And we make it worse by called a hopefully equipotential plane (layer) on a PC board the "ground plane" when it is not a true Ground unless it is connected to Earth (which is relatively uncommon--excuse me, I should say,"unusual").
Max, you should always provide a picture to properly illustrate the concept of "ground." Here's one innovative approach to providing an "earth ground." (Maybe the dirt has magic electrical properties?)
I was always taught that since electric current is defined as "the flow of electric charge through a medium", you shouldn't say "current flow" because then you effectively have "flow flow" ... but I can never break myself of the habit of saying "the current flows..."
I was lucky enough a few years ago to see a presentation by Bruce Archambeault on EMC and signal integrity. I think he put it best - "Ground is where you grow potatoes. Current flows back to a source through a return path. Many times that path is not what you intended."
-- Sloppy terminology here will lead to sloppy thinking and subsequent problems.
I agree. Just recently we reviewed some circuit designs that had a power source using another power source's "ground" line for a return. At least, that's what it looked like according to the names of all the sources and returns. The meeting ended with a "We have to look into this". More confusion and wasted time.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.