# Why did the Angstrom fall out of favor as a unit of measurement? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 23, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356 "2005-11-23T00:50:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/1 "2005-11-23T00:50:26Z")
The Angstrom (= 10[sup]-10[/sup] meters) used to be so ubiquitous that it had it’s own symbol. Å But nowadays everyone uses nanometers. If it’s a desire to stick with a standardized nomenclature (mili- micro- nano- ), why did they use Angstroms in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/2 "2005-11-23T01:04:19Z")
I use Angstroms all the time to describe bond lengths in chemical structures. I can’t imagine using anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/3 "2005-11-23T01:10:52Z")
Sorry for the slight hijack here, but one of my enduring sources of pleasure is observing how American professionals who work in the scientific fields of engineering, and chemistry, and physics etc are all universally capable of working in both metric and imperial measurements without the slightest bit of struggle. I often read threads by Americans who know nothing of metric, and the arguements for why it’s such a piss poor measurement system amuse me. Clearly, people who work in the sciences are capable of intermingling both Imperial and Metric measurements with the greatest of ease. I like seeing that. Back on subject, I recently heard Angstroms used to describe the molecular thickness of engine oil being used in ultra fine crankshaft bearings. Obviously it’s still being bandied about. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/4 "2005-11-23T02:12:29Z")
> [@Christopher](#): > > I use Angstroms all the time to describe bond lengths in chemical structures. I can’t imagine using anything else. From what I’ve seen, angstroms have pretty much gone by the wayside. I haven’t seen them used at all in any used in a recently published general chemistry or organic chemistry textbook. In my experience, however, the more advanced the textbook, the more likely is to find old-fashioned units being used. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/5 "2005-11-23T02:20:31Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The Angstrom (= 10[sup]-10[/sup] meters) used to be so ubiquitous that it had it’s own symbol. Å But nowadays everyone uses nanometers. If it’s a desire to stick with a standardized nomenclature (mili- micro- nano- ), why did they use Angstroms in the first place? The Angstrom was introduced as a measure of the atomic radius. 1 Angstrom is roughly the diameter of the Hydrogen atom. The Angstrom unit is still used in phsyics and chemistry, but not so much in engineering. Engineers like to use “engineering notation” (surprise!) as you noted (mili, micro, nano). ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/6 "2005-11-23T02:25:18Z")
> [@robby](#): > > From what I’ve seen, angstroms have pretty much gone by the wayside. I haven’t seen them used at all in any used in a recently published general chemistry or organic chemistry textbook. > > In my experience, however, the more advanced the textbook, the more likely is to find old-fashioned units being used. General Chemistry by Chang, 2005 publishing has many references to Angstroms, as does Principles of Biochemistry by Lehninger. My teachers use them as a unit of measure as well. Do you often read recently published general or organic chemistry textbooks, and when/if you do read them, do you take specific notice of them? Seems like something that would easily be missed. (Not to mention in low level classes there isn’t much need of mentioning it often, just when it is necessary to mention distances) I don’t know how often they USED to mention angstroms, but they still do in MY chemistry and biochemistry classes. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/7 "2005-11-23T02:33:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry for the slight hijack here, but one of my enduring sources of pleasure is observing how American professionals who work in the scientific fields of engineering, and chemistry, and physics etc are all universally capable of working in both metric and imperial measurements without the slightest bit of struggle. We are? Whenever I have a problem stated in those monstrous units, my first step is always to convert them to metric. If, at the end, an answer is desired in American units (or Imperial ones, though I can’t imagine why an American would ever encounter those), I convert back. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/8 "2005-11-23T02:43:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If, at the end, an answer is desired in American units (or Imperial ones, though I can’t imagine why an American would ever encounter those), I convert back. I think **Boo Boo Foo** _was_ referring to American units when he said Imperial, since they use the same names and are, for most people’s use, pretty much the same (save the liquid measures: pint, quart and gallon). And yes, I’m quite sure _you_ know. I was merely making the point in case people reading the thread were confused about either the reference to “Imperial” units, or to your distinction between Imperial and American units. ---
**Author:** ![Queen\_Bruin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Queen\_Bruin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queen_Bruin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/9 "2005-11-23T02:46:14Z")
We used Angstroms in astronomy 101 (only a few years ago). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/10 "2005-11-23T02:49:20Z")
> [@The Sausage Creature](#): > > We used Angstroms in astronomy 101 (only a few years ago). Isn’t that like designing a hydroelectric dam, using gills? ---
**Author:** ![Queen\_Bruin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Queen\_Bruin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queen_Bruin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/11 "2005-11-23T02:52:45Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Isn’t that like designing a hydroelectric dam, using gills? Not when you’re talking about wavelengths. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/12 "2005-11-23T02:57:51Z")
> [@The Sausage Creature](#): > > Not when you’re talking about wavelengths. …of light. (I assume you mean!) ---
**Author:** ![Queen\_Bruin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Queen\_Bruin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queen_Bruin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/13 "2005-11-23T02:59:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > …of light. (I assume you mean!) Or radio. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/14 "2005-11-23T03:04:08Z")
Nobody measures radio wavelengths in Ansgtroms. That’s like measuring stellar distances in millimeters: Sure, you can do it, but the numbers get ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/15 "2005-11-23T03:06:28Z")
I would suspect that we’re talking about emission spectra of stellar bodies. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/16 "2005-11-23T03:12:16Z")
> [@The Sausage Creature](#): > > Not when you’re talking about wavelengths. Ah, noted. ---
**Author:** ![Queen\_Bruin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Queen\_Bruin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queen_Bruin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/17 "2005-11-23T03:13:59Z")
Sorry, Q.E.D., you’re right. I got confused with electro-magnetic in general. Cut me some slack, it’s been five years and I’m a humanities major 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/18 "2005-11-23T03:54:47Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > Clearly, people who work in the sciences are capable of intermingling both Imperial and Metric measurements with the greatest of ease. Your average american auto mechanic is also used to working with metric measurements. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/19 "2005-11-23T03:57:44Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > Nobody measures radio wavelengths in Ansgtroms. That’s like measuring stellar distances in millimeters: Sure, you can do it, but the numbers get ridiculous. This is KOML, broadcasting at 104.3 Gazzilion Angstroms. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2005, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356/20 "2005-11-23T04:23:43Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > Clearly, people who work in the sciences are capable of intermingling both Imperial and Metric measurements with the greatest of ease. I like seeing that. What do you mean “greatest of ease”? It’s a constant source of annoyance, errors and wasted time. And like Chronos, I’d do calculations in SI and only convert the final result back if necessary. Anyway this isn’t relevant to this thread, since Angstrom is a metric unit. I’m an astronomer, and many of my colleagues still use Angstrom to describe wavelengths of UV and visible light. But in the past year I quit using it and switched to nanometers. The strongest motivation for me is the difficulty in getting the Angstrom symbol to display properly on the computer. It’s a pain to remember how to display this special character on half a dozen programs (data analysis programs used for plotting graphs, typesetting programs, etc). It’s even worse when we need to prepare journal articles - articles are submitted electronically, so we need to create PDF, PS or Word files that print properly on any computer. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-angstrom-fall-out-of-favor-as-a-unit-of-measurement/332356.md?page=2)