Whenever it comes up, I always find this argument interesting, especially
when it comes to the use of terminology that was in vogue for a long time
such as the case with "cycles".
There are many people who go out of their way to use the term "cycles" or
"kilocycles", etc. when describing frequency. They wouldn't dream of using
Hertz or kiloHertz because Hertz doesn't mean anything tangible, but
"cycles" does. The problem is, "cycles" by itself is meaningless. Cycles
per what? second, minute, hour? If everyone who insists on using the term
"cycles" always uses it in conjunction with a unit of time, then the term
has meaning.
Some folks will say, "well, everyone knows you are talking about cycles per
second when you say cycles". That might be true, but the term Hertz already
means cycles/second, so everyone automatically knows what the units are.
Almost all electrical quantities are named for principals in electricity and
electronics. Volts, Amps, and Ohms, the most basic quantities in
electronics, are but a few examples. Believe me, you wouldn't want to be
asked to define what an ohm is without using a term that doesn't include
someone's name.
An ohm describes absolutely nothing about the quantity it represents, but we
don't think of it that way. Why should Hertz be any different? Just because
we used to say cycles?
Scott
N7NB
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Mike Hyder -N4NT-
Sent: Tuesday, 14 December, 2004 20:21
To: tentec@contesting.com
Cc: Steve Ellington
Subject: Re: [TenTec] FS: Paragon II corrected filter info
Now that makes sense. We ought to rename "miles per hour" Newtons or Fords
or anything. I'm going 65 Newtons ?
Along these lines we could name "dollars per hour" ( a rate of pay ) as
Greenspans. I make 18 greenspans.
the possibilities are endless. why on earth did we stop with Hertz?
73, Mike N4NT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck (Jack) Hawley" <c-hawley@uiuc.edu>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: [TenTec] FS: Paragon II corrected filter info
That would be cycles/second. One of the reasons why they went to
Hertz...lack of accuracy regarding frequency units.
Chuck, KE9UW
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Steve N4LQ
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 21:01 PM
> To: tentec@contesting.com
> Subject: Fw: [TenTec] FS: Paragon II corrected filter info
>
>
> Repost with corrections:
> Filters are khz, not mhz.
> I still think they should be cycles.
>
> Steve N4LQ
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|