Re: good MMC? (different than first)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Ed Phillips by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-uswest-dot-net>" <evp-at-pacbell-dot-net>

> The "mF" confusion is probably generated by formatting in
> different font, relative to the original text: if the letter "m"
> is formatted into the equivalent greek letter (i.e. in the
> "symbol" font), it will show as the greek "mu", which would be
> correct for "micro"(-farad, or anything else). - Me too have been
> wondering many times about the millifarad confusion, before
> noticing this.
> 
> Kurt Schraner

	The qualifiers nano, micro, milli, kilo, mega, etc. are an artifact of
the SI system of units where all numbers must be between +/- 1000.  You
can say 999.99 microfarads, but you can't say 1000.1 microfarads.  If
you are a true disciple of SI you would have to say 1.0001 millifarads! 
Extremenly stupid, in my opinion, and doesn't improve anyone's
understanding of anything!  Anyone dumb enough to be confused is dumb
enough not to be able to cope with numbers expressed in any system. 
Likewise, anyone who can't handle inches and centimeters correctly has
something missing between the ears.  Subject was taught as part of
elementary school arithmetic when I was growing up.

	In the "good old days" most capacitors weren't up to the
multi-millifarad range, and when they were the capacitance was expressed
in microfarads.  The other unit of capacitance was the micro microfarad,
one millionth of a microfarad, and commonly abbreviated as mmfd or uufd.

Ed