> The names you suggest are generic terms that already exist in the respective jargons with different, more generic (and in fact more intuitive) meanings. The

> The names you suggest are generic terms that already exist in the respective jargons with different, more generic (and in fact more intuitive) meanings. The last three, like I mentioned, were pretty much direct from Wikipedia. But yeah, I'm under no pretense that these are necessarily correct. My only point is that we can surely do better than "$person $thing" for nomenclature. The Otto cycle is a perfect example; sure, "four stroke cycle" might be too broad, but "spark-ignited four stroke cycle" (maybe abbreviated to SI4C) doesn't seem to be (there are technically other such cycles, but the vast majority of the time people talk about a spark -ignited four-stroke cycle they're talking about an Otto cycle or some evolution thereof).