Canon's "Rebel". What a stupid name.

Måns Rullgård wrote:
nospam writes:

In article , Dave Martindale
wrote:

(Todd H.) writes:

none of those are as stupid as 'pentax *ist-d'

Good point. I didn't know how to mentally pronounce it and quit
caring.

"Starkist". Remember Charley the Tuna, the tuna who wanted to have good
taste?

(no, I didn't make that up myself, I read it in this newsgroup)

then it must be true!


Yeah; pretty much all American. It should be pronounced like Nikkon.
Another notorious American mispronounciation:

Porsche - in America it sounds like Porsh; in Germna it's more like
Porsh'e

according to pentax, the asterisk is silent.

the fact that pentax needs to provide instructions on how to pronounce
the product name should suggest that *its a stupid name*.

I bet more people than not mispronounce Nikon...

--
Måns Rullgård

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:01:13 +0000, Alan LeHun wrote:

In article ,
says...
Actually, a "Kompressor" is in no way related to a "Diesel". It's more akin
to a regular turbocharger, except it isn't driven by the exhaust gases from
the engine.

That _is_ a turbocharger.


What? A supercharger is a turbocharger or a regular tutrbocharger is a
turbocharger?

Never mind, I misread what you wrote.

Confused

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:23:58 GMT, John wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

Actually, you have a Digital Rebel XTi.
Given that you don't even know the name of your camera, that it
bothers you doesn't bother me.

Huh?

What part don't you understand?
The part about him not knowing the name of his camera, or that it
bothers him doesn't bother me?
Or would you rather, "The fact that it doesn't bother you doesn't
bother me"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
David J. Littleboy schreef:
"John" wrote:

I wonder what possesses marketing geniuses to come up with certain
product
names?

I hate saying I have a Canon Rebel. Instead, I say I have a Canon
400D.

It could be worse. If you lived in Japan, you would have bought a Canon
Kiss.

Now you're repeating others...

Kiss my Rebel *ss!



That looks more like a pentax bodyname ...


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"J. Clarke" wrote:

edited, for brevity

A supercharger is gear- or belt-driven and consumes engine power to
provide its boost. A turbo runs off the exhaust stream and uses what
would otherwise be waste energy going out the tailpipe. A turbo can, by
screwing down the wastegate, give almost unlimited boost--the power of a
turbocharged engine is limited by the structure. The disadvantage of a
turbo, other than needing high temperature high speed bearings, is
lag--hit the throttle and it has to spin up before the boost comes on. A
supercharger doesn't have that lag, it spins up as fast as the engine
does.

Neither is new--both technologies date back to the 1930s if not earlier.


Hello, John:

Turbochargers came into widespread aeronautical use, in the thirties,
and gained prominence with the USAAF, during World War II (but, even
some WWI airplanes were equipped with them). They were first applied
to automobiles (race cars) and Diesel trucks, in the fifties.


Cordially,
John Turco

On 11 Dec 2006 00:56:41 EST, John Turco wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:

edited, for brevity

A supercharger is gear- or belt-driven and consumes engine power to
provide its boost. A turbo runs off the exhaust stream and uses what
would otherwise be waste energy going out the tailpipe. A turbo can, by
screwing down the wastegate, give almost unlimited boost--the power of a
turbocharged engine is limited by the structure. The disadvantage of a
turbo, other than needing high temperature high speed bearings, is
lag--hit the throttle and it has to spin up before the boost comes on. A
supercharger doesn't have that lag, it spins up as fast as the engine
does.

Neither is new--both technologies date back to the 1930s if not earlier.


Hello, John:

Turbochargers came into widespread aeronautical use, in the thirties,
and gained prominence with the USAAF, during World War II (but, even
some WWI airplanes were equipped with them). They were first applied
to automobiles (race cars) and Diesel trucks, in the fifties.


Cordially,
John Turco

What WW I aircraft used turbochargers?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article .com,
says...
Supercharger, not turbo. There's a difference.


A turbo /is/ a supercharger.

--
Alan LeHun

In article ,
says...

What WW I aircraft used turbochargers?


Liberty V-12 in 1918, but never in combat.

--
Alan LeHun

Alan LeHun wrote:
In article .com,
says...
Supercharger, not turbo. There's a difference.


A turbo /is/ a supercharger.

Superchargers are mechanically driven off the engine crank and turbos
are driven by exhaust gas. Now some turbos and superchargers are
compressors and some superchargers are positive displacement types.
They all are forced induction devices.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:37:26 -0000, Alan LeHun
wrote:

In article ,
says...

What WW I aircraft used turbochargers?


Liberty V-12 in 1918, but never in combat.

TTBOMK, that wasn't used in an aricraft, but only tested on the
ground; I think it was on Pike's Peak.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"