Re: 50-ohm or 50 ohm--prof. style guides

[chuckm -at- MDHOST -dot- CSE -dot- TEK -dot- COM]

Conan the Grammerian wrote:

> The 50-ohm discussion has been interesting, but I really don't see where the
> hyphen is even remotely negotiable.  Any standard Freshman Composition
 textbook
> (e.g., the venerable Harbrace) would clearly identify this example as a 14-
> carat unit modifier, which MUST take a hyphen.  Period.  End of discussion.
> --Conan the Grammarian

Will all electical engineers that understand 50-ohm resistor but are utterly
confused by 50 ohm resistor, please raise your hand. I thought so. No one
raised their hand.

> I side with your copyeditors who put the hypen in
> 50-[uom] resistors because 50-[uom] is used as an adjective
> and the hyphen reduces ambiguity.

To me, this is an academic issue. Adding the hyphen does not reduce ambiguity
for anyone that understands what a resistor is or how they are described. For
those that do not understand resistors, adding a hypen will not bring
enlightenment. 50 ohm, used to describe a resistor, expresses a single concept-
the amount of resistance to current flow. "Ohm resistor" is nonsensical. No
one is going to interpret 50 ohm resistor as 50 ohm-resistor. There is no
ambiguity in 50 ohm resistor. I believe in minimal punctuation just as I believe
in minimal documentation. Placing a hypen between 50 and [uom] adds nothing;
it clarifies nothing. It won't confuse anyone, but it won't bring enlightenment
either.

I know the rules for hypen usage. I understand the rationale for placing the
hyphen between 50 and the ohm symbol. I just don't think the rule is meaningful
in this case. I side with the Martin on this one.


Chuck