マニアックな話題ですが、瞬間接着剤は硬化の際に発熱します。
さっきゼリー状のアロンアルファを厚めに盛ってパテとして発泡スチロール部材同士を接着、スプレー式の硬化促進剤（アルテコ）を吹き付けるとすぐに硬化してカチカチ、スチロールが溶けることもなく良い具合だと思いましたが、触ると熱い！しばらくの間、かなり高温でした。
瞬間接着剤はしょっちゅう使っており発熱するのは知っていましたが、こんなに発熱したのは初めて。盛って硬化促進したのも原因かも。どこかで最近瞬間接着剤の発熱による火傷のニュースを見ましたが、ティッシュペーパーなんかで拭き取る場合は要注意です。
The tip of the exhaust pipe in the insertion direction is positioned by coming into contact with the edge of the opening.
Here's an assessment of the options:
"The tip of the exhaust pipe in the insertion direction is positioned by abutting the edge of the opening."
This is clear and concise. "Abutting" effectively conveys that the tip makes contact with the edge, and the sentence reads smoothly.
"The tip of the exhaust pipe in the insertion direction is positioned by abutting against the edge of the opening."
This is also grammatically correct, but "abutting against" can sound slightly redundant since "abutting" already implies making contact. It’s still acceptable, but less efficient than option 1.
"The tip of the exhaust pipe in the insertion direction is positioned by abutting on the edge of the opening."
This phrasing is less conventional. "Abutting on" isn’t commonly used, and it may sound awkward or unclear.
"The tip of the exhaust pipe in the insertion direction is positioned by being abutted on the edge of the opening."
This is grammatically correct but somewhat passive and awkward. "Being abutted on" isn’t a typical phrase, and it may cause confusion.
Recommendation:
Option 1 is the best choice for its clarity, conciseness, and natural phrasing.
The exhaust pipe comes into contact with a part of the vehicle body.
Here's an evaluation of the options:
"The exhaust pipe is in contact with a part of the vehicle body."
This is clear, straightforward, and grammatically correct. It effectively conveys the idea of the exhaust pipe touching or being in contact with the vehicle body.
"The exhaust pipe contacts a part of the vehicle body."
This is a more direct and concise way of expressing the same idea. It works well, especially in technical writing, where brevity is often preferred.
"The exhaust pipe adjoins a part of the vehicle body."
"Adjoins" implies that the exhaust pipe is next to or alongside a part of the vehicle body, which may not necessarily mean physical contact. It’s less specific than the others, so it might not be the best choice if actual contact is meant.
"The exhaust pipe is disposed in contact with a part of the vehicle body."
This is more formal and technical. "Disposed in contact" suggests intentional placement, which might be suitable if the design or arrangement is being emphasized. It’s often used in engineering or patent language.
Recommendation:
If you want to be direct and clear, option 2 ("contacts") is the most concise and effective. For a more formal, technical tone, option 4 ("is disposed in contact with") is appropriate.
The opening provided in the exhaust pipe is sized to restrict the insertion of the sensor component.
Here's an assessment of the options:
"The opening provided in the exhaust pipe is sized to regulate the insertion of the sensor component."
"Regulate" suggests a degree of control over the insertion process, which could imply adjustment rather than strict restriction. It may not be the best choice if the intention is to prevent excessive insertion.
"The opening provided in the exhaust pipe is sized to control the insertion of the sensor component."
"Control" is a more general term and can imply both restricting and managing the insertion process. It's a suitable option, but it could be seen as less specific than desired in some technical contexts.
"The opening provided in the exhaust pipe is sized to limit the insertion of the sensor component."
"Limit" clearly conveys the idea of setting a boundary or restriction, which aligns well with the function of the opening if the goal is to prevent excessive insertion. This is the most precise choice.
Recommendation:
Option 3 ("to limit") is the best choice if the intention is to emphasize restriction. If more general control is implied, option 2 ("to control") could also work.
The plate-like member is formed in a convex shape, making contact with the first member from a parallel direction and with the second member from a perpendicular direction.
Here's a breakdown of the new options:
"The plate-like member is formed in a convex shape so as to contact the first member from a parallel direction and the second member from a perpendicular direction."
This is concise and clear. It efficiently conveys the intended meaning without unnecessary repetition.
"The plate-like member is formed in a convex shape so as to contact the first member from a parallel direction and so as to contact the second member from a perpendicular direction."
This is grammatically correct but more repetitive. The repetition of "so as to contact" makes the sentence longer without adding significant clarity, which might not be ideal in technical contexts where conciseness is preferred.
"The plate-like member is formed in a convex shape so as to contact the first member from a parallel direction and to contact the second member from a perpendicular direction."
This version is slightly less repetitive than option 2 but still adds "to contact," which isn’t strictly necessary. It’s acceptable, but not as streamlined as option 1.
Recommendation:
Option 1 is the most effective because it is clear, concise, and avoids unnecessary repetition while still conveying the intended meaning accurately.
In this case, because the phrase following the initial "so as to contact" is quite long, it would be beneficial to repeat "so as to" before the second part to maintain clarity and ensure the reader doesn’t lose track of the sentence structure. The repetition helps to clearly indicate that there are two distinct actions or conditions being described.
A more appropriate version would be:
"The plate-like member is formed in a convex shape so as to contact the first member from a parallel direction without causing noise or any other undesirable phenomenon related to the insertion process or anything detrimental to the process, and so as to contact the second member from a perpendicular direction."
Reintroducing "so as to" helps balance the sentence, making it easier to follow, especially when dealing with lengthy, complex descriptions.
The terms "protruding portion" and "projecting portion" are often used interchangeably, but there are subtle differences in nuance:
"Protruding portion":
This typically suggests that the part extends outward beyond the main surface or structure. It often implies a more prominent or noticeable extension, sometimes with a sense of being pushed out or sticking out. The term can carry a slightly passive connotation, as if the part is naturally extending out.
"Projecting portion":
This can have a similar meaning but may emphasize the part's active extension outward. It often conveys a more deliberate or designed extension, such as a feature intended to stick out for a specific function. The term can sometimes imply a forward or angled projection.
In technical contexts, "protruding" might be used when describing parts that extend outward slightly or naturally, while "projecting" could be preferred for parts designed to extend outward more purposefully or at an angle. However, the choice often depends on the specific context and intended nuance.
In this case, "protruding portion" would be more appropriate for describing the bulging, convex side of the pipe. "Protruding" suggests a natural, outward extension or bulge, which fits well with the description of a convex shape. "Projecting" could imply a more deliberate or angled extension, which might not align with the natural, rounded bulge of the pipe.
Here's a breakdown of the options in this context:
"Protruding":
This emphasizes the fact that the portion extends outward from the main body of the pipe. It’s appropriate but less specific about the shape, focusing more on the fact that it sticks out.
"Bulging":
This conveys a rounded, outward curve and implies a natural or swollen appearance. It’s a good choice if you want to emphasize the rounded, curved nature of the portion.
"Convex":
This is a precise, technical term that describes a curved, outward shape. It’s ideal for clarity, especially in technical or engineering contexts, and emphasizes the shape rather than the action of sticking out.
"Arcuate":
This term means "curved like a bow" and is more formal or technical. It might be appropriate if you want to emphasize a gentle, smooth curve, but it’s less commonly used than "convex."
"Arched":
This suggests a more deliberate, symmetrical curve, often with a peak or arc. It can imply a specific kind of curve that isn’t always fitting for a general convex, bulging shape.
Recommendation:
For your description of a pipe with a bulging, convex portion, "convex" would be the most precise and technically appropriate term. "Bulging" could also work well if you want to emphasize the shape’s rounded, outward curve, while "protruding" would be more general.
Given the context, "convex portion" seems like the best choice for clear, precise communication.
Figure 1 shows the cross-section when the pipe is cut at a specific part.
Here's an evaluation of the options:
"Figure 1 shows a cross-section obtained by cutting the pipe at a specific part."
This is clear and precise. It conveys the process (cutting) and the result (cross-section) well.
"Figure 1 shows a cross-section of the pipe cut at a specific part."
This is concise and clear, but it could be interpreted slightly ambiguously as the pipe itself being "cut at a specific part" rather than showing the cross-section resulting from that cut.
"Figure 1 shows a cross-section taken of the pipe at a specific part."
This is clear and correctly conveys that the cross-section was obtained by examining a specific part of the pipe.
"Figure 1 shows a cross-section of the pipe taken at a specific part."
Similar to option 3, but "taken" can be interpreted as the method of obtaining the cross-section, which makes it slightly less direct than option 3.
"Figure 1 shows the cross-section taken at a specific part of the pipe."
This is also clear, but "the cross-section" suggests a specific cross-section, which might not be necessary if any cross-section would suffice.
Recommendation: If precision and clarity are most important, option 1 is a solid choice because it explicitly states how the cross-section was obtained. Option 3 is also clear and slightly more concise, making it another good choice.
You're correct; the use of "when" could be misinterpreted as indicating the timing of showing the cross-section rather than the act of cutting. A more precise revision would be:
"Figure 1 shows the cross-section obtained by cutting the pipe at a specific part."
This phrasing clarifies that the cross-section is a result of the cutting, avoiding any potential ambiguity about timing.
Yes, the use of "when" in this context is quite common and generally understood, especially in technical writing. It’s often used to imply a condition or result rather than strictly indicating timing.
However, while it's acceptable and usually clear, it can sometimes lead to slight ambiguity, especially if precision is crucial. In highly technical or legal contexts, it's often better to use more explicit phrasing like "obtained by" or "taken at" to avoid any potential misinterpretation.
This member has a part with the same shape as the inlet section of the exhaust pipe and a part with the same shape as the outlet section.
Here’s a breakdown of the options:
"This member has a part with the same shape as the inlet section of the exhaust pipe and a part with the same shape as the outlet section of the exhaust pipe."
This is clear and accurate, but it repeats "of the exhaust pipe," which could make it sound a bit redundant.
"This member has a part with the same shape as the inlet section of the exhaust pipe and a part with the same shape as the outlet section thereof."
This is grammatically correct and avoids the repetition by using "thereof," but "thereof" can sound formal or slightly archaic. It’s still acceptable in technical contexts, especially in patent language.
"This member has a part with the same shape as the inlet section and a part with the same shape as the outlet section of the exhaust pipe."
This is concise and eliminates redundancy. It reads smoothly, but it could be slightly ambiguous—one might interpret it as saying there are separate inlet and outlet sections of the exhaust pipe, each with a similar part, rather than distinct shapes matching each section.
Recommendation: If avoiding redundancy is important, option 2 is a good choice, especially for technical or legal contexts. If clarity without ambiguity is the priority, option 1 is the safest.
Yes, that's correct. For most purposes, repeating "of the exhaust pipe" isn't necessary because the context makes it clear that both the inlet and outlet sections refer to the same exhaust pipe. Reducing redundancy can improve readability, as long as it doesn’t lead to ambiguity.
In a planar view, a U-shaped member
Yes, "U-shaped" effectively conveys the idea of a "コの字型" shape, where the component resembles the letter "U" when viewed in a two-dimensional, planar view. It's a widely accepted term for describing this shape in English, especially in technical contexts.
Given your clarification, "U-shaped" may not fully capture the angular nature of "コの字型," especially if the component has right angles. A more precise translation could be:
"In a planar view, an angular U-shaped member" or "In a planar view, a bracket-shaped member."
These phrases better convey the specific shape you're describing, where the bottom forms right angles with the vertical parts.
Yes, for most general purposes, "U-shaped" would be understood and appropriate. It conveys the basic concept of the shape and is commonly used in technical descriptions. However, if the angular nature is critical, adding a qualifier like "angular" or opting for a more specific term could help avoid ambiguity.
Here's a breakdown of the translations:
"A member having U shape."
This sounds slightly awkward because "U shape" is typically preceded by an article. It would be better with "a" or "the."
"A member having a U shape."
This is grammatically correct and clear. It's a straightforward way to describe the component.
"A member having a U-shape."
Also correct and clear. The hyphen is optional but often used for compound adjectives. Both "U-shape" and "U shape" are widely understood, though the hyphen can add a touch of clarity.
"A member having the shape of U."
This is grammatically acceptable but slightly less natural. It may sound more formal or wordy compared to the others.
Among these, options 2 and 3 are the most natural and commonly used. If I had to pick one, "a member having a U shape" (option 2) would be the most straightforward and generally appropriate.
"A member having a 'U' shape" is also a clear and grammatically correct option. Using quotation marks around "U" can help emphasize that the shape resembles the letter "U," which might be useful for clarity, especially in technical descriptions. However, it’s not strictly necessary unless you want to draw attention to the specific shape.
Overall, this is a good choice, particularly when you want to emphasize or specify the resemblance to the letter "U."
WO2018145097(SHELTERED WINGS INC D/B/A VORTEX OPTICS [US])
In another embodiment, the viewing optic may also use a stabilized camera to compensate for recoil from the firearm.
【０３６６】
別の実施形態では、観察光学器械は、火器からの反動を補償するためにブレ補正カメラを使用することができる。
The viewing optic would accurately track the movement of the stabilized camera, and compensate for that movement to accurately calculate the geo-positional trajectory of the bullet.
観察光学器械は、ブレ補正カメラの移動を正確に追跡し、弾丸の地球位置軌道を正確に計算するためにこの移動を補償することになる。
US8531180(APPLE INC [US])
Application examples include but are not limited to: image stabilisation (e.g., in cameras or mobile phones); input devices for virtual reality applications; platform stabilisation; sensors for game consoles; and sensors for navigation systems.
非限定的な応用例は以下のものを含む。（例えばカメラや携帯電話での）画像ブレ補正、仮想現実アプリケーション用の入力機器、プラットフォーム安定化、ゲーム機用のセンサ、およびナビゲーションシステム用のセンサ。
This substrate processing apparatus has a substrate processing space-forming member.
The hyphen in "space-forming" is not absolutely necessary, but it helps to clarify the relationship between "space" and "forming," ensuring that they are read as a combined adjective modifying "member."
Without the hyphen ("space forming member"), there is a slight risk of misinterpretation, as it could be read as "space" and "forming member" separately. However, in many technical contexts, especially where similar terms are used frequently, the meaning might still be clear even without the hyphen.
So, while the hyphen aids in clarity, "space forming member" could still be understood correctly, particularly if the context makes it obvious.
Here's a breakdown of the options:
Among these, Option 2 is the most precise, as it ensures all elements are understood as part of a single compound descriptor. However, due to its complexity, it might be beneficial to consider rephrasing for clarity, like:
"A member that forms a substrate-processing space."
This would avoid the need for so many hyphens while maintaining clarity.
