|WikiProject Measurement||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Unfortunately, the definition is incorrect because of the different definitions of a billion in American (10^9) and British (10^12) English. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter but a milliardth of a metre. I hope someone can fix this. Similar mistake for the picometer.
I also wonder why it automatically takes you to nanometre if I look up nanometer? Isn't Wikipedia an American-based website? Is metre more correct than meter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This article helped for my science homework. ;) thanks.
- Good - that's what Wikipedia is all about. 188.8.131.52 10:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
British vs. US spellings
I do not like all the English spellings taking predominance over the US spellings. Far more scientists, semiconductor manufacturers and users of small measurements are in the US. Any objections to changing these pages to predominant US spellings, redirecting from the British spellings? --184.108.40.206 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether the individual reader, in this case, likes or dislikes the use of a word be it in English (U.S.) or English (U.K.) is irrelevant. According to Microsoftspeak there existed since year 2000, 18 varieties if English; there may be more in this 2009!
The use of billion is equally pointless due to ambiguity (dealt with comprehensively within the pages of "Wikipedia."); therefore, when describing quantities that are of a scientific or engineering nature, and to avoid such ambiguity, the development and standardisation of the SI system of UNITS eliminated it, thus removing all argument regarding the common-or-garden usage to define quantities e.g. as we find in the use of English
Moreover, when one discovers terms like Nano and Billionth, used in the same sentence or breath, one is exposed to pure nonsense because they are not universally or, more to the point, internationally recognised as being equivalent.
The metre is of French origin and is spelled as such. The French broached the unit around the time of the French revolution, when Americans, per se, were no where nearly as sophisticated in matters scientific or in engineering. Therefore, the term meter is a corrupt spelling of the true "Metre" as it is internationally recognised under the ISO(SI) standard.
To end the discussion: Use of the abbreviated UNITS as identified by the SI system standard further eliminates all individuals' preferences with regard to irrelevant spelling (i.e. spelling, which is beside the point).
Wikipedia standards for spellings on en.wikipedia.org say that words must be spelled as written in American, not as in British. So if the justification for the article name is "international units are specified in French", then we definitely should not be using 'metre', as this is never seen in American government, commerce, or private life except from sources that originated overseas. "Nanometre" is a strange spelling to American eyes, and would be considered an "Artistic" european-style spelling, an ignorant american's spelling, a foriegn-sourced spelling, or a typo. The current redirection from article 'Nanometer' to 'Nanometre' should be reversed. Ace Frahm (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
picturing a nanometer
A friend of mine sent me an email last summer about nanotechnology -etc. He included this explanation: If the distance between New York and Los Angeles was a 'meter' then at this scale:
- A human cell is about the size of a basketball court
- Nanotechnology deals with objects smaller then a basketball
- A nanometer is the size of an ant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- That seems a bit farfetched. That would mean the 65nm chips currently in, say, the XBox 360, are smaller than a human cell (Although there are a bunch of different types of human cells). Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Zellthemedic (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-  Source: http://www.laalmanac.com/transport/tr53.htm
But what does it mean to say you have a "65 nm" chip? It means not that the entire chip is just 65 nm, but that the smallest components on that chip--perhaps the spacing between wires, or the transistors--are 65 nm. The whole chip altogether may be, I don't know, 1 cm^2. At least that's how I understand it, but I could easily be mistaken. --Singularitarian (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I had confused was the actual CPU. The actual CPU itself is 65nm, not the die (What the CPU is mounted on). Zellthemedic (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently "65nm" chip means that the gate line widths (whatever those are) or transistors in the chip are 65nm. I don't believe there is any current method of producing electronics capable of such complex computations as current microprocessors at nanometer scales. See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_45nm_technology_node_mean and especially http://www.edn.com/article/CA6493083.html 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
We Have Feet/Inches/etc. in america... but going lower than inches makes us metric?
- The "United States of AMERICA" has been officially metric since 1866. However, the "Customary" ENGLISH (pre-Imperial) measuring system is used in general non-scientific AMERICAN life. If you don't understand it, it doesn't make any difference to your life as you don't need to use or understand it.--TGC55 (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- to italy from engalnd