On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:27:32 +0200, Arnold Tibus wrote: >On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:10:36 +0000, Mark Sims wrote:
>>Alas, if there was only an FM to R... there is some useful information in >>the revision history/comments near the beginning of the file heather.cpp >>The OSC graph defaults to OFF because it tends to be a very jagged and noisy >>looking graph that gets rather annoyingly in the way of things. The next rev >>of the program has a display filtering option that makes that plot look a lot >>more tame. >>The OSC param is shown in PPB in the status info at the top of the screen >>since that is the way it comes into the program. It is shown in PPT in the >>plots since that gives values that are much easier read against the scale >>divisions on the screen. I have considered converting to PPT in the status >>info, can't remember why it stayed PPB... >>---------------------------------------- >>RTFM comes to mind:-) >Mark, >personally I have some promlems with the expressions as in LH >ppb, ppt etc. used because there are different meanings about >around the world and this is therefore misleading, error-prone. >If I search in the Internet I do find lots of discussions about. >Is there no way for an improvement, no standardization? >I learned that in Germany (and all over continental Europe?) >1 thousend = 1.000 = E3 >1 million = 1.000.000 = E6 >1 milliard = 1.000.000.000 = E9 >1 billion = 1.000.000.000.000 = E12 >1 billiard = 1.000.000.000.000.000 = E15 >1 trillion = 1.000.000.000.000.000.000 = E18 >1 trilliard = 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 = E21 >and so on with >quartrillion, quartrilliard, quintillion, quintilliard, sextillion, >sextilliard.... >and in the US and some more countries it is >million = 1,000,000 >billion = 1,000,000,000 >trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 >and further ...? ( fantastillions acc. Donald Duck ;-)) ) >wouldn't it be more scientific and less error-prone to agree at least to >xE-3 instead of (m) >xE-6 instead of ppm (µ) >xE-9 instead of ppb (n) >xE-12 instead of ppt (p) >xE-15 instead of pp? etc. (f) >xE-18 (a) >(how do one express parts per mili...(E-3)?) >or if not wanted perhaps then this way : >x10^-6 >x10^-9 >x10^-12 >etc. >or could one type eg. m, µ, p, f, a for milli, mikro, nano; pico, femto, atto? >When used these numbers in calculations we anyway have to convert >these ppm, ppb, ppt etc. to scientific numbers using exponents >There are too often discussions and misunderstandings >because the ignored case sensitivity of units (b for bit, B for Byte, >m for milli, M for Mega...). >Btw. I remember to all these strange mmH, µµF etc. when I collected >rare inductors, capacitors revovered from vintage MIL- equipment in >the end fifties/ early sixties of last century ... :-) >I believe that Time Nuts prefer precise and clear expressions!? ;-) >What do you think about it? >waiting eagerly for the new issue of LH, >regards >Arnold I wanted to know where the difference of Million and Milliard and Billion is coming from. I found a good summary here http://eyeful-tower.com/muse/billion.htm Both (systems) were invented by the French, but the British and Americans do use differnt systems ... isn't it dangerous? Depts should be shiftet from UK to US - and the deposits vice versa - wouldn't it be a good deal? ;-) Arnold _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
