基板を搬送

US11279032(APPLIED MATERIALS INC [US])
[0003] Electronic device manufacturing systems, such as substrate processing systems, include multiple process chambers and load lock chambers.
【０００２】
  ［００２］  基板処理システムなどの電子デバイス製造システムは、複数の処理チャンバ及びロードロックチャンバを含む。

Such chambers are included in cluster tools where a plurality of process chambers are distributed about a transfer chamber, for example.
このようなチャンバは、例えば、複数の処理チャンバが移送チャンバの周りに分配されるクラスタツールに含まれる。

Electronic device manufacturing systems also include a factory interface and storage areas (e.g., front opening unified pods (FOUPs)).
また、電子デバイス製造システムは、ファクトリインターフェース及び収容領域（例えば、前方開口型統一ポッド（ＦＯＵＰ））を含む。

Electronic device manufacturing systems employ articulated robots or multi-arm robots, which are housed within the transfer chamber to transport substrates between the various process chambers and load lock chambers and are housed within the factory interface to transport substrates between the storage areas and the load lock chambers. 
電子デバイス製造システムは、多関節ロボット又は多腕ロボットを採用しており、これらロボットは、様々な処理チャンバとロードロックチャンバとの間で基板を搬送するために移送チャンバ内に収容され、収容領域とロードロックチャンバとの間で基板を搬送するためにファクトリインターフェース内に収容される。

US2023245862(LAM RES CORP [US])
[0032] FIG. 2 shows a plan view of the tool 100 .
【００３２】
  図２は、ツール１００の平面図を示す。

The tool 100 includes the FOUPs 104 , the EFEM and load lock 106 , the substrate processing chambers 109 , and power lock out and tag out panel 110 .
ツール１００は、ＦＯＵＰ１０４と、ＥＦＥＭおよびロードロック１０６と、基板処理チャンバ１０９と、パワーロックアウトおよびタグアウトパネル１１０と、を含む。

The tool has an overall footprint identified by dotted lines 220 .
ツールは、点線２２０によって識別される設置面積全体を有する。

The tool 100 further includes a substrate transfer module 222 for transferring substrates to and from the substrate processing chambers 109 . 
ツール１００は、基板処理チャンバ１０９へおよび基板処理チャンバ１０９から基板を搬送するための基板搬送モジュール２２２をさらに含む。

US11444521(BROOKS AUTOMATION INC [US])
[0032] The vacuum back end 1020 generally includes a transport chamber 1025 , one or more processing station(s) 1030 and any suitable transfer robot 1014 which may include one or more aspects of the disclosed embodiments described herein.
【００１２】
  真空バックエンド１０２０は、一般的に、搬送チャンバ１０２５、１つまたは複数の処理ステーション１０３０、および、本明細書で説明される、開示される実施形態の１つまたは複数の態様を含んでいてもよい任意の適切な移送ロボット１０１４を含む。

The transfer robot 1014 will be described below and may be located within the transport chamber 1025 to transport substrates between the load lock 1010 and the various processing stations 1030 .
移送ロボット１０１４は、以下において説明されるが、ロードロック１０１０と様々な処理ステーション１０３０との間で基板を搬送するために、搬送チャンバ１０２５内に位置していてもよい。

量子デバイス

量子コンピュータが使える「量子計算クラウドサービス」を理研が無償提供開始　国産超伝導量子コンピュータ初号機を公開　大阪大学や富士通、NTTなどと協力、2023年3月27日 13時17分、livedoor News

 

量子ビット、共振器、フィルタ

JP2022172189A 超伝導複合量子計算回路、国立研究開発法人科学技術振興機構

回路基板１は、一例としてシリコン等の誘電体基板である。回路基板１では、シリコン等の誘電体基板の基板表面Ｓ上に超伝導膜により回路素子の配線パターンＣＰ及び接地パターンＧＰが形成される。なお、回路基板１の材質がシリコンである場合、回路基板１は所定の温度よりも低い温度において備えられ当該シリコンは誘電体となる。

配線パターンＣＰには、量子ビット４と、量子ビット４の状態を観測する観測電極８と、超伝導共振器７と、キャパシター９とが含まれる。図１では、量子ビット４の一例として、量子ビット４－１～４－６が示されている。図１では、超伝導共振器７の一例として、超伝導共振器７－１～７－４が示されている。図１では、キャパシター９の一例として、キャパシター９－１～９－４が示されている。

トランプ政権は成功する

ホリエモン氏がトランプ政権の（特定の）政策が大成功すると発言したとヤフーニュースにありました。見出ししか見てませんが、私も同感です。

私の場合はほとんど根拠の無い直感ですが、例えばウクライナ問題にしても、トランプ氏の「ディール」の他にどうやって終結させるというんでしょうか？トランプ氏が当選してなかったらあと何年ダラダラ戦争が続いたことか。

パレスチナに関してもトランプ氏はアメリカがガザを統治するみたいなことを言っているらしく批判が多いようですが、あの破壊されつくした狭い土地にパレスチナの人々が戻って幸せになれるとは思えない。結局イスラエルが戦争に勝利したのは明白なので、はっきり言ってしまえばパレスチナの人々は勝者の言いなりになるしかない。

マスメディアや民主党は綺麗ごとを言っているようにしか思えない。

私はトランプ氏を応援するし、トランプ政権の下で米国と世界の多くの人々の生活は今までより悪くはならないと思います。

平面視が繰り返される場合

この装置は、基板と、平面視において基板と重なる半導体素子と、平面視において基板と重ならない絶縁部を有する。

ChatGPT:

How about:
"The device includes a substrate, a semiconductor element overlapping the substrate in a plan view, and an insulating portion that does not overlap the substrate in a plan view."

あなた:

It is not necessary to say "the plan view" the second time it is used?

ChatGPT:

Correct, it is not necessary to repeat "in a plan view" the second time（＊質問の意図とは異なる）. The phrase "does not overlap the substrate" is clearly understood to be in the same context.

A more natural revision would be:

"The device includes a substrate, a semiconductor element overlapping the substrate in a plan view, and an insulating portion that does not overlap the substrate."

This avoids redundancy while maintaining clarity.

あなた:

How about: "The device includes a substrate, a semiconductor element overlapping the substrate in a plan view, and an insulating portion that does not overlap the substrate in the plan view"?

ChatGPT:

Your sentence is grammatically correct, but the second "in the plan view" is unnecessary and makes the sentence slightly redundant. Since "in a plan view" is already established for the first overlap description, it is naturally understood that the second mention refers to the same view.

A more concise and natural revision would be:

"The device includes a substrate, a semiconductor element overlapping the substrate in a plan view, and an insulating portion that does not overlap the substrate."

However, if you prefer to explicitly mention "in a plan view" both times for precision, it is still acceptable:

"The device includes a substrate, a semiconductor element overlapping the substrate in a plan view, and an insulating portion that does not overlap the substrate in a plan view."

But typically, technical writing values conciseness, so the first revision is preferable unless absolute clarity is needed.

あなた:

My questions were intended to clarify whether the definite article "the" should be used for the second "plan view" when mentioning "plan view" twice for precision. Should it be "the plan view" or "a plan view" the second time "plan view" is mentioned?

ChatGPT:

When mentioning "plan view" twice for precision, the second instance should generally take "the" rather than "a", because it refers to the same perspective already introduced.

So the more precise form would be:

"The device includes a substrate, a semiconductor element overlapping the substrate in a plan view, and an insulating portion that does not overlap the substrate in the plan view."

Here’s why:

• The first mention of "a plan view" introduces the concept as a general perspective.
• The second mention refers to the same specific plan view already established, making "the plan view" more appropriate.

Using "a plan view" again might imply an entirely new or different plan view, which is unlikely in this context.

可能性が低減された

衝撃による破損の可能性が低減された車両用ライト。

ChatGPT:

"A vehicle light with a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact."

Key Translation Points:

• 「衝撃による」→「due to impact」
  • Specifies the cause of potential damage.
• 「破損の可能性」→「likelihood of damage」
  • "Likelihood" conveys the probability aspect, keeping it natural.
• 「低減された」→「with a reduced likelihood」
  • Keeps the passive nuance while making the phrase flow naturally.
• 「車両用ライト」→「vehicle light」
  • General but precise term for a light used in vehicles.

Let me know if you prefer a different nuance, such as emphasizing the structural design that reduces damage!

あなた:

How about 1. A vehicle light that has a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact. 2. A vehicle light of which the likelihood of damage due to impact is reduced.

 

ChatGPT:

Both of your options are grammatically correct, but the first one sounds more natural and commonly used in technical descriptions. Here's my assessment:

1. "A vehicle light that has a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact."

   • This is natural and clear.
   • "That has" makes it easy to read and avoids awkward phrasing.
   • Commonly used in technical English and product descriptions.

2. "A vehicle light of which the likelihood of damage due to impact is reduced."

   • This structure is grammatically correct but slightly awkward.
   • "Of which" is less commonly used in modern technical English.
   • The sentence sounds more formal and less fluid than the first one.

Recommendation:

The first option is better for naturalness and readability.

If you want a slightly more concise and formal version:
✅ "A vehicle light with a reduced likelihood of damage due to impact."

Would you like to emphasize any particular aspect, such as structural design or shock absorption?

いずれかに接続、配線

複数の端子のいずれかに接続された複数の信号配線

ChatGPT:

How about:
✔ "A plurality of signal wirings each connected to one of a plurality of terminals."

This version maintains clarity and avoids potential ambiguity.

あなた:

複数の端子のいずれかに接続された1つの信号配線

ChatGPT:

How about:
✔ "A signal wiring connected to one of a plurality of terminals."

This keeps the meaning clear and precise.

あなた:

How about "A signal wiring connected to any one of a plurality of terminals"?

ChatGPT:

✔ "A signal wiring connected to any one of a plurality of terminals."

This version emphasizes that the signal wiring can be connected to any of the multiple terminals, rather than just a specific one. It works well if the intention is to highlight flexibility in connection options.

あなた:

Is the word "wiring" appropriate? Isn't "wire" a better word?

ChatGPT:

Yes, "wire" is generally a better choice than "wiring" in this context.

• "Wire" refers to a single conductor or a single signal line, which aligns well with "one signal wire" being connected to one of multiple terminals.
• "Wiring" usually refers to an interconnected system of multiple wires or the entire wiring arrangement.

So, a more natural phrasing would be:
✔ "A signal wire connected to any one of a plurality of terminals."

あなた:

Is "wiring" generally acceptable?

ChatGPT:

"Wiring" is generally acceptable, but it depends on the level of specificity required in the technical context.

Key Differences:

• "Wire" → Typically refers to a single conductor or a specific signal line.
• "Wiring" → More commonly refers to an interconnected system or the overall layout of electrical connections.

Acceptability in Technical Writing:

• If the context refers to one specific connection or conductor, "wire" is more precise and preferred.
  • ✅ "A signal wire connected to any one of a plurality of terminals."
• If the context refers to a broader wiring structure (e.g., a bundle or circuit system), "wiring" can be acceptable.
  • ✅ "The wiring of the circuit board is optimized for signal integrity."

For your sentence, since it refers to one specific signal path, "wire" is the better choice. However, "wiring" would still be understandable but slightly less precise.

あなた:

When using "wiring", is it common, appropriate, and/or conventional to say "a wiring"?

ChatGPT:

No, "a wiring" is not common, appropriate, or conventional in standard English usage.

Why?

• "Wiring" is an uncountable noun (like "equipment" or "machinery"), referring to a system or network of electrical connections rather than an individual component.
• It is usually used without an article (e.g., "The wiring is damaged") or with a modifier (e.g., "the internal wiring" or "complex wiring").

Correct Usage:

✅ "The wiring of the device is optimized for efficiency."
✅ "Faulty wiring can cause short circuits."
✅ "Signal wiring should be properly shielded."

Incorrect Usage:

❌ "A wiring is installed inside the device."
❌ "I fixed a wiring in the circuit board."

Alternative:

If referring to one specific connection, "a wire" or "a wiring path" would be more appropriate: ✅ "A wire is connected to the terminal."
✅ "A wiring path is established for signal transmission."

So, unless you mean the entire wiring system, "a wiring" is not conventional and should be avoided.

より導電性が低い

基板部より導電性が低い基板保持部。

ChatGPT:

How about:
"A substrate holding portion having lower conductivity than the substrate portion."

あなた:

How about

1. A substrate holding portion having conductivity lower than the substrate portion.

2. A substrate holding portion having conductivity lower than that of the substrate portion.

3. A substrate holding portion having a conductivity lower than the substrate portion.

4. A substrate holding portion having a conductivity lower than that of the substrate portion.

5. A substrate holding portion having a lower conductivity than the substrate portion.

ChatGPT:

The best options are 2 and 4, as they clearly convey the comparison by using "than that of", making it unambiguous that "conductivity" refers to the substrate portion.

Among them, Option 2 is slightly more natural because "conductivity" is typically treated as an uncountable noun in scientific contexts, making "a conductivity" in Option 4 less common.

Thus, Option 2 is the most precise and natural:
✔ "A substrate holding portion having conductivity lower than that of the substrate portion."

静電気を除去

US2024102149(MOTHERSON INNOVATIONS CO LTD [GB])
[0107] Prior to coating the substrate was blown off thoroughly with ionised compressed air to remove any particulate that had settled on the surface and to remove static.
【０１００】
  [0108]被覆の前に、イオン化圧縮空気を用いて、基材を完全に吹き清めて表面上に積もった微粒子すべてを除去し、静電気を除去する。

The substrate was then loaded into the PVD coating drum and blown off a second time immediately prior to entering the vacuum coating chamber.
次いで、ＰＶＤ被覆ドラムに基材を装填し、真空被覆チャンバーに入れる直前に２回目の吹き清めを行う。

WO2020081223(ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS [US])
[0011] Static bars, also known as, static eliminators or anti-static bars provide one way to eliminate static eiectricity generated on a part passing through such a contact cleaning system during operation
【００１１】
  静電気除去装置（static eliminator）又は除電バー（anti-static bar）としても知られるスタティックバー（static bar）は、動作中にそのような接触クリーニングシステムを通過する部品上に生成される静電気をなくす１つの方法を提供する。

in contact cleaning apparatus, a static bar can be located at the outlet of the cleaning roller to provide a stream of ionised air to neutralise static on the cleaned substrate surface
接触クリーニング装置において、スタティックバーは、クリーニングされる基板表面上の静電気（static）を中和するイオン化空気のストリームを提供するために、クリーニングローラーの出口に位置することができる。

in certain systems, a second static bar can be located at the inlet of the cleaning roller to remove static from the substrate to be cleaned. 
或る特定のシステムにおいて、第２のスタティックバーは、クリーニングされる基板から静電気を除去するためにクリーニングローラーの入口に位置することができる。

碍管

US2018015870(MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP [JP])
[0013] Ground shields 25 , 35 made of, for example, metal such as aluminum or brass, or conductive resin are provided between the large diameter portions A of the insulators 21 , 31 and the ground layers 23 , 33 .
【００１３】
  絶縁物２１、３１の大径部Ａと接地層２３、３３との間には、例えばアルミニウムや黄銅などの金属または導電性樹脂等で構成された接地シールド２５、３５が設けられている。

The ground shields 25 , 35 are placed only on the pressure tank 2 side in FIG. 5, but may be provided on the porcelain tube 20 side.
図３では、圧力タンク２側にのみ接地シールド２５、３５が設置されているが、碍管２０側に設けることも可能である。

には形成されている：されている問題

回路基板には回路パターンが形成されている。

ChatGPT:

A circuit pattern is formed on the circuit board.

あなた:

回路基板には、半導体素子と外部電源を電気的に接続する回路パターンが形成されている。

ChatGPT:

A circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply is formed on the circuit board.

あなた:

How about 1. The circuit board is formed with a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply. 2. The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply. 3. The circuit board has a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply formed thereon.

ChatGPT:

Here’s an evaluation of each option in terms of clarity and naturalness:

1. "The circuit board is formed with a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

   • Issue: "Is formed with" is not the most natural phrasing for this context. It might suggest that the board itself was constructed using the circuit pattern, rather than simply having it on its surface.
   • Alternative: "The circuit board is provided with a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

2. "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

   • Pros: This is a clear and precise way to express the idea, commonly used in technical writing.
   • Cons: "Thereon" can sound a bit formal or old-fashioned, but it is technically correct and often used in patent writing.

3. "The circuit board has a circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply formed thereon."

   • Issue: The phrase "formed thereon" seems to modify "external power supply" rather than "circuit pattern", which could lead to ambiguity.
   • Alternative: "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon, which electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

Best Choice:

Option 2 ("The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply.") is the most precise and natural for a technical context.

If you want a more modern and slightly less formal version, you could say:
✔ "The circuit board has a circuit pattern on it that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

あなた:

Which is better, your initial translation "A circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply is formed on the circuit board", or option 2 "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply"?

ChatGPT:

Both sentences are technically correct, but the choice depends on clarity, naturalness, and context (e.g., technical writing vs. general description). Here's a comparison:

1. My initial translation:

✔ "A circuit pattern that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply is formed on the circuit board."

• Pros:
  • More natural word order.
  • Clearly states that the circuit pattern is formed on the circuit board.
• Cons:
  • Slightly less formal than option 2.
  • Could be reworded for a more concise structure.

2. Option 2:

✔ "The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon that electrically connects a semiconductor element and an external power supply."

• Pros:
  • More formal and structured, making it suitable for patents or highly technical writing.
  • The use of "thereon" avoids ambiguity about what is formed where.
• Cons:
  • "Thereon" sounds a bit old-fashioned and is mostly used in legal or patent contexts.
  • Slightly more complex structure compared to the first option.

Which is better?

• If the context is patents or formal technical documentation, option 2 ("The circuit board has a circuit pattern formed thereon...") is better due to its structured phrasing.
• If the context is general technical writing or easier readability, my initial translation ("A circuit pattern that electrically connects... is formed on the circuit board.") is better because it is clearer and more natural.

Would you like a revision that balances both clarity and technical formality?

上方を覆う

基板上の素子の上方を覆うカバー部材。

ChatGPT:

A cover member that covers the upper side of a component on a substrate.

あなた:

How about 1. A cover member that covers over a component on a substrate. 2. A cover member that covers a component on a substrate from above. 3. A cover member disposed over a component on a substrate. 4. A cover member disposed above a component on a substrate.

ChatGPT:

Here’s how each option compares in terms of clarity and nuance:

1. "A cover member that covers over a component on a substrate."

   • "Covers over" is somewhat redundant; "covers" alone is usually sufficient.
   • A more natural phrasing would be: "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate."

2. "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate from above."

   • This clearly specifies the direction but might be slightly wordy.
   • If you want to emphasize the coverage from above, this is a valid choice.

3. "A cover member disposed over a component on a substrate."

   • "Disposed over" suggests placement rather than active covering, making it more neutral.
   • This is a good option if you don’t want to emphasize the covering function explicitly.

4. "A cover member disposed above a component on a substrate."

   • This suggests that the cover member is located above the component but does not necessarily indicate direct coverage.
   • If the cover is meant to enclose or shield, "disposed over" (option 3) would be better.

Best choices:

• If the intent is to emphasize covering, option 2 ("covers a component... from above") is the clearest.
• If the intent is to describe placement rather than coverage, option 3 ("disposed over a component") is better.

Would you like further refinement based on the intended nuance?

あなた:

Does "covers" in "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate" sufficiently indicate the coverage from above? Could it also possibly mean the coverage from below?

ChatGPT:

In "A cover member that covers a component on a substrate," the verb "covers" generally implies coverage from above in most contexts, especially when referring to a cover member. However, it is not explicitly restricted to that interpretation—it could, in some cases, be ambiguous and allow for coverage from other directions, including from below.

If you want to ensure unambiguous coverage from above, using "covers from above" (option 2) or "disposed over" (option 3) would make it clearer. "Covers a component" alone leaves some room for interpretation, though in practical contexts, it's often assumed to mean coverage from above unless otherwise specified.

あなた:

基板上の複数の素子の上方を覆うカバー部材。

ChatGPT:

A cover member that covers the upper side of multiple components on a substrate.

あなた:

It is not necessary to say "the upper sides of" even though there are multiple components?

ChatGPT:

Yes, it is not necessary to say "the upper sides of" even though there are multiple components. The phrase "covers multiple components on a substrate" is generally understood to mean covering them from above, especially when referring to a "cover member." The natural assumption is that a cover is placed over the components rather than beneath or around them.

However, if you want to explicitly emphasize that the coverage is from above (to remove any ambiguity), you could say:

• "A cover member that covers multiple components on a substrate from above."
• "A cover member disposed over multiple components on a substrate."

Would you like to fine-tune it further based on a specific context?

あなた:

When you say "the upper side of a component" as in your initial translation, does it mean the upper portion of the component, or the area or space over the component?

ChatGPT:

When I initially wrote "covers the upper side of a component", it could be interpreted as covering the upper portion of the component itself, rather than the space above it. This phrasing might suggest that only the top surface of the component is being covered, rather than implying full coverage from above.

If the intended meaning is to indicate coverage over the entire area above multiple components (not just their top surfaces), then a better way to phrase it would be:

• "A cover member that covers multiple components on a substrate from above."
• "A cover member disposed over multiple components on a substrate."

These options make it clearer that the cover member is positioned above and extends over the components, rather than just covering their upper surfaces.

偏光素子

US9921152(KLA TENCOR CORP [US])
[0040] Collection optics 122 includes any suitable optical elements to collect light from the one or more structures formed on wafer 120 .
【００３０】
  集光光学系１２２は、ウェハ１２０上に形成された１個又は複数個の構造から集光するのに適する何らかの集光素子を有している。

Collection aperture stop 123 controls the NA of the collection optics subsystem.
集光開口絞り１２３は集光光学系サブシステムのＮＡを制御する。

Polarizing element 124 analyzes the desired polarization state. The polarizing element 124 is a polarizer or a compensator. 
偏光素子１２４は所望の偏光状態を検光する。偏光素子１２４は偏光器又は補償器である。

US11998487(PULSEMEDICA CORP [CA])
The light from the source 614 is directed towards the eye 612 through a polarizing element 626 , such as a quarter or half-wave plate, that changes the polarization of the light passing through it.
光源６１４からの光は、通過する光の偏光を変化させる４分の１または１／２波長板などの偏光素子６２６を通して眼６１２に向けられる。

The light is directed to the eye and the reflected off the eye returns through the same path and again passes through the polarizing element 626 which
光は、眼に向けられ、眼で反射された光は、同じ経路を通って戻り、再び偏光素子６２６を通過して、

again changes the polarization of the returning light
戻り光の偏光を再び変化させ、

so that the returning light has a different polarization from the source light and so can be separated from each other by the polarizing beam splitter 624 . 
戻り光が光源光とは異なる偏光を有するようにするので、偏光ビームスプリッタ６２４によって互いに分離できる。

US2023184996(3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY [US])
The light reflecting layer may include a multilayer optical film. The light reflecting layer may include polymeric multilayer optical film.
【００８２】
  光反射層は、多層光学フィルムを含み得る。光反射層は、ポリマー多層光学フィルムを含み得る。

The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a mirror element.
ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、ミラー素子として動作し得る。

The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a polarizer element.
ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、偏光素子として動作し得る。

The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a reflective polarizer element. The polymeric multilayer optical film may operate as a spectral filter.
ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、反射偏光素子として動作し得る。ポリマー多層光学フィルムは、スペクトルフィルタとして動作し得る。

ラインモへ移行

ケータイはもう多分10年以上ソフトバンクでしたが私のデータ使用量はほとんど毎月3ギガ未満なのでラインモに変えました。

ネットで申し込んで宅配でSIMカードが届き、交換。

グーグルフォンのPixel３。

移行はまあまあ簡単でした。

入射光量：原文への忠実度

センサーは、レンズへの入射光量を測定する。

ChatGPT:

The sensor measures the amount of incident light on the lens.

あなた:

How about "the incident light amount on the lens"?

ChatGPT:

"The incident light amount on the lens" is grammatically acceptable but sounds slightly unnatural. A more natural way to phrase it would be:

• "The sensor measures the amount of incident light on the lens." (Most natural)
• "The sensor measures the incident light level on the lens." (Acceptable)
• "The sensor measures the intensity of incident light on the lens." (If referring to light intensity rather than quantity)

Would you like a more technical or precise phrasing based on your specific context?

あなた:

センサーは、レンズへの入射光量Qを測定する。入射光量Qは制御装置に送られる。

ChatGPT:

How about:

• "The sensor measures the amount of incident light $Q$ on the lens. The incident light amount $Q$ is sent to the control device."

Or, for a slightly more natural flow:

• "The sensor measures the incident light amount $Q$ on the lens and sends it to the control device."

Would you like a more technical or formal alternative?

並行に

複数の半導体素子の配列に並行に設けられたバスバー。

ChatGPT:

How about:

• "A busbar provided in parallel with the array of semiconductor elements."
• "A busbar arranged parallel to the array of semiconductor elements."

Both versions convey the intended meaning clearly and naturally. Let me know if you have a preference!

あなた:

Are "in parallel with", "in parallel to", "parallel to" and "parallel with" all interchangeable?

ChatGPT:

"In parallel with," "in parallel to," "parallel to," and "parallel with" are mostly interchangeable, but there are subtle differences in usage and preference:

1. "In parallel with" → Most common in technical and engineering contexts, describing physical arrangements (e.g., "A busbar provided in parallel with the array of semiconductor elements").
2. "Parallel to" → More commonly used in general English (e.g., "The road runs parallel to the railway").
3. "Parallel with" → Acceptable but less commonly used than "parallel to" in general English. It can sometimes sound a bit awkward.
4. "In parallel to" → Less common and can sometimes sound unnatural. It's used in specific technical contexts, but "in parallel with" is generally preferred.

Best choice for your case:

✔ "In parallel with" (technical/engineering accuracy)
✔ "Parallel to" (natural and widely accepted)