A term that you cannot stand:

[BABAR]

BOGO "buy one, get one" when it really means "buy one, get one free" or "buy one, get two"

oh BOGOF,

 

[BABAR]

Dog Barf, an insult the to the cellulose insulation industry.

you don’t like dogs?

 

[Capt. Eric]

Lately, our administration has been calling all of our crews "assets" and it has been driving me crazy. Our vehicles and equipments are assets. Our crews or teams are people performing a job which requires a human touch. I'm sure it is intentional with modern management techniquest, using dehumanizing language makes you feel expendable.

Sounds like someone there is a fan of Mission Impossible and Jason Bourne films. Thinks he's running a super spy hit squad!

 

[BABAR]

The confused misuse of the following similar sounding words, but with very different uses:
Your, you're

if you were a bartender, I hope you don’t pour poorly.

 

[K'Tesh]

Expedia dot com

 

[BABAR]

Irregardless

Inflammable

 

[cerving]

Well, "inflammable" is in the dictionary as a synonym for "flammable"... despite the "in-" suffix normally negating the adjective. But yeah, it's a useless extra syllable...

 

[Daddyisabar]

you don’t like dogs?

Luv the pups!

My inner technician can sometimes chafe at model rocketry slang. Other times with the cub scouts I will pretend it is real stuff I have been collecting from the pets.

 

[Steven]

The English language in general. Tis but a silly thing.

 

[BEC]

Well, "inflammable" is in the dictionary as a synonym for "flammable"... despite the "in-" suffix normally negating the adjective. But yeah, it's a useless extra syllable...

And there was a time when things that we think of as "flammable", such as tanker trucks of gasoline, were labeled "inflammable". Maybe that observation belongs in the "you might be a child in the '70s" thread rather than here.

 

[Art Upton]

And there was a time when things that we think of as "flammable", such as tanker trucks of gasoline, were labeled "inflammable". Maybe that observation belongs in the "you might be a child in the '70s" thread rather than here.

I might think that started on TV investigative reporters covering "Pinto" incidents or mocked up tests?

Remember when a TV crew investigating So called S10 Pickups that exploded when T-Boned?
They were caught putting an Estes motor in the Tank Filler to cause the ignition.

 

[NTP2]

Lately, our administration has been calling all of our crews "assets" and it has been driving me crazy. Our vehicles and equipments are assets. Our crews or teams are people performing a job which requires a human touch. I'm sure it is intentional with modern management techniquest, using dehumanizing language makes you feel expendable.

I don’t know, it might sound cool to say “we have assets on route” but I guess it’s only fun once or twice.

 

[prfesser]

Starters- they've been igniters forever, besides who do you think we're going to fool?

View attachment 644283

Sigh...here I go again.

{Educational rant on}

There is a real, honest-to-Odin reason for calling them starters. There is a certain government organization (that shall remain nameless) which appears not to know the difference between an ematch and an igniter. If memory serves, they don't define either one in words. They use images. Which were incorrectly labeled BTW. (I can think of reasons that the labeling might have been deliberate but I won't share them.)

Nonetheless, whether we like it or not..."igniters" legally are a regulated item.

The leadership of TRA and NAR spent years in courtrooms and in meetings with government officials, fighting regulations. This is simply another way to fight regulation. Unlike "igniters" and "ematches", starters are not intended to ignite fireworks or nefarious devices. "Intended use" is to start rocket motors.

So IF it ever came up in a court of law---and I very much doubt that it will, now---defense could point out that these are starters. Judges and staff are often technically clueless, and might well rule summarily, simply based on the name and the intended use.

Why do you think Estes renamed these items? To fool someone? Of course not. I would bet long odds that they did so, not on a whim, but based on their legal teams' advice. Please...think about that for a moment.

 

[modeltrains]

Well, "inflammable" is in the dictionary as a synonym for "flammable"... despite the "in-" suffix normally negating the adjective. But yeah, it's a useless extra syllable...

Umm, no, it isn't,
https://www.etymonline.com/word/inflammable

inflammable (adj.)​

"able to be set alight," c. 1600, from French inflammable, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare "to set on fire" (see inflame).Since 1980s use of the word, especially in safety warnings, has been sometimes discouraged for fear it could be misunderstood as meaning "non-flammable" through confusion of the two prefixes in-. The word was used earlier in medicine in the sense "liable to inflammation" (early 15c.). Related: Inflammability.

 

[Capt. Eric]

And there was a time when things that we think of as "flammable", such as tanker trucks of gasoline, were labeled "inflammable". Maybe that observation belongs in the "you might be a child in the '70s" thread rather than here.

Flammable, inflammable, and combustible all have similar sounding definitions, but there are important differences, if you deal with hazmat and firefighting. Basically:
Flammable - can be easily set aflame with an ignition source at 60 degrees or less. (I.e. gasoline)
Inflammable - can be set burning on its own without an ignition source. (i.e. Unstable chemicals or certain elements)
Combustible - can burn, but it's temperature must be raised above 60 degrees before it will burn. (Certain fuel oils, and materials that are around us all the time, but not as easily burned.)

So ends today's lesson in fire safety.

 

[modeltrains]

through confusion of the two prefixes ...

Which brings to mind, did "Conrail" mean the government was with rail or against rail?
and
does 'concatenation' mean that you are with the cat nation or against the cat nation?

 

[NTP2]

Flammable, inflammable, and combustible all have similar sounding definitions, but there are important differences, if you deal with hazmat and firefighting. Basically:
Flammable - can be easily set aflame with an ignition source at 60 degrees or less. (I.e. gasoline)
Inflammable - can be set burning on its own without an ignition source. (i.e. Unstable chemicals or certain elements)
Combustible - can burn, but it's temperature must be raised above 60 degrees before it will burn. (Certain fuel oils, and materials that are around us all the time, but not as easily burned.)

So ends today's lesson in fire safety.

Where is a rocket motor, I guess it’s combustible?

 

[modeltrains]

Mostly though, regarding this words in English topic, I strongly recommend reading these,

 

[modeltrains]

Where is a rocket motor, I guess it’s combustible?

Rocket motors are here,

“There are a thousand things that can happen when you go light a rocket engine, and only one of them is good.” — Tom Mueller, SpaceX propulsion chief, Air and Space magazine article, January 2012

 

[Capt. Eric]

Where is a rocket motor, I guess it’s combustible?

Usually flammable, but some engines don't seem to light quite so easily, causing the flier to become heated!

 

[modeltrains]

Talking about "inflammable" brings to mind,

http://jon-west-language.blogspot.com/2014/04/alternative-english-how-different-would.html

(bold on text at end of quote below was added here by me)

You may know that the English language has borrowed (or stolen, if you prefer) many, many words from other languages throughout much of its recorded history.

As I mentioned in my introductory article, the invasion of England by Norse tribes from 800-1000 AD resulted in a large wave of borrowed words from Old Norse, even in the basic layer of vocabulary.

Then came the Norman invasion in 1066, which triggered a massive influx of French loanwords into English over a period of centuries. And since the Renaissance, English has borrowed numerous words and affixes from Latin and Greek.

Now, I asked you to imagine that the Viking invasions and the Norman Conquest had never happened. This is all purely hypothetical - and somebody who has a much greater historical knowledge than I do might argue that these invasions were inevitable - but suppose English had never borrowed a massive influx of words from Old Norse and French as a result of these conquests.

How different would English be?

Well, it would certainly bear many more similarities to its closest Germanic relatives than real life English does. There would be far more cognates (related words which come from the same ancestral language) between English and its close relatives Dutch and German if much of the native word stock had not been replaced or reinforced with Norse, French and Latin equivalents.

It's estimated that only 26% of all English words are of Germanic origin (and that includes borrowed words from Old Norse). 29% are from French, 29% are from Latin, 6% are from Greek, 4% derive from proper nouns, and the remaining 6% are from other miscellaneous languages or have an unknown or obscure origin.

 

[Kabulrocks]

“It is what it is” and “that’s not my job”.

Before my former boss retired, when he would announce to us “I’ve been thinking”. We told him that he should really stop doing that.

 

[Antares JS]

+100. It is ageist and imports a lack of respect for your elders.

Respect is a two-way street. "Boomer" does get massively overused as an insult, but there is a certain segment of older people who bought houses in California in the 80's for five figures (generalization), who can't get through their heads that housing prices are insane these days and you have to be at least upper-middle class to buy one in a lot of areas, and that it is no longer possible to pay your way through college by working a minimum wage job, and instead accuse the younger generations of being lazy. Those people exist. My wife and I have both sat through their prattling.

 

[dr wogz]

Flammable, inflammable, and combustible all have similar sounding definitions, but there are important differences, if you deal with hazmat and firefighting. Basically:
Flammable - can be easily set aflame with an ignition source at 60 degrees or less. (I.e. gasoline)
Inflammable - can be set burning on its own without an ignition source. (i.e. Unstable chemicals or certain elements)
Combustible - can burn, but it's temperature must be raised above 60 degrees before it will burn. (Certain fuel oils, and materials that are around us all the time, but not as easily burned.)

So ends today's lesson in fire safety.

UL 94x-y

x = V or H
y = 0, 1, 2, or 3

Done a few tests to this spec..

UL 94V-0 is the most common (hardest to meet)

https://omnexus.specialchem.com/pol...94 5V Rating: 5V,test specimens must not drip.

 

[Antares JS]

Sad. You're missing 80% of human communication.

I think you missed the point. My point is that if you make an argument or point by saying "I feel that..." I assume you haven't thought it through and are just giving me some emotional response that may or may not make any sense given the facts. Even if it's true that people make decisions emotionally and rationalize it afterward, that doesn't mean I have to take their emotional positions seriously. Think it through and say with confidence, "I think that..." and I am more likely to consider what you say.

 

[Azamiryou]

I think you missed the point. My point is that if you make an argument or point by saying "I feel that..." I assume you haven't thought it through and are just giving me some emotional response that may or may not make any sense given the facts. Even if it's true that people make decisions emotionally and rationalize it afterward, that doesn't mean I have to take their emotional positions seriously. Think it through and say with confidence, "I think that..." and I am more likely to consider what you say.

Or perhaps they've learned that "I feel that..." is a softer way to say "I think that...", useful when the audience might bristle at whatever it is they're going to assert.

A lot of language is used to convey things other than the literal meaning of the words.

 

[NTP2]

Or perhaps they've learned that "I feel that..." is a softer way to say "I think that...", useful when the audience might bristle at whatever it is they're going to assert.

A lot of language is used to convey things other than the literal meaning of the words.

+1 I use it to start a idea if I think that the person I’m talking to will not like it.

 

[rcktnut]

Sigh...here I go again.

{Educational rant on}

There is a real, honest-to-Odin reason for calling them starters. There is a certain government organization (that shall remain nameless) which appears not to know the difference between an ematch and an igniter. If memory serves, they don't define either one in words. They use images. Which were incorrectly labeled BTW. (I can think of reasons that the labeling might have been deliberate but I won't share them.)

Nonetheless, whether we like it or not..."igniters" legally are a regulated item.

The leadership of TRA and NAR spent years in courtrooms and in meetings with government officials, fighting regulations. This is simply another way to fight regulation. Unlike "igniters" and "ematches", starters are not intended to ignite fireworks or nefarious devices. "Intended use" is to start rocket motors.

So IF it ever came up in a court of law---and I very much doubt that it will, now---defense could point out that these are starters. Judges and staff are often technically clueless, and might well rule summarily, simply based on the name and the intended use.

Why do you think Estes renamed these items? To fool someone? Of course not. I would bet long odds that they did so, not on a whim, but based on their legal teams' advice. Please...think about that for a moment.

BP is regulated too, what is the code name for that. I'll call them igniters, if someone else wants to call them starters, lighters, initiators that's ok with me. The latter names are sometimes used by vendors in the same sentence including the word igniters. I mostly see igniters used. I again will state that if we are good boys and girls with them, we don't have nothing to worry about.

BTW: NAR safety code: Term used in both codes.

1. Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the launch pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety interlock that is in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket is ready for launch and will use a launch switch that returns to the “off” position when released. The function of onboard energetics and firing circuits will be inhibited except when my rocket is in the launching position.

 

[cerving]

inflammable​

[ in-flam-uh-buhl ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA

adjective​

1. capable of being set on fire; combustible; flammable.

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

BP is regulated too, what is the code name for that. I'll call them igniters, if someone else wants to call them starters, lighters, initiators that's ok with me. The latter names are sometimes used by vendors in the same sentence including the word igniters. I mostly see igniters used. I again will state that if we are good boys and girls with them, we don't have nothing to worry about.

BTW: NAR safety code: Term used in both codes.

1. Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the launch pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety interlock that is in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket is ready for launch and will use a launch switch that returns to the “off” position when released. The function of onboard energetics and firing circuits will be inhibited except when my rocket is in the launching position.

Love all the discussion. "Starters, igniters, lighters, e-matches, fuses, etc." I'm an "igniter" man myself. Now I'm waiting for the engine/motor discussion to ensue or possibly another glue thread.