Issues with SAC terminology

[Dirk Hohndel]

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Willem Ferguson <willemferguson at zoology.up.ac.za> wrote:
> 
> On 18/07/2017 19:14, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> 
>> Absolutely *everybody* knows what we mean by SAC rate. And the ones
>> that are offended by our use of standard terminology can be offended.
>> 
>> It's their problem, not ours. Let's not take on their mental baggage.
>> 
>>                 Linus
>> 
> Part of this argument is just me and who I am. I am a scientist and for effective communication, terminology is critical. Just look how he word "awesome" has totally lost its meaning in popular language: it can mean almost anything. My students have lost the meaning of the word "variation" or the verb "vary": they would say that men vary from women, not that men differ from women, so the word "variation" has lost its technical meaning. In addition, I was trained that each number one uses has an associated unit. To say that respiratory minute volume is measured in bar is just nonsensical. And we use this common-day terminology in situations where people can get hurt by miscommunication or misperception.
> 
> But clearly I am far in the minority, so I will shut my mouth on this issue.

I think you actually agree with Linus and me - mostly. We all bemoan the confusion in terminology. The one thing we disagree about is whether there is value in trying to find a term different from SAC that people will grasp.
Remember, we always show the unit (l/min or cuft/min), so it's clear that SAC isn't a pressure drop.

/D