From: "Zefram Cochrane"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: what is 100R mean in a schematics?
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 09:50:12 -0000
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-Abuse-Report: Send abuse reports to firstname.lastname@example.org
Organization: http://www.TeraNews.com - FREE NNTP Access
"William Meyer" wrote in message news:eOMM9.3025
> They don't confuse it with another descriptor, but to many Americans
(especially in my
> generation or older), nanofarad is a term not often seen. Back in the tube
> was referred to as micro-microFarad. Not sure why nano was so late to be
>I have often found people not recognizing it.
This sounds unreal to me (not that I don't believe you). As I've said in
I was "introduced" to Mega,Kilo,Centi,De[ck]a,Milli,Nano,Pico,Hecto etc all
at the same time
and had no idea that there was any difference in the time at which they were
Do people in the US seldom say "nanometer" (for light wavelengths),
"picoliter" (measuring inkjet drop resolution)
Are you saying that US electronics magazines hardly ever refer to "nano" or
"pico" or whatever ?
I'll just go an have a look in Circuit Cellar... Yes, you appear to be
correct; on the basis
of a quick scan through the various circut diags, I can see references to
(no "F") but no "nano".
"nano","pico","femto","atto" etc aren't electronics-specific: they are the
SI(?) multipliers for
1E-9, 1E-12, 1E-15, 1E-18. Even if I'd never seen the term "nanofarad", it
would be immediately
obvious to me what it meant (assuming I knew what a Farad was).
I assume all this is due to the USAns' reluctance to use "metric"
Richard [in WR14]