µµ & ΩΩ are easy on Mint.
Bottom right of screen near clock you will find three English keyboards. A US, an Australian and a UK.
Select UK and Show Keyboard Layout.
RH Alt + M = µ
RH Alt + Shift + Q = Ω
so, you can have: 49⅝µF & 841⅞Ω 
1 Like
RH Alt + M = µ
RH Alt + Shift + Q = Ω
That seems to work with Fedora 35 and KDE, so probably not only Mint specific.
Edit: I should of course have added that this is in swedish (=finnish) keyboard layout…
I haven’t tried out other keyboard layouts to see if they work the same.
1 Like
The OP states using Mint and I also use Mint. I didn’t look further.
Good to know Fedora 35 & KDE also work.
I wonder what else has a UK keyboard giving the same result?
Current desktop operating systems usually support an emoji input method which will let you search emojis (and other symbols) by name and/or chose them from a table.
On Windows, press win + . to open this panel.
On Linux using IBus, press ctrl + . (or ctrl + shift + e for some older versions) to enter emoji input mode, indicated by an underlined e. Type whatever you want to search for and press space to open the panel. This needs the appropriate package(s) like ibus-table-emoji or similar, depending on your distribution.
1 Like
On my Debian Linux machines, I run “xkbsetup -variant mac” which remaps my keyboard to let the right-Alt access a bunch of symbols, including µ and Ω.
Adding non-standard symbols is likely to break less well tested software. A Ω symbol hosed an early BOM script I was using and adds an unnecessary extra point of failure. Fine to add it to documentation and text but I would steer clear of using it in any file that will need to be parsed by an external program.
EDIT
Here, look what happened in another recent post - and this is in a well tested program & likely at UTF-8 issue. Now, I’m not saying it was related to an Ω or a µ symbol but it increases your chance of problems.
1 Like
RH Alt + M = µ
RH Alt + Shift + Q = Ω
This also works in Ubuntu with UK keyboard.
I second the posts that suggest to avoid such characters in symbol fields. In graphics text, fine. In my early days I religiously added Ω and F to component values. I did run into problems with an external program. Many programs out there haven’t properly transitioned from Latin-1 to UTF-8. Furthermore as mentioned, it just lengthens the text on the schematic. There is no ambiguity anyway.
But UTF-8 characters elsewhere, go for it. 
1 Like
The immediate need is to produce a document to illustrate to my students how to solve a Super Position problem. It just simply looks better to have Ohm symbol on the schematic.
All of my other schematics I’ve only needed to make PCBs from them and extracting a simple BOM, I see no issue with having the symbols in the schematic.
Thanks all for the reply’s, I’ve used the Character Map program to insert them without any problems.
OtG
I feel somewhat compelled to weigh in but I guess my opinion is a lonely one. I like to use engineering notation, so 4K7 becomes 4.7e+3 and 22 nF becomes 22e-9. The advantage to those is that a spreadsheet (at least Microsoft Excel) can directly read it as a numerical value. In my lab, the components are grouped according to numerical value so this facilitates the build process. Also…if you do stick to some sort of numerical value then that eliminates the issue of your spreadsheet considering 22 nF as distinct from 0.022 uF as different from .022 uF (dropping the leading zero.)
I don’t understand why humans would use cryptic 0.022uF/.022uF instead of 22nF, sounds like modern C++ where cryptic syntax has become innovation.
I don’t know enough about C++ to understand the reference, but if you browse ceramic chip capacitors at Mouser Electronics you see this. I am not defending it, but I have seen worse. We know that capacitors are rated in Farads and resistors in ohms, so why not drop the unit and just use a real number?
Given that choice, I do prefer 22 nF over 0.022 uF. (Oh but what about 22 nF versus 22n and 22nF?) But my point is that there is a real lack of standardization in nomenclature, and for a non-programmer such as me, my computer will take all of them as different text fields.
If your job is 150 kM from your house, you might rent a cheap room and drive ohm on Faraday, right?
4 Likes
The mods don’t really like to silence people (Discourse jail), but you are pushing your luck here. 
1 Like
I think it might be due to historical marking of physical capacitors. Larger capacitors like electrolytics were marked in micro-farads and the smaller, disk ceramic capacitors were marked in pico-farads using either colored notches (really old caps) or a number code read in the same way as resistors but as a quantity of pico-farads. The physical capacitors were never (or hardly ever) marked in nano-farads so the early electronics references that I learned from rarely used nF so I (and I would presume my contemporaries) never got into the habit of using nF. Granted, I’m no EE, I only have an Associate’s degree in EET.
Same here. I worked for a large multinational that offered tuition reimbursement to all employees. They never really though us low life, non-management worker bee types would actually use it though. They paid for ‘hobby’ in my case.
Historical or hysterical?
Years ago the term “micro micro farads” was commonly used. Pretty obtuse, huh?
I think that Bob Pease (or was it Jim Williams) also had no 4 year degree. Incompetent, all of you! (I am kidding.)
On macOS (Monteray) you can use fn-E to enter emoji and symbols in many applications. The Ω and µ are on the “letterlike symbols” page. However, it doesn’t seem to work in most of the KiCad text entry fields even though the “Emoji and Symbols” item appears under the Edit menu in the KiCad applications
I remember nano becoming common in the 70s. My older colleaues used micro-micro and 0.001 micro. Very hard to read.
The exponential version would be useless in the component shops and I struggle to interpret them in my head
e-12 pico
e-9 nano
e-6 micro
e-3 milli
e+3 kilo
e+6 meg
e+9 gig
Is this all so e+12 tera (bul)? 
I continue to be impressed with how niche-y knowledge and expertise can be. I typically use spreadsheets for my electronics calculations, (or my old HP11C calculator) and use engineering notation either way. (Microsoft as typical obfuscates by not calling it that.) But anyway I go back and forth with the above equivalents without thinking. However I am very limited in the digital realm and find that I am bad with any programming. Python is either Monty or a snake.