We could argue about the dictionary definition of "generator", but for a physically realistic, intuitive and correct understanding, only the model of "changes the form of energy" as opposed to "creates energy" makes any sense whatsoever. And, in this particular sense and model of understanding things, brakes are just generators too, changing kinetic energy (in the form of rotating brake discs) into waste heat. That, too, is important for a physically realistic, correct intuitive understanding of what is happening here.
Then the people who came up with the name "generator" should have had more wits about it and should have named it "converter".
Connect a "converter" to a steam turbine and it converts the rotational energy into electrical energy.
Very true, but when has human naming-of-things made any sense in the first place?
Or maybe "transducer".
Non-English terms create exactly the kind of misconceptions that my point is to try to avoid. Instead of their defined or traditional meaning, people invent their own, based on the context and their own (mis)understanding of that context.
Commonplace words have much better defined contexts –– that is, people generally agree much more about the context. In particular, "to convert" avoids the misconception of "creating something", whereas a typical English-speaking person does not know whether "to transduce" involves conversion only or also creation.
The best word and example of such ambiquity I know of, is the word "emerge", and whether that which emerges existed in its current form before "emerging" or not. If you look at the common dictionary definitions, they imply
yes (as in, "coming into
view"); but if you look at related term "emergent" you get the opposite vibe (as in, "coming into
existence").
(Whether "emerging behaviour" and "emergent behaviour" mean the same or the opposite of each other, sometimes keeps me up at night.)
Humans love to use domain-specific terms. In some cases, it is to show that they "know" the domain; but in most cases, it is because their understanding is so superficial they cannot define their understanding in any other terms! The act of describing ones knowledge (or lack of) is not just an expression, it is actually a very heavy cognitive function, and is the reason why for example
rubber duck debugging works. Explaining things properly is not just offering the correct terms and solutions, but tying them in their dependent context in a way the recipient understands those relationships. That is the point I am trying to make: that kind of intuitive understanding is a necessary prerequisite for humans to understand physical reality, and not fall for these dodgy pseudoscientific or technological or technobabble schemes that promise to solve all possible problems.
And it all starts by explaining precisely the terms and their implications.
At one point, the hot "term" in media and advertising was
antibacterial; at another point, anything
nano. Now it is
green energy and
sustainability, with zero actual physical links to what the terms originally meant. I blame media for using precise terms like they would a badger's ass as a hat.