It is currently Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:08 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:44 am 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 855
Location: Rutland, VT
I have been told by someone that the use of a capital "C" in calories denotes that it is 1000 calories. So writing 0.3 Cal/cm2 means 300 calories/cm2. As anyone heard of this as I thought the prefix for kilo, "k", would be needed to designate 1000?

_________________
Barry Donovan, P.E.
www.workplacesafetysolutions.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:50 am 
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Toronto
wbd wrote:
I have been told by someone that the use of a capital "C" in calories denotes that it is 1000 calories. So writing 0.3 Cal/cm2 means 300 calories/cm2. As anyone heard of this as I thought the prefix for kilo, "k", would be needed to designate 1000?


The "k" prefix would be required to designate 1000

_________________
Michael Furtak, C.E.T.
http://arcadvisor.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:08 am 
Arc Level

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:35 am
Posts: 544
Location: Wisconsin
wbd wrote:
I have been told by someone that the use of a capital "C" in calories denotes that it is 1000 calories. So writing 0.3 Cal/cm2 means 300 calories/cm2. As anyone heard of this as I thought the prefix for kilo, "k", would be needed to designate 1000?


The physical unit is calorie (small letter C)
The dietary/nutritional unit is often called Calorie (large letter C). The dietary word is actually kilocalorie or 1000 calories, but you know how people hate using technical language.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:17 am 
Arc Level

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 428
Location: Spartanburg, South Carolina
The recommended SI unit is calorie (lower case), with the abbreviation cal (lower case). Abbreviations of SI units named after people are capitalized (A for ampere, K for Kelvin, etc.) but other are not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:07 pm 
Sparks Level
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:00 pm
Posts: 286
Location: Louisville, KY
When we geezers were educated, (I'm 57) capital "C" (Calories) was used for Kcal for food but small "C" (calories) is for the SI unit.

This is NOT true outside of the US since SI units were standardized.

LOL.

Hugh Hoagland


I'm still trying to keep NFPA 70E from using mm for working distances since in SI the unit indicates the level of accuracy needed in the measurement.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:18 pm 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1620
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Good info everyone. A few additions. I attached an E.U. label. They even show kilo-Joules of energy in addition to kilo-calories. FYI for all, a Joule of energy is a watt-second. Good luck with the “diet math” The good news, regarding any live working and PPE standards for the IEC, calories (lower case c) is all we need.

Global standardization is still evolving. There was a similar problem years ago with conductor sizes and some people still get tripped up. As an example, 500 MCM was commonly used. cm is the unit of measure in circular mils which we still use but “M” was a throwback to using roman numerals where M = 1000. Finally, this was changed to “k” for kilo and now we have kcm or 500 kcm which is easier to relate to. Although we adapted to “k”, cm isn’t widely used globally.

The working distance has been listed as mm in IEEE 1584 since it was published in 2002 and is a bit awkward. However, there is a column for inches as well. cm – centimeters, not to be confused with cm - circular mils would be much better. The next edition of IEEE 1584 which is rapidly nearing completion also has mm and inches.

Hugh, I hope we both have a ways to go before “geezerdom”. I have a couple of years on you but so many people within IEEE, IEC etc. are well into their mid and late 60’s and 70’s (a few pushing 80) so for now I will hang on to my “youth”. ...although I mentioned a french curve in a class a couple of years ago and got a blank stare by about 2/3 of the group. The older I get, the more my definition of “old” keeps changing. :)


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Calories vs calories
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 8:11 pm 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 2174
Location: North Carolina
I've always seen it as either MCM or kcmil, never kcm so kcm in my mind would be some bastard unit...meters x 1000 / 100 = decameters of cable? Never seen it as kcm anywhere I can think of.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883