Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Cycles per second is a really powerful unit to include. In theory the definition of "Hertz" as a unit is the same as cycles per second, but in practice it is sometimes not.
In my field (electronics) cycles per second can simplify most of my calculations:
For example, calculating impedance of an inductor, cycles per second avoids an arbitrary factor of 2π in my equations.
With Hertz:
ω is 62.8e6/s which is required for calculations but illegible to humans
With cycles per second:
ω is 10e6 cyc/s, which is legible to humans and converts to the correct value in Ohms
So why not make the unit of Hertz equal to cycles per second?
In electromagnetics (and probably other domains) there's a problem: it's standard to use wavelength (units: meters) instead of angular wavelength (units: meters/cycle).
As an example, CB radio operates around the 11 meter band, which corresponds to a frequency around 25 MHz. The conversion from wavelength to frequency requires frequency to be in units of "per second":
Similarly you may want to consider creating the "Revolution" unit for the RPM and RPS units: