Contents

Talk:Nanosecond

This  level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Time Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move discussion in process

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1 E-18 s which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reference to Grace Hopper is unneeded; I have removed it. (or not fully explained in THIS article)

Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it takes light a nanosecond to go a foot (in a vacuum, slower in copper)" doesn't make sense since light's speed in copper is zero because it's an opaque substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martnym (talk • contribs) 09:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentleman,

please come to some agreement regarding the following:

A picosecond is to one second as one second is to 31,710 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picosecond One nanosecond is to one second as one second is to 31.71 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosecond

Thank you for your hard work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.53.243 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3.3356409519815 nanoseconds is "own work"? Linked source describes "the speed of light in vacuum c is 299 792 458 m/s" which looks more correct to me. 2001:7D0:4280:480:8D91:2B52:5F28:7F6C (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are told, "1.1 nanoseconds – a commonly-used rough definition of a "light-foot"." but the preceding entry defines a light foot as 1.016703362164 nanoseconds, which rounds to 1 nanosecond, not 1.1, Gamov notwithstanding. I suggest we remove this line. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward:  Done. I have no idea what Gamow was doing; it's possibly just a misprint. I didn't check the other source, but I don't see any reason to keep this around in either case. Good catch! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Light-foot. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]