装置、機器、デバイス：apparatus, device, equipment, system

制御装置と、電源部と、表示デバイスとを備えた情報処理機器

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

An information processing device equipped with a control unit, a power supply unit, and a display device.

あなた:

Use "apparatus" for 装置, "device" for デバイス, and a word other than "apparatus" and "device" for 機器.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

An information processing system equipped with a control apparatus, a power supply unit, and a display device.

あなた:

Is "system" appropriate as the translation of 機器?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Using "system" as a translation for 機器 can be appropriate in certain contexts, but it depends on the specific nature of the equipment being described. Here's a closer look:

• "System" typically refers to a combination of components working together as a cohesive whole. If the 情報処理機器 is composed of interconnected elements (e.g., the control apparatus, power supply unit, and display device functioning as an integrated system), "system" works well.

• However, if 機器 refers to a standalone piece of equipment, such as a single information processing unit or machine, terms like "equipment", "apparatus", or "machine" might be more precise.

Suggested Alternatives:

• "An information processing apparatus equipped with a control apparatus, a power supply unit, and a display device."
  (Keeps "apparatus" consistent for 機器 and 装置 but distinguishes it from "device.")

• "An information processing equipment equipped with a control apparatus, a power supply unit, and a display device."

If 機器 is meant to emphasize the broader capability or function rather than just a singular piece of equipment, "system" can indeed be appropriate. Let me know if you'd like further refinement!

あなた:

Is the phrase "an information processing equipment" correct grammatically or conventionally in terms of the use of the article "an"? I thought the word "equipment" does not call for an article.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

You're absolutely correct! The word "equipment" is an uncountable noun, and it generally does not take an article like "an" or "a." Instead, it would either stand alone or be used with a modifier to make it specific.

For example:

• Correct: "Information processing equipment"
• Incorrect: "An information processing equipment"

If you need to use an article, you'd typically pair it with a countable noun, such as "device", "apparatus", or "piece of equipment."

Correct Alternatives:

• "Information processing equipment equipped with a control apparatus, a power supply unit, and a display device."
• "An information processing apparatus equipped with a control apparatus, a power supply unit, and a display device."
• "A piece of information processing equipment equipped with a control apparatus, a power supply unit, and a display device."

Your observation about the article is spot on, and using "equipment" without an article is the grammatically correct choice in this context.

あなた:

But the term "user equipment (UE)" is established and is widely used as a countable noun, as in "a user equipment" or "user equipments", isn't it?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

You're absolutely right that in certain technical contexts, such as telecommunications, the term "user equipment (UE)" is treated as a countable noun. This is an exception to the general rule for "equipment", which is typically uncountable in standard English usage.

Why This Happens:

1. Specialized Jargon: In fields like telecommunications, "user equipment" refers to a specific, discrete device (e.g., a mobile phone or other end-user hardware). Over time, industry jargon has established "user equipment" as a countable entity, even though this deviates from traditional grammatical norms.
2. Plural Forms: In such technical contexts, you'll also see "user equipments" used, despite "equipments" being incorrect in standard English.

Examples:

• Telecommunications (countable):
  • "A user equipment (UE) is connected to the network."
  • "The network supports multiple user equipments."
• Standard English (uncountable):
  • "The lab purchased new equipment."
  • "This equipment is state-of-the-art."

Implications for Your Context:

If you are writing within a field where "equipment" is treated as countable (e.g., telecommunications or IT), then using "an information processing equipment" could be understood and accepted. However, outside such specialized contexts, it’s best to adhere to standard usage and rephrase it, such as:

• "An information processing device"
• "Information processing equipment"

It’s all about the audience and conventions of the field you're addressing!

による結果、の結果：from, of

処理部は、算出部による算出結果に基づき出力の値を決定する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The processing unit determines the output value based on the calculation results from the calculation unit.

あなた:

How about "of the calculation unit" instead of "from the calculation unit"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Using "of the calculation unit" instead of "from the calculation unit" shifts the emphasis slightly. It suggests that the results inherently belong to or are a product of the calculation unit, rather than focusing on the source of the results. Both are grammatically correct, but the nuance differs:

• "From the calculation unit" emphasizes the source of the results, highlighting that the processing unit receives the results from the calculation unit.
• "Of the calculation unit" implies a closer association or ownership, emphasizing that the results are a natural product or property of the calculation unit.

If the intent is to highlight the origin or flow of the results, "from the calculation unit" is more appropriate. If the emphasis is on the relationship between the results and the calculation unit, "of the calculation unit" works better.

あなた:

処理部は、算出部の算出結果に基づき出力の値を決定する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The processing unit determines the output value based on the calculation results of the calculation unit.

あなた:

Even in this case, "from" is better than "of" if the intended meaning of の算出結果 is "result from"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, if the intended meaning of 「算出部の算出結果」 is "results from the calculation unit," then "from" is indeed better than "of." This is because "from" clearly indicates the origin or source of the results, aligning with the intended nuance.

For example:
"The processing unit determines the output value based on the calculation results from the calculation unit."

Using "of" in this case might still work but could blur the intended meaning slightly, making it sound more like the results belong to or are associated with the calculation unit rather than emphasizing their source. So, "from" is preferable to maintain clarity when describing a source or origin.

あなた:

Is "the results of calculation by the calculation unit" better?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The results of calculation by the calculation unit" is more detailed and can add clarity, especially if the focus is on emphasizing that the calculation unit performs the act of calculation. Here's a breakdown:

• "The results of calculation by the calculation unit" explicitly states that the calculation unit is performing the calculation and ties the results to this process. This can be helpful if the context requires precision about the role of the calculation unit.

• "The calculation results from the calculation unit" is more concise and commonly used, especially when it's already clear that the calculation unit performs the calculation.

Both are correct, but the choice depends on context:

• If the emphasis is on who or what performs the calculation, then "results of calculation by the calculation unit" is better.
• If the emphasis is on the source of the results, "calculation results from the calculation unit" is more straightforward.

For technical or formal writing, the more detailed phrasing might be preferred to avoid any ambiguity.

はんだにより

基板の表面のパッドにはんだにより固定された端子。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

A terminal fixed to the pad on the surface of the substrate by solder.

あなた:

Is "by solder" appropriate? It sounds as if the solder is the actor that has performed the action of fixing the terminal to the pad, when in fact it should be a person or a machine doing the fixing and the solder is a means of achieving the fixing, don't you think?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

You raise a valid point. Using "by solder" could indeed imply that solder itself is actively performing the action, which may not accurately convey the intended meaning. A more precise phrasing would make it clear that solder is the means of achieving the fixing, while leaving room for the agent (a person or a machine) to perform the action. Here are a few alternatives:

1. "A terminal fixed to the pad on the surface of the substrate using solder."
   This phrasing clarifies that solder is the method, not the actor.

2. "A terminal fixed to the pad on the surface of the substrate through soldering."
   This focuses on the process of soldering, which involves an agent performing the action.

3. "A terminal attached to the pad on the surface of the substrate by means of solder."
   This explicitly positions solder as the medium for attachment.

These alternatives avoid the potential misinterpretation and align better with the intended meaning. Would one of these work for your context?

あなた:

But "by solder" is generally acceptable?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, "by solder" is generally acceptable in technical writing, especially when brevity is valued and the context clearly implies that solder is the medium or means rather than the actor. In fields like electronics or materials science, it's often understood that solder doesn't act independently; it is a tool or material used in the process.

However, if there's a need for precise language to avoid any misinterpretation, alternatives like "using solder" or "through soldering" may be preferable. In highly formal or meticulous contexts, being explicit about the role of solder (as the means, not the actor) can help ensure clarity.

送風運転

US2024085042(DAIKIN IND LTD [JP])
 The non-operation of the compressor 21 includes, for example,
圧縮機２１の運転停止中には、例えば、

a case where there is no operation signal input to the air conditioner 1 ,
空調機１に対する運転信号の入力が無い場合や、

a so-called thermo-off state in which the compressor 21 stops due to a small cooling/heating load (temperature difference between the set temperature and room temperature),
冷暖房負荷（設定温度と室温との温度差）が小さくなり圧縮機２１が停止する、いわゆるサーモオフ状態の場合や、

and a so-called air blowing operation state in which the compressor 21 is not operated but the utilization fan 47 is operated.
圧縮機２１を運転させず、利用ファン４７を運転させる、いわゆる送風運転状態の場合を含む。