[time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 63, Issue 52

[Arnold Tibus]

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