Hi Dana,
> A few days ago, some guy (HAD to be a graybeard) had the audacity to refer
> to frequency in terms of megacycles.
Rating frequencies in "cycles" is just plain wrong and nonsensical!
Rating them in "cycles per second" is correct. "Cycles per minute", or
whatever other time unit, would also be correct. By why bother writing
"cycles per second", when we can use the short and convenient measuring
unit "Hertz", which means exactly the same? Or why write "c/s" or "cps",
if "Hz" is shorter?
By the way, even the unit Hertz is considered antiquated by many. After
all, "cycles per second" is nothing else than the inverse of a second!
And we don't really need a unit different from the second, to express
the inverse of it! We can just reverse the second. In many scientific
texts, neither the physical description "cycles per second" nor the unit
"Hertz" is used. Instead, the authors write the formula "1/s", or "s^-1"
meaning the inverse of a second.
So, meet you on 14.32 Ms^-1! ;-)
Manfred.
----------------------------
Visit my hobby website!
http://ludens.cl
----------------------------
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|