A switch is a switch is a switch. I think that we all agree on that.
The question is, when a switch in not opened and closed manually (or turned off and on manually) but is used remotely to "sense" something, is it inappropriate or flat out wrong to call it a "sensor"?
And if it is inappropriate/wrong to call it a "sensor", with the understanding that it must be called a "switch" at all times, what is the rationale for treating a "switch" differently from a potentiometer, a variable resistor (mechanically activated or temperature sensitive), and other types of electrical devices that are are or are not comprised of switches?
What makes a standalone switch so special that it has to be treated differently?
The question is, when a switch in not opened and closed manually (or turned off and on manually) but is used remotely to "sense" something, is it inappropriate or flat out wrong to call it a "sensor"?
And if it is inappropriate/wrong to call it a "sensor", with the understanding that it must be called a "switch" at all times, what is the rationale for treating a "switch" differently from a potentiometer, a variable resistor (mechanically activated or temperature sensitive), and other types of electrical devices that are are or are not comprised of switches?
What makes a standalone switch so special that it has to be treated differently?


although internally they are pretty much all switches. Computers are eating all our switches and storing them in their bodies!
Comment