Blackadder Goes Forth if you don't have a handle on the 1930s literary comic styles. Hugh Laurie played George in Blackadder and gave the definitive television performance as Bertie Wooster with Stephen Fry playing his long-suffering (and much smarter) butler/valet.I'm going to knock this on the head here. Three reasons:I'm beginning to feel increasingly guilty about side-lining and derailing the thread.While this argument would be rip-roaring fun if had down the pub, it's beginning to become rather tedious when it's conducted as huge blocks of text.If we haven't exhausted others forbearance, we must be just about to.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 12:49:35 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on November 06, 2017, 11:14:38 amI'll often hear people alternate the two, or at least 'mix them up', in lists of things, to give some variety. So:"To fix the wall I'll need:Ay paintbrushUh tin of paintUh pallet knife andAy packet of filler"OK, that really is the last from me on linguistics for the time being; I'll get my coat...

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 12:51:18 pm
content: Quote from: Mjolinor on November 06, 2017, 12:23:02 pmNope, not at all.It's not English that changed, it's Greek: in ancient Greek, the letter beta was pronounced as B, but in modern Greek it's V.English (or rather, the whole chain of languages the word went through before making it to English) borrowed the wordbeforeGreek changed its pronunciation, so we kept the original pronunciation of the sound.*I haven't looked into it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Greek's shift from B->V happened exactly as it is happening in Spanish now. Spanish is just halfway through the process. B and V are physically related sounds (in that they're both voiced labial consonants), and there exists a sound that's exactly in between (which in the international phonetic alphabet is actually designated by the Greek letter beta), the "voiced bilabial fricative", used e.g. in Spanish. (Which is why Spanish words that use it are occasionally misspelled. It's mostly written by the letter B, but sometimes you'll see misspellings with "V", like "verenjena" or "caveza".)*This is, incidentally, precisely analogous to examples of American English retaining a historical form, where the "home country" of the language changed, but its offspring didn't.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 12:53:44 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on November 06, 2017, 12:49:35 pmThat sounds very odd to my ear, too.As a linguist, it'd be interesting to do a deeper study on it, and identify in what situations those speakers do that. It's highly unlikely to be a conscious decision (pronunciation rarely is!), but there will be some underlying phonological or syntactic rule to it.

author: Mjolinor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2017, 03:16:51 pm
content: The Greek B (sound) is still there in the modern Greek but it is very subtle. For a real "B" the Greeks do not have a letter which is why, in Greek the "B" sound is "mp". For example Olympics in Greek is said as olybics. The mountain in Greece is actually called mount olybos but is spelt olympos. This is to me a conundrum because the Greeks call the olympics the olympics using the English pronunciation but only where they are referring to the olympic games, not when they are referring to the place where the gods supposedly live. The Beta letter has always been that very soft B that you can get on some English words with V in. The difference between V and B in English is very very subtle and difficult to put your finger on. You can hear the B in any English work like Vine or Velocity when you say it to yourself, not truly distinguishable but just underneath. Language is wonderful.

author: powersupply
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2025, 11:45:49 pm
content: After a number of years not being able to read this beautiful forum, due to family health issues, I return to find 61 kind replies to my question. I love the one that it’s only a theory that it will work, so it’s not a law. What a great gang, thank you all.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 12:46:18 am
content: Nothing like resurrecting a long-dead thread.If I were writing a manual for a piece of equipment I certainly would not call it "Theory of Operation". Almost sounds 19th century-ish.I'd just call it "User Manual for the XX-xxxx" or "Programmer's Manual for ____" or "Operator's Manual for the XX-xxxx".

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 02:48:18 am
content: “Theory of operation” is a reasonable term for asectionorchapterof a manual, along with “specifications”, “bill of materials”, “wiring diagrams”, etc.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 07:17:22 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on August 13, 2025, 12:46:18 amIt's normally a section namewithinuser manual or programmer's manual, intended to give...theoreticalbackground of how the thing is supposed to work. When in hurry and just needing quick operating start, you would normally skip this section - if you kinda sorta understand the theory already. After that section comes e.g. list of actual commands (in programmer's manual) you would be using.Theory section could say things like: "Upon receiving a voltage command, power supply adjusts it feedback circuit setpoint to create this voltage. Exceeding specified current limit trips the output". Then the next sections would describe which buttons are pressed or which bytes sent to give a voltage command, or adjust current limit.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 07:44:15 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on August 13, 2025, 12:46:18 amIt probably dates back that far. When I was a young hobbyist reading the magazine and manuals it was common to see "Theory of Operation" for construction articles. And when I started to write and publish my own construction articles I just naturally continued that tradition. Some places used "How It Works" or "Circuit Operation" instead, so I've probably used all three over the years.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 09:27:08 am
content: The excellent Tektronix service manuals hadTheory of operationCircuit descriptionPerformance checkCalibrationTroubleshooting.Every one of these sections had the information to fully understand each circuit and how to calibrate and repair.For 465 scope:https://w140.com/tekwiki/images/1/1b/070-1861-02.pdfThose who want to learn will read all of this.For those who are TOO LAZY to read, ignore any information.j

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 09:55:12 am
content: On second thought I guess "Theory of Operation" would be alright for a section explaining the underlying functioning of the device.I was thinking of it as the title of the manual, which I wouldn't use.

author: m k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 11:47:29 am
content: If you read a scientific paper you're actually reading a description of theory of operation, and some.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2025, 11:57:11 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on August 13, 2025, 09:55:12 amUnless the device in question is a free/vacuum energy harvester, or employs technology obtained by reverse engineering Roswell artifacts.Whereupon it becomes "Conspiracy Theory of Operation".

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2025, 09:06:30 am
content: "Why "Theory of Operation"?"Frankly, it took me a while and several re-readings of the first post to even understand what the problem or concern here actually is. English is a rich language and words can have different meanings. There can be small differences and there can be large differences. Dictionaries actually list various, differing meanings in NUMBERED, lists. They can even be grouped by the type of usage (noun, verb, adjective, etc.). And often the exact meaning of a word from this list of meanings would be determined by the the syntax. My point is that you can not just take one meaning and insist that it applies to all usages of a word.In this case, the word "theory" is used in the title of a book or manual. The fact that other manuals, some of which may be of greater importance or facility, are strongly suspected to exist tells us that a lot about that syntax: it is used as part of a book title in a series of books that exist for that particular device. Those other books or manuals may include titles like "Quick Start Guide", "Maintenance Manual", "Parts and Assembly", and/or a number of others. I am sure I am not the only one here who, virtually instantly sees this syntax. So it is not being used in a strictly scientific or mathematical sense.It is being used in the context oftitles of manualsthat apply to one or a few models of a particular piece of equipment. And we must look at THAT CONTEXT to find the meaning; not at others. I have seen and used the manuals for many items of equipment. It is completely normal for a major item to have a set of manuals that occupy four, six, twelve or more inches of shelf space in one or several separate volumes. And each of these volumes must have a title. Such usage is in a context all it's own and must be understood in that manner. But this unique context is not so far from some of the dictionary definitions of the word "theory".From Wikipedia this is the opening paragraph. It precedes other paragraphs that talk about the scientific and other uses of the word and the article even has a link to a page which discusses the scientific use. I have added some comments in red.QuoteI believe my red comments show how this context, this use of the word does fit, at least loosely, under that most general meaning of the word. This fit is perhaps better than some of the others which can be gathered in the various dictionary definitions. In English and I suspect in other languages, we humans do have a propensity for extending the use of words into new and different syntaxes. Frankly, I have no difficulty understanding the meaning of this title.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2025, 09:13:32 am
content: And I think this subject, both in general and in particular, is being over-thought here.Also, this discussion is more suited to a board that discusses language in general and/or the English language in particular.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2025, 11:00:22 am
content: I've written a few user handbooks, and for me the difference between "theory of operation" and "instructions" is straightforward.Instructions give you a step-by-step sequence to follow to achieve your aim. When the product has complex functionality this approach can require pages of tedious detail: 1/ Rotate the knob marked "Gain" fully clockwise. 2/ Press the button marked "Menu" and use the buttons marked with up- and down-arrows to select "Multiple", then press the button marked "Enter". 3/ Rotate the knob marked "Function" to the position labelled "FFT".And so on. If you follow the sequence exactly you will achieve your aim. In my experience some users need instructions like this, and when they eventually put the instruction book away it isn't because they understand what they are doing, but because they have memorised the sequences."Theory of operation" tries to explain the overall functionality of the product and especially the underlying logic in the design of its user interface. The aim is to help the user understand intuitively how the product and its UI works, so that it seems "obvious" or "common sense" that the gain needs to be turned up to maximum and multiple captures must be selected before performing the Fast Fourier Transform. (I know this is rubbish - it's just an illustration.)The value of helping the user gain an intuitive understanding of the underlying functionality and the underlying logic of the UI is that they can become fully competent with the device much more quickly than those who learn by rote. Unfortunately not all users have minds that work like that, so I've often ended up writing both variants.

author: Grandchuck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2025, 02:00:00 pm
content: Steve, well explained. I'll just add that theory of operation sections often use block diagrams.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2025, 10:00:08 pm
content: Funny tho, that I came across Cerebus post comment, to not knee-jerk criticism some 'company X', just as I was thinking that very thing.But, just this once, I won't give direct mention; I had purchased, for some problem resolution, a 'XX product, For Dummies'.That book didn't help, with the technical glitches, and so it actually increased my dissatisfaction. The product, in making various (frequent) changes, never really makes attempts to explain, or even any inquiries as to if that product, or upgrades, are 'enhancing' the user experience.Or, any assessment as to if the user is just simply 'tolerating' the upgrades...

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2025, 12:09:34 am
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on August 14, 2025, 11:00:22 amPretty much. It's sometimes difficult to piece together how the manufacturer intended you to use the product just from the description of the pins, the commands, etc. It's nice to have, "This is sort of how it works, and this is kind of how we envision you using it." And then you dig into the rest for details. It's like a Lego set. You can build all sorts of stuff, but with these particular Legos, here's what we had in mind. Kind of the first step before you go desperately digging for app notes trying to figure out, "WTF am I supposed to do with this stupid thing?" And then you read the app notes and it's more like, "Ok, that makes sense."

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2025, 12:29:29 am
content: My view on the use of this term for a document title has changed since first reading this thread.At first I though it inappropriate, or at least only fuzzily descriptive, for the title of either a manual or a section within one. That's because in a former life I was a technical writer and wrote manuals for a living.However, my manuals were for things which were pretty, for lack of a better term, deterministic. Meaning that they had just one purpose (they were media duplication systems, for CDs and such). So there was really only one way to use them, so my manuals were procedural: to do this, start with this dialog, click on this, select that, etc., etc.However, a piece of electronic test equipment, like a 'scope, is much more open-ended. Many ways to use it. So maybe a "Theory of Operation" section would be a good introduction to how the device works and some of the kinds of tests it can do.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 15, 2025, 04:06:35 am
content: The verbage may be imprecise. Principals of Operation might satisfy some folks better. But the section, whatever you call it is useful for several things. It can give you an understanding of how to use the instrument beyond the procedural. It can give insight into the what false impressions can be hidden in the data presented by the instrument (simple example: how does the true RMS meter work? What bandwidth? What math shortcuts?). And it can be an aid to troubleshooting and repair.In my opinion a manual cannot be rated truly excellent unless it has such a section, whatever name it goes by.