Maybe you should quit while you're ahead, Bill. 0.93 Hz is 930 mHz, not 93 mHz. :) At 93 mHz, I suspect you'd be flat lined with spikes (probably very small ones) just over 10 s apart. I don't think that would be a sustainable condition. To use a British expression, you would really have a dicky ticker. Bill Potts Roseville, CA <http://metric1.org/> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
_____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Hooper Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 07:37 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:40059] Re: Stuart & Sons Pianos On 2008 Jan 15 , at 1:31 AM, Bill Potts wrote: That's a helluva fast pulse. 56 Hz is 56 beats per second, not per minute. Ooooh! You're so right. Sorry about that. I was trying to be cute when I tacked that note onto my previous message, hurriedly, at the last moment, and without sufficient thought. I had never before thought about heart rate in SI but in a flash of misguided inspiration, I recalled my blood pressure machine giving me "56" for my pulse rate. Since our discussion had been about measuring frequencies in hertz, I thought about adding a note about my pulse rate in hertz as well. I then quickly jumped to the incorrect conclusion that the "56" would be 56 Hz. Of course, 56 Hz is 56 beats per SECOND and my BP machine was really giving me the rate in beats per MINUTE. (The 56 beats per minute would translate to 0.93 beats per second or 0.93 Hz or 93 mHz, not 56 Hz.) It just goes to show, that one cannot try to be too "cute" without appropriate care for correctness. Thanks for catching my mistake. It's one I won't make again. Bill Hooper heart beat: 0.93 Hz Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ========================== SImplification Begins With SI. ==========================
