Talk:Siemens (unit)

message: All the math should be eliminated unless someone can define the undefined terms such as A, W, s etc.  By the way "mho" definitely belongs here.  Read the historic literature....it s full of mhos.  Our readers should not be separated from continuity with historical research.  It is not wikipedia's mission to purge history. Sekolov 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "terms" as you call them are written in roman letters (as opposed to italic) and hence easily recognizable as symbols for units in the International System of Units. A is the internationally standardized symbol for "Ampere", and so on. There should be no need to paraphrase major parts of the SI in every article about a particular unit, that's why we work with links. I agree that the mho belongs here, as long as it's made perfectly clear that this unit is now obsolete. --DrTorstenHenning 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your theoretical discussion here is fine, but the point is that there were no links to ampere and some of the other parameters, until i have partially fixed this jargon ridden section.  it still needs work to be friendly to the average wikipedia user. regards. Sekolov 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of clarity

message: I had replaced the secondary source in the References section by a primary source. A discussion about this has been initiated on my talk page. Pending further exchange there, I will not revert the insertion of said secondary source for the time being. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary vs. secondary sources

message: While sleuthing through what I find to be a rather useless and righteous NPV debate about erasing the existence of mho from the Wikipedia reality...
I am left to guess that the mho's are calculated the same a Siemens, and have a unity conversion between the two units.
I'm in support of a mho article. It is relevant.  I have seen mho used in recent catalogs.
Eet 1024 (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalent or Equal? 

message: Siemens (and mhos) are used to measure admittance as well as pure conductance. I've changed the intro to match the Ohm page which mentions impedance as well as resistance.  It doesn't mention reactance so I didn't add susceptance. Shannock9 (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just DC 

message: The discussion of capitalization rules for SI units feels out of place. Perhaps the interested reader could be directed to a page where this is discussed in more detail? Perhaps this paragraph-long discussion could be condensed to a single-sentence? 
While the issues raised in the discussion is true, it reads more like the opinion of somebody who wanted to make it "Wikipedia-official". Perhaps a better editor than I could fix this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreezkid (talk • contribs) 23:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, lower case for unit names is pretty common for all systems of units, not just SI. SpinningSpark 18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

text: It seems I was a little hasty with the claim; it looks like the second cited source has more detail, showing use with lower case. So, it does seem that lower case is standard use (but not for Celcius). Surprising. Klbrain (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of unit capitalization 

message: pls ans  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.251.19.57 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't know the answer specifically, but Conductivity might give you some more insights, otherwise the Reference Desk might be able to help. Good question! Cheers, --Elfabet (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text: So I decided to go ahead and ask, since I got so curious. Please find the question on RD here. Elfabet (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  why there is a 'G' to represnt condctivity ?