Ping John Larkin: Question on MAX
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 2 Jun 2010 18:54 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:30:25 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen(a)nospam.please> 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 1000?F, but 1mH. No, the point is to have the fewest possible misunderstandings. To me, nF is too close to mF. Dump both. There is no reason capacitor and inductor nomenclatures have to be consistent with each other. We use "10" for 10uF or 10 ohms but spell out "10uH" or "10mH". >But old habits die hard, sure enough. It's not so much about habits as making readable, concise, documents. |