Cecil Moore wrote:

. . .
The IEEE Definitions are what engineers abide by. . .

If you believe that, you haven't had much contact with real, working
engineers.

In my experience, the IEEE definitions are often way out of step with
common usage by working engineers. Nearly none in my acquaintance look
to it as an authoritative source. A useful guideline, perhaps, at most.
I can easily see three causes for the deficiency:

1. The IEEE Dictionary covers an extremely wide variety of rapidly
evolving specialties, including power, digital, fields, control systems,
fiber optics, electronics, EMC, and on and on. It would be extremely
difficult to cover all these disparate specialties accurately and in
depth without a huge amount of input from working engineers in each
specialty.
2. As far as I can tell, the Dictionary is put together by volunteers,
which limits the time and effort which can applied to it.
3. The active membership of the IEEE largely comprises academics rather
than working engineers. Academics are a poor source of information about
common usage by working engineers. And, working engineers don't tend to
"abide by" the dictates of academics, in my experience.

I don't have a recent copy of the IEEE Dictionary, but think and hope
it's improved over the years. But I'm certain it hasn't come anywhere
close to the point at which it's something "engineers" "abide by".

Roy Lewallen, W7EL