Edmund H. Ramm wrote:

In "Antonio Vernucci"
writes:

[...]
I have a diagram dated 1953 in which M still represents 1000. In
that diagram they use MF for microfarad
[...]

There are also diagrams where m (milli, 10^-3) is used to
represent mikro (10^-6). Even worse and confusing are those, where
mmF gets used when pF (pico, 10^-12) is meant.

Huh? What's confusing about micro-micro farads? :-):-)
--
Robert (Bob) Smits, VE7HS & Linux Fan

"Bob Smits" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:HbmdncivItyZOM7RnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@islandhostin g.com...
Edmund H. Ramm wrote:

In "Antonio Vernucci"
writes:

[...]
I have a diagram dated 1953 in which M still represents 1000. In
that diagram they use MF for microfarad
[...]

There are also diagrams where m (milli, 10^-3) is used to
represent mikro (10^-6). Even worse and confusing are those, where
mmF gets used when pF (pico, 10^-12) is meant.

Huh? What's confusing about micro-micro farads? :-):-)
--
Robert (Bob) Smits, VE7HS & Linux Fan


Among the odd markings:

- in the 60ies it was fairly common to use kpF (kilopicofarad) to mean nF
(nanofarad)
- in the 30ies, German power mica capacitors were marked in centimeters (cm). 1
cm is equal to about 1.1 pF

73

Tony I0JX

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
...
"Bob Smits" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:HbmdncivItyZOM7RnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@islandhostin g.com...
Edmund H. Ramm wrote:

In "Antonio Vernucci"
writes:

[...]
I have a diagram dated 1953 in which M still represents 1000. In
that diagram they use MF for microfarad
[...]

There are also diagrams where m (milli, 10^-3) is used to
represent mikro (10^-6). Even worse and confusing are those, where
mmF gets used when pF (pico, 10^-12) is meant.

Huh? What's confusing about micro-micro farads? :-):-)
--
Robert (Bob) Smits, VE7HS & Linux Fan


Among the odd markings:

- in the 60ies it was fairly common to use kpF (kilopicofarad) to mean nF
(nanofarad)
- in the 30ies, German power mica capacitors were marked in centimeters
(cm). 1 cm is equal to about 1.1 pF

73

Tony I0JX


and cps instead of Hertz
Ah...those were the good ol' days

In message , olfart
writes

"Antonio Vernucci" wrote in message
t...
"Bob Smits" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:HbmdncivItyZOM7RnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@islandhostin g.com...
Edmund H. Ramm wrote:

In "Antonio Vernucci"
writes:

[...]
I have a diagram dated 1953 in which M still represents 1000. In
that diagram they use MF for microfarad
[...]

There are also diagrams where m (milli, 10^-3) is used to
represent mikro (10^-6). Even worse and confusing are those, where
mmF gets used when pF (pico, 10^-12) is meant.

Huh? What's confusing about micro-micro farads? :-):-)
--
Robert (Bob) Smits, VE7HS & Linux Fan


Among the odd markings:

- in the 60ies it was fairly common to use kpF (kilopicofarad) to mean nF
(nanofarad)
- in the 30ies, German power mica capacitors were marked in centimeters
(cm). 1 cm is equal to about 1.1 pF

73

Tony I0JX


and cps instead of Hertz
Ah...those were the good ol' days

But cps and c/s are still valid and understandable units of frequency.

If I recall correctly, when it was first proposed that we use the
'continental' Hertz, the Hz was supposed to be only for electrical
units. Therefore, the electrical drive to a loudspeaker would be in Hz,
but the movement of the cone would be in c/s.
--
Ian

- in the 60ies it was fairly common to use kpF (kilopicofarad) to mean nF
(nanofarad)

Never saw that before.


it was not just on the doagrams. I have some capacitors marked that way...

73

Tony I0JX

Well, "m" is reserved for "milli". Using a QWERTY typewriter (remember
them?) or ASCII computer keyboard IMO "u" is the better substitute for
"micron". But "p" and "n" are on all those keyboards. So there was/is
no need for the above "mmF" construct, or awkward notations like .005uF
when 5nF would say it much nicer.

73, Eddi ._._.
--

Yes, but for some reason 5nF was not of common use before about 25 years ago.
..005uF or 5kpF was the standard, who knows why..

Tony I0JX

In message , Antonio
Vernucci writes
Well, "m" is reserved for "milli". Using a QWERTY typewriter (remember
them?) or ASCII computer keyboard IMO "u" is the better substitute for
"micron". But "p" and "n" are on all those keyboards. So there was/is
no need for the above "mmF" construct, or awkward notations like .005uF
when 5nF would say it much nicer.

73, Eddi ._._.
--

Yes, but for some reason 5nF was not of common use before about 25
years ago. .005uF or 5kpF was the standard, who knows why..

For some reason, Americans find the British use of 'puff' and 'puffs'
(the colloquial 'pronunciation' of 'pF') highly amusing!
--
Ian

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Antonio Vernucci
writes
Well, "m" is reserved for "milli". Using a QWERTY typewriter (remember
them?) or ASCII computer keyboard IMO "u" is the better substitute for
"micron". But "p" and "n" are on all those keyboards. So there was/is
no need for the above "mmF" construct, or awkward notations like .005uF
when 5nF would say it much nicer.

73, Eddi ._._.
--

Yes, but for some reason 5nF was not of common use before about 25 years
ago. .005uF or 5kpF was the standard, who knows why..

For some reason, Americans find the British use of 'puff' and 'puffs' (the
colloquial 'pronunciation' of 'pF') highly amusing!

I think the reality is that many/most of us do look at "pf" and "rtty" and
turn it into a real word. But we generally keep it to ourselves.

Only when someone else blurted out "puff" or "ritty" did I realize I
wasn't the only one who did it. I simply wasn't the one who said it out
loud.

Michael VE2BVW

k