[Lowfer] MHz and mHz

[Ed Phillips]

Ed Phillips wrote:
> 
> M.J.Powell wrote:
> >
> > In message <3C3345F8.598DA237@usa.net>, Alberto di Bene <dibene@usa.net>
> > writes
> > >Gentlemen,
> > >   may I give an humble suggestion ?
> > >Now that QRSS is customary, and resolutions in the order
> > >of millihertz are commonly used, especially with QRSS60
> > >and beyond, I feel important to not confuse the Megahertz
> > >with the millihertz. The standard notation is :
> > >
> > >5 mHz   means  5 millihertz
> > >5 MHz  means  5 Megahertz
> > >
> > >I have often seen the mHz notation used when Megahertz
> > >were intended. This can only lead to confusion.
> >
> > And also the continental habit of using a ',' instead of a '.' for
> > decimals!
> >
> > Mike
> 
>         All of this nonsense is the result of efforts by a bunch of "snot-nosed
> kids" to introduce European was into this country; being recently
> "educated" they think it's their mission to change the old ways..  They
> tend to call this "metrication" (what a wierd word!) or the adoption of
> SI units as they are more "scientific", but in reality it is just an
> intellectual revolt on the part of newcomers who really have no right to
> recommend anything.  The net result is confusion rather than
> clarification.  The IEEE is now dominated by such people and the
> experienced engineers with whom I work have just about abandoned the
> organization for that reason.  I've been working in the EE profession
> since the end of WW2, and have seen many systems of units used
> interchangeably by competent engineers.  In fact, in designing and
> building stuff for use in metric countries (Sweden and France, in my
> example) the subject of units never really came up.  If the drawings
> were in English units that was fine, or if they were in metric that was
> fine too.
> 
>         Different isn't necessarily better!!!!  When I went to grade school
> back in the '30s we were taught both english and metric units, and the
> conversion between them.  The English units are logical if one
> understands them, and are the output of tradesmen who wanted to
> standardize weights and measure in early medival (sp?) times.   If you
> follow the metric system completely you are stuck with a set of screws
> with inconveniently fine threads, a new standard for lubricants, etc.
> etc.
> 
>         While this harangue continues, wonder how many of you have noticed that
> when products are offered in metric units (booze and soft drinks come to
> mind) the price tends to go up?  Not a coincidence.
> 
> Ed

	Note:  This diatribe wasn't in any way intended to slight the metric
system, just those who want to introduce change for the sake of showing
their intellectual superiority.  Brought about by an afternoon spent
with an ignorant "lady editor" who was trying to screw up a technical
document by applying what she insisted was IEEE standard nomenclature. 
Horrible and unnecessary example:  Changing "2 x 4" to "5.08 cm x 10.16
cm" in describing a test platform, without realizing that a "2 x 4"
isn't really 2" x 4".  Similar mayhem on other quantities.  Apparently
in SI it is "denegrated" to use the dimension 0.5 volts; the correct
usage seems to be 500 millivolts! (Don't have any idea of how lumber is
sized in metric countries, but assume it is something convenient with
ultimate dimensions similar to the ones used here, no matter in what
units the measure is taken.)

	Any SI fanatics in the crowd?

Ed