On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:03:55 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I too was using the uuf and uf. Then it took me a while to get used to the
pf. I still can not relate to the nanofarad. Every time I see that
nanofarad I have to put the numbers on a piece of paper and convert it to uu
or u.

Thanks for reminding me. I have exactly the same problem. Old habits
die hard. I don't think I've ever used nanofarads in any design. Some
of the software I use offers an option to disable the use of
nanofarads. However, as new versions arrive, I'm seeing that less and
less.

I still use Hz and cycles without giving it a thought as to which one I am
saying. Just can not get it my head not to say cycles when I should be
saying Hz.

That one was easy for me. Cycles per second is just too many
syllables to easily roll off the tongue. I usually favor the shortest
and most abbreviated term. When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

Where we came from:
http://www.hemyockcastle.co.uk/measure.htm
With that history of units of measure, I would hate to guess where
we're going.

I did invent a unit of measure which seems to have stuck for a time at
a former college. During college, I built a device to quantify female
desirability. It was an IR detector that basically measured the mount
of exposed skin. I needed a unit of measure for female desirability
which became the milli-Helen. Since Helen of Troy launched 1000
ships, 1 milli-Helen would launch 1 ship. The negative was also true
as negative 1 milli-Helen would sink 1 ship. Unfortunately, it
somewhat backfired and failed to provide me with any additional dates
and lady friends.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes



When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).





--
Ian

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:23:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).

That's because of the English accent. Try pronouncing it as "hurts".
In New York, the pronunciation is something like "hoits".
At Avis rent-a-car, Hertz is never mentioned.

Drivel: Marketing people like to identify their products with names
and letters that make the speaker smile when pronouncing it. The
common "say cheese" in photography is an example. "Cycles" doesn't
quite make one smile, but it's close. "Hertz" is produces almost a
frown, which may explain why you're having difficulties with it.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:23:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).

That's because of the English accent. Try pronouncing it as "hurts".
In New York, the pronunciation is something like "hoits".

At Avis rent-a-car, Hertz is never mentioned.

Drivel: Marketing people like to identify their products with names
and letters that make the speaker smile when pronouncing it. The
common "say cheese" in photography is an example. "Cycles" doesn't
quite make one smile, but it's close. "Hertz" is produces almost a
frown, which may explain why you're having difficulties with it.

Hertz certainly hurts a bit when you say it - especially if you
pronounce it correctly, as 'hairts' (almost a grimace).

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air. Also, the units 'Hz', 'kHz'
and 'MHz' don't lend themselves to pronunciation, whereas 'cycles',
'kay-sees' and 'megs' do.

Just to get back on topic, since we started using Hz, I'm sure antennas
have become less efficient and signal strengths lower - and it's certain
that QRM is now much worse.
--
Ian

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:44:27 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Hertz certainly hurts a bit when you say it - especially if you
pronounce it correctly, as 'hairts' (almost a grimace).

Yep. The German pronunciation.

For visitors to the USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkaD99XJ5I

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air.

Well, let's see if that's true. I just tried it on myself and did not
exactly get the desired effect. For volume, I just hung a piece of
paper in front of my mouth and looked for deflection. The trick is to
say the various words at a constant volume or the results are
worthless. I used a vu meter display on my smartphone to insure that
I was talking at the same level. From the paper deflection, I would
estimate that I move more air saying cycles because of the two
syllables. However, the peak exhaust volume seems to be higher when
saying "Hertz". I then did the same test with a microphone and audio
spectrum analyzer program (Spectrum Lab 2.79). It showed somewhat
different results. Both words showed a fair number of frequency
component peaks of roughly the same amplitude. However, the word
"cycles" had more almost identical peaks thus indicating that it
required more energy to produce. At this point, I'm not sure if I
should believe my paper test, or the spectrum analyzer results.

Also, the units 'Hz', 'kHz'
and 'MHz' don't lend themselves to pronunciation, whereas 'cycles',
'kay-sees' and 'megs' do.

Good point. Abbrevs are important. That might explain the tendency
for hams to prefer using wavelengths (i.e. 80 meters) rather than the
more accurate and specific equivalent frequencies. I use the various
frequency terms far more often in writing than in speech, where such
abbreviations are of lesser importance. I don't have much of problem
with the various SI units prefixes to Hertz, but I certainly have
problems with acronymic contractions such as CPS (cycles per second)
which has more than once been confused with the local Child Protective
Services. I think it best to use Hertz, which does not have this
problem.

Just to get back on topic, since we started using Hz, I'm sure antennas
have become less efficient and signal strengths lower - and it's certain
that QRM is now much worse.

The problem is much worse than that. When I first started in ham
radio, I had a full head of hair, a steady hand, a reasonable bank
balance, and a positive attitude. After being involved in ham radio
for many years, the hair is falling out, the hand is shaky, the bank
balance depleted, and the attitude quite cynical. Obviously, exposure
to ham radio and its associated RF fields has caused this unnatural
deterioration.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:44:27 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air.

Well, let's see if that's true. I just tried it on myself and did not
exactly get the desired effect. For volume, I just hung a piece of
paper in front of my mouth and looked for deflection. The trick is to
say the various words at a constant volume or the results are
worthless. I used a vu meter display on my smartphone to insure that
I was talking at the same level. From the paper deflection, I would
estimate that I move more air saying cycles because of the two

For a true test stick your finger in a light socket and see if you say Hertz
or cycles.

You may even say ouch or a few other choice words.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

snip

I did invent a unit of measure which seems to have stuck for a time at
a former college. During college, I built a device to quantify female
desirability. It was an IR detector that basically measured the mount
of exposed skin. I needed a unit of measure for female desirability
which became the milli-Helen. Since Helen of Troy launched 1000
ships, 1 milli-Helen would launch 1 ship. The negative was also true
as negative 1 milli-Helen would sink 1 ship. Unfortunately, it
somewhat backfired and failed to provide me with any additional dates
and lady friends.

That's interesting, since a coworker and I did something like it in the
1990s. (No animal testing was performed.)

You rated women's looks based on the Optimum Viewing Distance in feet. At
200 feet, say, you can tell it's a woman but not much more. At 50 feet, you
can gauge whether you want a closer look, so lower numbers indicate a
more-attractive woman. If she still looks good at 15 feet, but you can see
her crooked teeth and nose hair at 10 feet, then the rating is set to 15,
the "best" viewing distance for her.

If she's really attractive, you probably would want to make physical
contact, so she becomes a 0, in effect a completely attractive woman. In
this system, the rating number could actually go slightly negative but that
would be splitting hairs.

"Sal"