On Mar 22 , at 8:10 PM, Stan Jakuba wrote:
It has been the common practice in technical literature for decades
(including in the US, UK, and similar) to write 8600 s^-1 or 8600
min^-1, to
use your number.
Isn't "1/s" also acceptable?
For a specific value it would be written as "3600 1/s" and
I'm not sure why it would not be acceptable to write it as "3600/s".
If this is clearly identified as a rotation rate, for example, then
one would read it as:
"The rotation rate is 3600/s"
and that would (should!) be clearly understood to mean:
"The rotation rate is 3600 per second"
[which in turn should be clearly understood to mean:
"The rotation rate is 3600 (rotations) per second",
whether the word "rotations" is included or not].
My basic premise here is that, if one clearly identifies what quantity
you are talking about, the measured value with its units is always
clear.
Does anyone argue that one should NOT identify the quantity one is
talking about?
Regards,
Bill Hooper
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
==========================
Make It Simple; Make It Metric!
==========================
