4 ms·
Good point. Hertz is weird because it automatically makes one think of frequency but it's really just "per-second". I just read up about Hertz - weird he lived
by zwieback 3y ago
Good point. Hertz is weird because it automatically makes one think of frequency but it's really just "per-second". I just read up about Hertz - weird he lived not that long ago. What did they use for frequency before Hertz?
- chowells 3y agoHertz are really only appropriate for describing cyclical events. But by convention the units are just 1/s, so have fun abusing it.
- diracs_stache 3y agoA period of infinity is cyclical /s
- nyanpasu64 3y agoOne interesting property of Hertz is that it's partially appropriate for describing sampling rates. I've found use in annotating separate units for "cycles/sec" and "samples/sec" so I avoid mixing them up (for example, the Nyquist rate can be expressed as 0.5 cyc/smp).
- ericbarrett 3y agoI've seen older literature that just uses "cycles," "kilocycles," and so forth. It's never abbreviated, so I always assumed the use of a named unit came from the desire to be able to write shorthand like kHz.
- billyjmc 3y agoI’ve absolutely seen it abbreviated. The wikipedia page even shows a photo of a “1000 kc” crystal resonator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_per_second https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_per_second
- ericbarrett 3y agoSeems annoying if you’re a physicist or RF engineer. The Hertz makes sense.
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoWe just used cycles per second (cps). Or multiples of it. Hertz was simply the name give to this unit, first in 1935, and later was included in the SI units in 1960.