[BC] To Hz or not to Hz? (WAS:WLW--500 kW?)

[Phil Alexander]

On 6 Jul 2005 at 8:03, WFIFeng at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 07/05/2005 07:33:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> jvodenik at sosinet.net writes:
> 
> > I don't buy into this MHz and KHz stuff...it's still Kc and Mc for me. 
> >  Kinda like politically correct, thank goodness I'm NOT.
> 
> Curious... why deny credit to Heinrich Hertz, who discovered these "Hertzian 
> Waves", by not using his name as the designator for frequency? It's considered 
> standard nomenclature. Why the "rebellion"?

Naming cycles "Hertz" has no logical connection with RF or radiated energy 
cycles. Please tell me how the Hertz dipole experiment relates to AC utility
power. If a name had to be applied to the humble number of alternations per
unit of time, Tesla would have made far more sense because his experimentations
included not only electrical cycles but mechanical resonance as well. He's also
probably the only person who totally understood AC in all its forms from the
lowest to highest frequency. So Hertz gets cycles while Tesla is relegated
to the SI version of Gauss. Go figure.


Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 7/6/05