Ohm Slaw

[Fred Olsen]

>> Keith Rowland wrote:
>> ridiculous and totally unnecessary changing of "cycles" to "Hertz"...


 > Brian Carling wrote:

> accustomed to Hertz pretty much, but I still find it annoying that they arbitrarily did
> that. They didn't ask ME what I thought!


Or me.  Gee, Brian, I wonder why?  ;<))

Showing my total lack of better judgment, and at the risk of annoying my
friend Keith, my two cents.  (And please notice that I've entirely
absented myself from the other, sidebar discussion.)

"Cycles" is still a perfectly valid unit, just no longer generally used
to denote a 'recurring frequency' (my term only).  But "cycles per
second" was not a UNIT but a DERIVATION of two units, and thence
cumbersome in use.  Probably another British legacy, such as measuring
the speed of British cars in furlongs per fortnight.

"Hertz" is a UNIT of measure.  As such it lends itself to use in
calculations and formulae.

OK, everybody go ahead and jump down my throat.  ;<)
Fred

-----------------------------------------------------------
This list is a public service of the City of Tempe, Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------

Subscription control - http://www.tempe.gov/lists/control.asp?list=BOATANCHORS
To post - BOATANCHORS at LISTSERV.TEMPE.GOV
Archives - http://interactive.tempe.gov/archives/BOATANCHORS.html