"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , gareth
writes

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Can they be used to plot the setting up of Xtal ladder filters, which
would mean the
ability to control the frequency sweep to as little as a few kHz?

I ask because the Hameg speccy that I have, although good for harmonic
checks,
has a minimum sweep of 1 MHz.

that should read Mc/s OM ....

That depends on the age of the equipment!

Condensers and Mc/s before 1960

Capacitors and MHz post 1960

The Germans were using MHz much earlier (almost for ever).

The UK started in the latter 60s, and at first it was supposed to be only
an electrical unit.

With any sweep equipment, in addition to the sweep width you also need to
know the sweep speed. The first is in MHz (or Mc/s), and the second is in
MHz/s (or Mc/s/s).


but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

Whereas Ampere means ions per second

"gareth" wrote in news:n7nmq8$irn$1@dont-
email.me:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

Whereas Ampere means ions per second

A meaningless comparison, since ions don't all carry the same amount of
charge.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.


You missed the point, for, in your argument, think for yourself as to what
is
a Coulomb, also named after a person.

I chose ions specifically and not electrons because of the flow in the
electrolyte
of lead acid cells, and in the electrolyte of electroplating tanks,

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second
...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
You missed the point, for, in your argument, think for yourself as to
what
is
a Coulomb, also named after a person.

I chose ions specifically and not electrons because of the flow in the
electrolyte
of lead acid cells, and in the electrolyte of electroplating tanks,
Read my post again. You will note I did not mention electrons.
The Amp is the flow of one Coulomb of charge, equivalent to 6.2 x 10^18
(or
so) elemental charges.
Feel free to check a basic physics text book, I appreciate not everyone
knows the basics.
Strange isn't it, people claim standards in schools are slipping but I
know
this is taught today, or at least was until I recently retired.


Grow up Brian.

Your attempt to stir things up in order to bandy about insults fails again.

You have failed again because the discussion was that things should not be
named
after people and you slipped on a banana skin with your own mention of the
Coulomb.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second
...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
You missed the point, for, in your argument, think for yourself as to
what
is
a Coulomb, also named after a person.

I chose ions specifically and not electrons because of the flow in the
electrolyte
of lead acid cells, and in the electrolyte of electroplating tanks,
Read my post again. You will note I did not mention electrons.
The Amp is the flow of one Coulomb of charge, equivalent to 6.2 x 10^18
(or
so) elemental charges.
Feel free to check a basic physics text book, I appreciate not everyone
knows the basics.
Strange isn't it, people claim standards in schools are slipping but I
know
this is taught today, or at least was until I recently retired.
Grow up Brian.
Your attempt to stir things up in order to bandy about insults fails
again.
You have failed again because the discussion was that things should not be
named
after people and you slipped on a banana skin with your own mention of the
Coulomb.

PS 10^18? ISTR 10^19

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Or dear, one of your typical responses when corrected. No wonder you have
failed to improve your knowledge if you always react this way.


Grow up, Brian.

On 20/01/2016 10:43, Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote

but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

Whereas Ampere means ions per second

Charge (Coulombs) per second.

One Amp is one Coulomb per second.

Since the Ampere and the second are fundamental units in the SI system,
and the Coulomb is a unit derived from them and therefore is not a
fundamental unit, then one should say that

1 Coulomb = 1 Ampere-second

Read up on 'SI fundamental units'.

HTH

--
Spike

"They thought that because they had power, they had wisdom"

- with apologies to Stephen Vincent Benet

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2016 10:43, Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
Since the Ampere and the second are fundamental units in the SI system,
and the Coulomb is a unit derived from them and therefore is not a
fundamental unit, then one should say that
1 Coulomb = 1 Ampere-second
Read up on 'SI fundamental units'.

(The SI is but one in a number of arbitrary systems of units)

ISTR that the SI system is based upon things that can actually be measured
experimentally and not upon some theoretical bases that cannot be measured.

But how does one fashion a pair of infinitely long parallel wires in order
to be able
to measure an ampere has yet to be revealed :-)

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

You seem to be confusing two methods. One based on charge per second
another based on force between conductors. That is the danger of trying
to
impress by using Google.


Grow up, Brian.