Ping John Larkin: Question on MAX
in [Design]
|
From: Jeroen Belleman on 2 Jun 2010 03:30 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:59:28 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen(a)nospam.please> > wrote: >> I don't see why mF should be any stranger than mH, mm, mOhm or anything. > > You don't remember mF and mmF, I suppose. > [...] > > I don't like mF, either, because it isn't normally used. Yes, I'm old enough to know that the 'm' once stood for 10^-6. The point of it all, of course, is to apply these prefixes to *all* units, using the same rules for all. It's simply not consistent to write 1000μF, but 1mH. But old habits die hard, sure enough. Jeroen Belleman
From: Michael A. Terrell on 2 Jun 2010 03:46 Jeroen Belleman wrote: > > krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:59:28 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen(a)nospam.please> > > wrote: > >> I don't see why mF should be any stranger than mH, mm, mOhm or anything. > > > > You don't remember mF and mmF, I suppose. > > [...] > > > > I don't like mF, either, because it isn't normally used. > > Yes, I'm old enough to know that the 'm' once stood for 10^-6. > > The point of it all, of course, is to apply these prefixes to > *all* units, using the same rules for all. It's simply not > consistent to write 1000μF, but 1mH. Yet 'M' was used for 1000 on early potentiometers. Old volume controls were marked 500M or 1000M. > But old habits die hard, sure enough. > > Jeroen Belleman -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
From: Nial Stewart on 2 Jun 2010 05:15 >> ...and have double sourced and have confirmed footprints! > > Your purchasing peoples' lives will surely become way too boring if you don't strive to > single-source as many parts as possible. 'My purchasing people' is _me_ until I hand over to clients, so I double source where possible! It also makes things easier/cheaper for CEMs to build. Nial.
From: Tim Williams on 2 Jun 2010 09:57 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:K4ydnY5XCq3PkZvRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > Yet 'M' was used for 1000 on early potentiometers. Old volume > controls were marked 500M or 1000M. That's rather annoying. I have a 100M pot (and it's *actually* 100M). Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: Michael A. Terrell on 2 Jun 2010 12:45
Tim Williams wrote: > > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:K4ydnY5XCq3PkZvRnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > > Yet 'M' was used for 1000 on early potentiometers. Old volume > > controls were marked 500M or 1000M. > > That's rather annoying. I have a 100M pot (and it's *actually* 100M). Other industries used M for 1000 at that time, so it was an accepted practice. Since everyone knew what it meant, it was no big deal. They also used nF for capacitors at that time. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge. |