Talk:Yotta-

Any stories about an officially confirmed SI prefix after yotta?? 66.245.112.204 00:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the model of a recent edit to Zetta...

...a recent edit of zetta was made adding a bogus SI prefix that didn't officially exist. Any edit that can be made to yotta on the model of this?? Georgia guy 00:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be Otta, but since it already has its own article...I did not follow the vote for deletion around Hepa, but since its deletion removed it from Category:Bogus SI prefixes, it had to be footnoted with Zetta and added to the category page itself.

Urhixidur 02:31, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

A couple of layers above should be "Yotta Yotta Yotta", otherwise known as "Seinfeldbyte". Wahkeenah 08:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23rd CGPM meeting

One site reveals that 2007 is the year of the 23rd CGPM meeting, which I believe is when the next SI prefix (10^27) should be confirmed. Anyone who disagrees?? Georgia guy 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which site? Please provide a link.

Now, besides the lack of pressing need for 10E±27 prefixes, SI is running out of letters. The name should be tied to "nine" somehow, because that's the pattern established by the other prefixes. The remaining letters are: (upper case) DIOQRUX, (lower case) begijoqrtuvwx. It has been said before that 'o' is unlikely because of the risk of confusion with zero. (Note that there are precedents for using a letter for both a unit and a prefix, e.g. tera and tesla) Urhixidur 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yottaatoms?

I don't think one can stick SI prefixes before just any word regardless of whether or not it's an SI unit. (Can one say that the world population currently stands at 6.6 gigapeople?) In any case, this sentence could be written for any substance, not just carbon-12 – if this sentence is of any value, it is to give information about the Avogadro constant, not about a particular isotope of carbon. Vilĉjo 10:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence removed. Vilĉjo 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yottabyte storage??

In one of the examples, it says something about information storage. I don´t know about you people, but I don´t understand it. A yottabyte of storage per year?? Does that means the amount of information in the world? or maybe the amount of data transit in the mind during a year... And why 2013??? I justING don´t get it --Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__ΞΞΞ_} . 20:50, 9 July 2008 (GMT-6)

I'm seconding this request. What is the phrase supposed to mean? If it's just an example, then it would make more sense to find one from an actual source. --Several Times (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be here, considering that Bytes use Binary Prefixes and not SI prefixes. --Jukeboxlord (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mega 1960?

Can someone check that, we had power grids prior to 1960 with megawatts....71.178.110.118 (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

It is clear from looking at the reference to Otta that the origins of this prefix don't directly come from the Greek (as Greeks also realise). It's just the character that was chosen and to someone they sounded similar. Certainly hardly worthy of being considered an etymological evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.181.131 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right?

In the article for Yotta: "the mass of the Earth is 5973.6 Yg (although as large mass units are based on the tonne, this would be more likely expressed as 5.97 Zt)."

either 5973600 Yg or 5.97 Et, because 1000000 g are 1 t !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.214.37 (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question - it's always good to double-check unit math.

5 973.6 Yg = 5.9736 x 10³ x 10²⁴ g = 5.9736 x 10²⁷ g

5.97 Zt = (5.97 x 10²¹ t)(10³ kg/t)(10³ g/kg) = 5.97 x 10²⁷ g

In the style of your unit conversion statement: 1 000 Yg = 1 000 000 Zg = 1 Zt. --Scray (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Page

How valid is the figure given at [1] - and what is the relevant size-name? 83.104.132.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How to pronounce?

There is the greek name in there but not the pronunciation. Is it pronounced like "yo-ta" or "ya-ta" or what? 67.189.69.74 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation: "...it is derived from the Greek ὀκτώ (októ)" Really? Then why okto is not even remotely similar to yotta?--Tired time (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not derived from okto, or the guys were smoking crack. Regards, AC 01:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.131.101 (talk)

....what a yotta rubbish....

....I may just be being very stupid (an entirely plausible explanation, I'm the first to admit....), but I do not understand usage example number 3....what "error" is there to be spotted? How does the yotta prefix "help" in spotting this supposed error? What "meaning" does the ratio of the mass of the Earth to the power output of the sun have? Can anyone help to clear this up? 82.3.144.140 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I second this concern. If this belongs in the article, I think it needs some clarification. Ericular (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfram Alpha?

It's a great resource for quick information, but we have no way of knowing where its facts come from. I'm not sure, is this a reliable source?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.86.219 (talk • contribs)

"Bronto-" or something else, is the next above?

Bronto is claimed by many to be the next one above this in the scale (at 10^27), but this is/was supposedly unofficial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronto#Unofficial_prefixes). So what is the current state on this? Has the SI made-up its mind on what we're all supposed to be using yet or not, and if not, why not? Nothing on the WP explains what is going on very clearly. Jimthing (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]