9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

1/13

On Writing Well
Chris and Pat are two engineers having a friendly chat, when Chris makes this assertion:

The weather is typically hotter in July than it is in January.

But Pat disagrees with this assertion, stating instead that the opposite could be trueJuly is not necessarily a typically hotter month than January. Chris thinks that Pats objections are preposterousof course July is hotter than January, everyone knows that! But Pat presses this dissent, which in turn escalates into shouting, profanity, and the embarrassing outbreak of one spectacular brouhaha. So why did the Pat object to Chriss seemingly obvious statement? Because Pat is from South America! Yup, Chriss assertion is correct only if you ignore one-half of the globe!

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

2/13

The above story provides an example of a common problem in technical communicationambiguity. We tend to think of statements as being right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or false. Precision in technical languagewe feelimplies an absence of error. But this is not really the case. Although it is necessary for precise technical prose to be factually correct, the absence of egregious and obvious error is not a sufficient requirement. More that just being accurate, precise technical language must be unambiguous. In other words, the meaning of a statement or narrative must be so clear, that there exists only one reasonable interpretation of its meaning. Conversely, the reader of ambiguous technical language might find two or more reasonable interpretations of a given assertion. Moreover, some of these interpretationsalthough perfectly reasonablecould be completely incorrect! In engineering, ambiguity can result in catastrophic consequences.
Jim Stiles The Univ. of Kansas Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

3/13

At the very least, ambiguous language can cause confusion in the readers mind, or perhaps cause the reader to doubt the authors voracity (or even competency!).

As a result, all engineers should be the sworn enemy of ambiguity; we should make it our lifes goal to stamp-out and eliminate itin all its hideous forms. Nothing should annoy us more than the use of ambiguous language; ambiguity should be the Grand Poobah of all pet peeves! So, lets examine again Chriss statement:

The weather is typically hotter in July than it is in January.

Instead, consider this statement:

The weather in the Northern Hemisphere is typically hotter in July than it is in January.
Note this statement is an improvement in two ways: 1. It more accurately expresses what Chris actually meant.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

4/13

2. It removes much ambiguity, such that it is now a precise statement with only one reasonable interpretation. Pat would certainly agree with the unambiguous statement above. If Chris had just said this in the first place, then Pat and Chris might still be friends! Lets examine the many ways that ambiguity can creep into our technical communication.

Thats the thing

Often, students write sentences much like these:

The current is equal to 10 mA. The voltage indicates the error. The resistor has a value of 2 KOhms.
Ohthinks the readerthe current, the voltage, the resistor, the error. The problem is that there are typically many currents, voltages, and resistors in a circuit. Unless you have an embarrassingly simple circuit consisting of just one resistor, the statements above are ambiguous. You must state precisely the current, resistor, or voltage to which you are referring.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

5/13

Generally, this requires one or both of the following to things: 1. A more descriptive noun (e.g., add an adjective). 2. A prepositional phrase. For example, instead of:

The current is equal to 10 mA.

We might write:

The emitter current of the saturated BJT is equal to 10 mA.

Or, instead of

The voltage indicates the error.

A less ambiguous statement would be:

The voltage at the op-amp output indicates the error between the feedback voltage and the reference voltage.
Another example would be to replace:

The resistor has a value of 2 KOhms.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

6/13

With the more precise:

The feedback resistor R3 has a value of 2 KOhms.

Use of nonstandard technical nomenclature

How about these statements:

The output MOSFET thus turns on. The BJT in the input stage has a current of 30 mA. The second transistor voltage is 10 V. 5 volts passes through shunt resistor R5 . The 100 mH series inductor begins to store the charge.
Each of these statements look to be specific and unambiguous, but they unfortunately are confusing to the reader. The reason for this is that the author has used nonstandard, inaccurate, or even incorrect technical language. Lets look at each statement individually:

The output MOSFET thus turns on.

A MOSFET has three operating modescutoff, triode, and saturation. On or off are not valid operating regions, and

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

7/13

the statement above is meaningless. Try instead (for example):

The output MOSFET thus operates in the saturation mode.

Similarly, the statement:

The BJT in the input stage has a current of 30 mA.

is confusing because a BJT is associated with three different currentsone for each terminal (i.e., the base current, the collector current, the emitter current). Try instead:

The BJT in the input stage has a collector current of 30 mA.

Similarly ambiguous is this statement:

The second transistor voltage is 10 V.

What is a transistor voltage? Is it voltage collector-toemitter (VCE )? Is it the source voltage (VS )? Instead write:

The second transistor has a collector-to-emitter voltage of 10 V (i.e., VCE = 10.0 V).
Now, what about:

5 volts passes through shunt resistor R5 .

Jim Stiles The Univ. of Kansas Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

8/13

Remember, current passes through a resistor (e.g., The current through resistor R5 is 7 mA.). Conversely, voltage is across a resistor (i.e., the potential difference). Thus, we should say:

There is 5 V across shunt resistor R5 .

Finally, we consider the ghastly:

The 100 mH series inductor begins to store the charge.

A capacitor can store charge, but an inductor cannot. What both a capacitor and inductor can do, however, is store energy, e.g.:

The 100 mH series inductor begins to store energy.

Lack of a probabilistic reference

Consider this statement:

The amplifier output voltage is less than 8.0 V.

This leaves the reader with several interpretations:

The amplifier output voltage is always less than 8.0 V. The amplifier output voltage is typically less than 8.0 V.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

9/13

The amplifier output voltage is sometimes less than 8.0 V.

It is best to qualify statements with words like always, never, sometimes, typically, likely, etc.

Lack of qualifying statements and caveats

The output BJT of this regulator circuit will not thermally fail (e.g., melt).
The above statement is similarly ambiguous to the statement of the last section (It will never melt? It will not likely melt? It will hopefully not melt?). However in this case, the ambiguity can be mitigated with a qualifying statement, e.g.,:

The output BJT of this regulator circuit will not thermally fail (e.g., melt), provided that the load current does not exceed 850 mA.
Qualifying statementsstatements that begin as Given that, or Provided that, or Assuming that, or As long as,or simply Ifare very important in precise technical writing.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

10/13

Necessary and Sufficient

The sentence:

A load current of greater than 700 mA requires a feedback resistance of no more than 3 KOhms
sure sounds quite specific, but there is still a bit of ambiguity in that statement. The problem lies with the definition of necessary and sufficient. A necessary condition means that the condition must be present, e.g.,

A feedback resistance of less than 3 KOhms is necessary for a load current of larger 700 mA. In other words, if the feedback resistor is greater than 3 KOhms, a 700 mA load current cannot be achieved.
Keep in mind however, that there may be more than one necessary conditions! If this is the case, then none of these necessary conditions are sufficient.

A feedback resistance of less than 3 KOhms is necessary for a load current of larger 700 mA. In addition, it is necessary that the regulated voltage be less than 24 volts. In other words, a feedback resistance of 3 KOhms is not sufficient to produce a load current of 700 mA or greater, since the regulated voltage could be larger than 24 volts.
Jim Stiles The Univ. of Kansas Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

11/13

Likewise, there could be more than one sufficient condition, meaning that there are no necessary conditions.

A load current of 700 mA or greater will occur if either the feedback resistance is less than 3 KOhms, or the regulated voltage is than 24 voltseither condition is sufficient for a 700 mA load current.
Of course, a condition might also be both necessary and sufficient.

A feedback resistance of less than 3 KOhms will always result in a load current of larger 700 mA regardless of any other circuit condition. Moreover, if the feedback resistance is greater than 3 KOhms, the load current cannot possibly exceed 700 mAregardless of any other circuit condition. In other words, a feedback resistance of 3 KOhms is a necessary and sufficient condition for the load current to exceed 700 mAthe load current will exceed 700 mA if and only if the feedback resistor is less than 3K!

Pronoun confusion
Be very careful when using the work it!

The value of feedback resistor R1, and the coupling capacitor C2 were calculated using the theory described in section 3. However, when evaluating the circuit in the lab, we determined that it was far too small.
Jim Stiles The Univ. of Kansas Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

12/13

Make sure your use of pronouns is clear and unambiguous.

The value of feedback resistor R1, and the coupling capacitor C2 were calculated using the theory described in section 3. However, when evaluating the circuit in the lab, we determined that the feedback resistor value was far too small.

Numeric Fuzziness

You know youre an engineer when you ask the question:

How far is it from here?

And you are quite annoyed if the response is one of these ambiguous nightmares:

Not too long Not far at all Its quite a ways Its really far away. Its just a ways down the road.
Of course none of these responses mean a darn thing. What is not far for one person may be exceeding far for another.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS

9/9/2010

On Writting Well.doc

13/13

As engineers, we remove this ambiguity by always using numeric statements:

Its about of a mile down the road Its about a 20-minute walk. The drive will take between 45 minutes and an hour, depending on traffic. It is approximately 16,000 miles.

Poetry
Flowery prose may have gotten you an A in high school English class, but it is not at all helpful if you are an engineer. You must describe technical information in cold, hard, specific technical language. Avoid adding better words to strengthen your prose.

The op-amp and the feed-back network engage in a graceful and elegant dance; interacting and collaborating in ways that bring about both a happy and satisfying result; an error signal that commands the BJTwith no small amount of strictness and severityto comply with our most earnest wish to regulate (nay, even dominate) the load voltage.
Barf.

Jim Stiles

The Univ. of Kansas

Dept. of EECS