Chris,
  I think it's fine either way. I do however use nano myself sometimes and I
get that look, you know, the one that says "NANO, how many micro or pico
farads is that?". Well let's just say, more or less of them... A long time
ago at another job I had, I worked with a guy that was from South Africa. He
used nano also. When I asked him why, he told me that, first, that's the way
he learned it and, second, if everyone used that term, they were less likely
to have value mistakes. Everyone understood that point something was pico
and something point was micro. Well, I don't know about the last, but I
don't mind if it's used or not. To me, it's more important to know the
difference and understand it, than to worry about which term to use. I'm not
saying your worrying about it, I just mean its no big deal to me one way or
the other... This one I'm sure will raise some eyebrows...
Later...

Regards,
Scott Decker

                     AKA: PadMasterson
   /\     Sr. PCB Designer, Portland
  /\/\    7245 NW Evergreen Pkwy., Suite 100, Hillsboro OR 97124
 /\/\/\   (503)531-2050 ext. 1820 FAX: (503)531-2051
/\/\/\/\ [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
 Praegitzer Industries, Inc.
The Fine Line in Printed Circuits




        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Chris Ball [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
        Sent:   Monday, September 27, 1999 8:50 AM
        To:     [log in to unmask]
        Subject:        [DC] nano nano

        Hi-
        For the last few years I've worked a lot with designs originating in
europe and
        find that nano is commonly used there. Here in the USA, we've always
jumped from
        micro to pico.

        1nF is more succinct than .001uF or 1000pF. I don't know why we
don't use it and
        was just wondering... how 'bout y'all?
        -Chris