付勢：urge, bias

Translate: 付勢部材はコイルを壁部材に向けて付勢する。

ChatGPT:

The biasing member biases the coil toward the wall member.

あなた:

How about "The urging member urges the coil toward the wall member"?

ChatGPT:

Yes, that translation also works. "Urging member" can be used instead of "biasing member" as both terms convey a similar meaning. It depends on the technical context or preference, but "urging" gives a slightly more active nuance, while "biasing" is often used in mechanical or engineering contexts.

So, both:

• "The biasing member biases the coil toward the wall member."
• "The urging member urges the coil toward the wall member."

are valid, with a subtle difference in tone.

炭素-炭素間

US2024100177(DYNE THERAPEUTICS INC [US])
As the foregoing examples illustrate, in certain embodiments, the carbocyclyl group is
上記の例が説明するとおり、ある態様において、カルボシクリル基は、

either monocyclic (“monocyclic carbocyclyl”) or polycyclic (e.g., containing a fused, bridged or spiro ring system such as a bicyclic system (“bicyclic carbocyclyl”) or tricyclic system (“tricyclic carbocyclyl”))
単環式(「単環式カルボシクリル」)、あるいは多環式(例として、二環系(「二環式カルボシクリル」)もしくは三環系(「三環式カルボシクリル」)などの、縮合環系、架橋環系、またはスピロ環系を含有する)のいずれかであって、

and can be saturated or
かつ飽和であり得るか、または

can contain one or more carbon-carbon double or triple bonds. 
1以上の炭素-炭素間の二重結合もしくは三重結合を含有し得る。

「してする」問題

Translate: この発電装置は水から電気を製造して貯蔵する。

ChatGPT:

"This power generator produces and stores electricity from water."

あなた:

Does the translation accurately convey the meaning of 水から電気を製造して貯蔵する? Specifically, I'm worried about the phrase "stores electricity from water", which, when taken by itself, appears to indicate as if electricity obtained from water is stored, instead of storing electricity produced from water. What do you think?

ChatGPT:

You bring up an important point. The phrase "stores electricity from water" can indeed be misunderstood as indicating that electricity, once obtained from water, is stored, rather than clarifying that it is first produced from water and then stored.

A more accurate translation that clearly conveys the intended meaning could be:

"This power generator produces electricity from water and stores it."

This version emphasizes the production of electricity from water first, followed by its storage, avoiding the potential ambiguity you mentioned.

あなた:

Is the initial translation, despite having the potential to be misunderstood, still acceptable, conventional, and/or appropriate?

ChatGPT:

Yes, the initial translation—"This power generator produces and stores electricity from water"—is still generally acceptable and understandable in most contexts. In many cases, people would likely infer that the electricity is produced from water and then stored, even if the phrasing leaves room for ambiguity.

However, in technical or precise contexts, where clarity is essential, it might be better to use the more explicit version: "This power generator produces electricity from water and stores it." This way, there's no risk of misinterpretation, especially for readers less familiar with the subject. But in casual or less formal settings, the original translation would likely be seen as conventional and appropriate.

あなた:

Translate: マルチバンド送信は、入力を多重化して送信経路に加えることによって実現される。

ChatGPT:

"Multiband transmission is achieved by multiplexing the input and adding it to the transmission path."

あなた:

How about, "Multiband transmission is achieved by multiplexing and adding the input to the transmission path"?

ChatGPT:

Your alternative translation—"Multiband transmission is achieved by multiplexing and adding the input to the transmission path"—is also grammatically correct and understandable. However, the slight change in wording might introduce a bit of ambiguity, as it separates "multiplexing" and "adding" into two distinct actions, whereas the original Japanese suggests that "multiplexing the input and adding it" are part of a single process.

To maintain the original meaning more precisely, it's important to keep "multiplexing the input" together as a single action. Therefore, the initial translation is slightly clearer:

"Multiband transmission is achieved by multiplexing the input and adding it to the transmission path."

This ensures that the reader understands that the input is being multiplexed and then added to the transmission path as one combined action.

あなた:

What if one doesn't want to use the pronoun "it"? Would it be clearer and more accurate to say "Multiband transmission is achieved by multiplexing the input and adding the multiplexed input to the transmission path"?

ChatGPT:

Yes, your revision—"Multiband transmission is achieved by multiplexing the input and adding the multiplexed input to the transmission path"—is clearer and more accurate, especially if the goal is to avoid ambiguity and not use the pronoun "it." By explicitly stating "the multiplexed input," the sentence makes it clear that the same input is being processed and added to the transmission path. This revision also eliminates any potential confusion about what "it" refers to.

In technical contexts, where precision is key, this version would likely be the most effective.

回生協調制御

US11821483(HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LTD [JP])
The electric booster device 70 is
電動倍力装置７０は、

capable of implementing various brake controls, such as regenerative cooperative control, brake assist, and automatic brake, using the electric motor 11 that is driven-controlled by a motor control device 20 described later in consort with depression of a brake pedal, not shown, or regardless of operation of the brake pedal.
ブレーキペダル（図示は省略する）の踏み込み操作とともに、または、ブレーキペダルの操作に関わらず、後述するモータ制御装置２０によって駆動制御される電動モータ１１により、回生協調制御、ブレーキアシスト、自動ブレーキ等の様々なブレーキ制御を実行可能なものである。