Why no Farad or Henry meter?

[TimFox]

However, one does sometimes encounter a "Coulombmeter" to measure charge.
Many of the ones listed now are for estimating battery charge, but some are for sparks or surface charge.

[PlainName]

Volts, amps and watts are all dynamic derived values. I wonder if that has a bearing, or if it's just coincidence that the group lend their names to instruments.

[DavidAlfa]

I completely understood the first post, can't figure out how so many people struggled?

Yeah, it's interesting at least, You don't measure caps in "capacitances" (Please source a 25V 100uCapacitances capacitor!) neither coils in "inductances".
If those are called LCR meters (Or just capacitor/inductor meters when doing only one measurement type), then the rest should be voltage/intensity/resistance meters, not volt/amp/ohm meters.

And why is this called a flexometer?
It measures distance, not flexing, so it should be called meter/distance/length meter ! 

[CatalinaWOW]

I think the prior post referencing the time frame of the naming nails most of the reason.With a residuum coming from the size of the units.  Volts, Ohms and Amperes are quantities encountered commonly.  But a Farad capacitor was unimaginable until 20 or 30 years ago.  Henry inductors are not quite as outre, but neither is commonly encountered.

I think the references to parasitics is a red herring.  Many applications can neglect these in inductors and capacitors, and many applications care about parasitics in resistors and ripple, noise and other details in measurements of voltage and current.

[PlainName]

I completely understood the first post, can't figure out how so many people struggled?

Are you sure?

Yeah, it's interesting at least, You don't measure caps in "capacitances" (Please source a 25V 100uCapacitances capacitor!) neither coils in "inductances".

I think you are arse about face on that. The question is why there are no 'farad' meters or 'Henry' meters, not noting that we don't use voltage or intensity or flex meters.

[EPAIII]

Oh, I thought we were talking about electronics or at least electricity since this is an electronic forum. Silly me. And then we get accused of not getting the point when the OP did a really poor job of making that point.

So we are actually talking about linguistics, not electronics or electricity. Frankly I think we were deliberately (or ignorantly) deceived into this discussion and I, for one, do not like it. If the nomenclature for the instruments we use is a questionable use of language, English or otherwise, then just how very questionable and deceptive is the OP's use of language here? Far, far better language could and certainly should have been used in the original post. And I DO see the irony in that. 

Because topics like this waste the member's time, such deceptions should be against the forum's rules and members who practice such, weather it be deliberate or in their own great ignorance, should be advised against future occurrences.


And, like it or not, the nomenclature we use in science and technology is often created by haphazard and/or accidental circumstances surrounding and following the initial or early uses of that technology. When you originate something or make it popular, the name you give it usually sticks. And the rest of us, at later times in history, are just plain stuck with it. It does no good to debate over what is should have been.

Grow up! Drink less beer! And move on with your life.