Glossary entry (derived from question below)
English term or phrase:
non explosion proof design
English answer:
a design that is not proof against explosion
English term
non explosion proof design
Apr 6, 2020 22:36: Yvonne Gallagher changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
Non-PRO (3): Tony M, philgoddard, Yvonne Gallagher
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Responses
a design that is not proof against explosion
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2020-04-06 20:39:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The point Rui makes in his ref. is an important one, confirming what I said above: in many instances, the term 'explosion-proof' is erroneously (and confusingly!) used instead of 'intrinsically safe', which means that something is designed so as to not operate in such a way that an explosion could be caused, even in the presence of an explosive atmosphere; a typical example is designing things so as to avoid any possibiity of sparks.
| agree |
philgoddard
: It's a stillage plant, processing the byproducts of grain alcohol manufacture.
37 mins
|
|
Thanks, Phil!
|
|
| agree |
Lydia De Jorge
2 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Lydia!
|
|
| agree |
Yvonne Gallagher
4 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Yvonne!
|
|
| agree |
AllegroTrans
18 hrs
|
|
Thanks, C!
|
Intrinsically Safe
| as I understand it.. it is NOT explosion proof |
| disagree |
Tony M
: This is exactly the OPPOSITE of the meaning of the source text!
36 mins
|
| disagree |
Lydia De Jorge
: As Tony said, quite the opposite.
2 hrs
|
| disagree |
AllegroTrans
: Opposite
18 hrs
|
Brazil
Technical - Fast - good price - accurate
Native in: English (Variant: US) 
, Portuguese (Variant: Brazilian)
Works in: English to Portuguese, Portuguese to English, English, and 1 more.
a design that could cause an explosion
| neutral |
Tony M
: That actually puts a different slant on it, since it tends to imply "that is liable to cause an explosion"; whereas the sense here is really 'that has not been specifically designed to avoid causing an explosion' — a subtle but important difference!
11 hrs
|
|
could cause
|
|
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: wrong to put a different emphasis on this
12 hrs
|
|
could cause
|
Sweden
Medical Translator
Native in: Swedish , English
Works in: English to Swedish, Danish to Swedish, German to Swedish, and 13 more.
not designed to be intrinsically safe
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: Why rephrase this by omitting the vital reference to "explosion"??
6 hrs
|
|
That my friend is covered by "intrinsically safe"!
|
Discussion
It should be non-explosion-proof, by the way.