Terms that should never be used in engineering or that need explanation because the derivation is lost

This is grumpy old engineer territory. Here are terms used by the press and some engineers that should be consigned to a bin somewhere. These terms usually have perfectly normal alternatives that are better and more descriptive.

Wireless

Defining something by saying what it is not, is called ‘negation’ or ‘apophasis’ (from the Greek word for denial). This is why the term ‘wireless’ should not be used in professional contexts. ‘Radio’ should be used instead.

After all, if we used ‘radioless’ when describing ‘telecommunications’ (communicating by a physical medium, i.e., wire or fibre), we’d be laughed at.

Note

As a historical note, the term ‘wireless’, whilst used for radiocommunications right at the beginning, it was mainly used to describe a broadcast receiver with a magnetic rod antenna, and not the older type with a long wire antenna, was recycled in the early 1990s by mainly American IT (not radio) consultants to describe cordless computer peripherals, because the term ‘cord’ didn’t really exist in that sphere. ‘Wireless’ naturally also then applied to Wi-Fi when it appeared, because it was a network connection that didn’t use wires. Then, as these computer consultants started to move into the sphere of radiocommunications, it started to be applied to anything that was not wired. So now we’re in the stupid situation where our entire industry is defined by what it is not.

Essentially, ‘Wireless’ encompasses all communications that is not connected by a physical medium, i.e. Infrared remote controls are wireless, as is laser communications, or even an Aldis Lamp. All ‘wireless’. Radio is a specific sub-branch of that, so at the most basic level, referring to radio as ‘wireless’ is lazy and imprecise.

Spectrum Band

Spectrum is spectrum. Bands are bits of spectrum, so whilst ‘Spectrum Band’ is valid as a description, but ‘Band of Spectrum’ is probably more correct, it’s not usual to deviate from ‘frequency band’ or ‘waveband’, the latter being archaic. The same goes for ‘spectrum waveband’ or ‘frequency waveband’ - a ‘waveband’ is specifically describing a ‘wave’, so it is better to restrict the term to wavebands, i.e. ‘Shorter Wavebands’. When talking about spectrum, it is acceptable to refer to a band as itself, i.e. ‘a/the band’ or perhaps to use the frequency involved as well, so ‘5GHz band’ but not ‘5GHz spectrum band’. Using the wavelength is also acceptable, so ‘10cm band’ or ‘4m band’ is valid, although in the UK at least, this terminology is mainly restricted to radio amateurs or the microwave bands.

Antennae

In radiocommunications, the plural of ‘antenna’ is ‘antennas’, as it is an American word derived from the italian for ‘The Tent’ (La tenda), which is how Marconi described the strange antennas used in early radio trials. Insects have ‘antennae’, because they usually have more than one antenna, from the Greek word for a feeler, rod, etc.

Antenna Polarity

No. Antennas do not have a Polarity. They have a Polarisation. Polarity is used for electricity, so positive and negative polarity is correct, but horizontal polarity is just wrong. It makes you look stupid. Don’t do it.

Aerial

In British radio engineering, an aerial is an antenna used for broadcast reception, i.e., a ‘TV aerial’. In all other cases, ‘antenna’ is preferred. However, you’ll find that radio engineers will often refer to an antenna as an aerial just for lols.

Filament

No, ‘Filament’ does not mean ‘the glowing part of a light bulb’ - that’s what it is, not what it means.

Derivation: French - Literally, a thread (of wire) ‘fil à ment’, describing a piece of wire as thin as a thread.