h a l f b a k e r yIt might be better to just get another gerbil.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
It happens that 40 degrees below zero is the exact same
temperature on both the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature
scales. Here's some background info, just because (feel free to
skip next
two paragraphs)
Fahrenheit marked as zero the lowest temperature he could
reach
in his laboratory;
I have no idea why he thought a lower
temperature couldn't be achieved someday. The size of the
temperature unit he picked was based on him using a mercury
thermometer --it was accurate enough to allow fairly fine
temperature divisions-- he decided to use 180 units between
the freezing and
boiling points of water. 180 is one of those numbers that has a
great many possible divisors....
Celsius came along about the time the metric system was
popularized, and decided that 100 units of temperature between
the freezing and boiling points of water made more sense in
that
context.
The -40 temperature thing is basically a coincidence (could
possibly be used to DEFINE "co-incidence"). To convert a
temperature from either scale to the other, first add 40. Then
either multiply (from F to C) by 5/9 or multiply (from C to F)
by
9/5; the fraction is related to ratio between 180 and 100.
Finally,
subtract 40.
This Idea proposes that the "-40" temperature be declared "zero"
on both scales. All measurements on either scale would then
permanently be values 40 degrees higher than before. (And
compared to doing other conversions of historical recorded
data, this would be super-easy.) Converting
between the two scales becomes simplified (just multiply by
5/9
or
9/5, nothing more).
I'm linking a cartoon in which it is claimed that temperatures in
the 70s somehow "feel better" for people used to the Fahrenheit
system. Well, if all temperatures on that scale were 40 degrees
hotter, the numbers might now "feel uncomfortable", and
encourage a switch to Celsius --and because all temps on that
scale are now also 40 degrees higher, a "room temperature" like
25C becomes 65C --a numerical value close to what Fahrenheit
users are used to "feeling".
I'm sorry that the Celsius users won't feel so comfortable (but
mentally converting any "new" temperature to the old scale is
super-easy ...). I
expect they'll eventually get used to it. And more sooner than
later, the Fahrenheit
scale
can be simply thrown away, with everyone using the modified
Celsius scale.
Temperature Cartoon
http://www.xkcd.com/1643/
As mentioned in the main text. [Vernon, Feb 15 2016]
Standards
http://www.xkcd.com/927/
[scad mientist, Feb 15 2016]
Planck temperature scale
https://en.wikipedi.../Planck_temperature
[the porpoise, Feb 16 2016]
Boiling point vs. altitude
http://www.engineer...ltitude-d_1344.html
Relevant [8th of 7, Feb 16 2016]
[link]
|
| |
So a fraction of mankind uses a particularly archaic standard of measurement, and therefore everyone else should change? |
|
| |
I think not. Get with the (metric) programme. |
|
| |
Happy to go straight to Kelvin scale for temperature, but the ".15" thing would get annoying. |
|
| |
I think the last generation of Fahrenheiters are
already shuffling to the grave, so this issue will soon
go away. |
|
| |
[whine] But they're training their grandkids to machine stuff in imperial! They're still making imperial fasteners, and measuring stuff in a /64 inch scale instead of millimetres like the rest of the world [/whine]. |
|
| |
The United States of Archaica is the obvious candidate. A vigorous programme of culling is indicated; they're just not killing one another fast enough. |
|
| |
Creative relabeling of gas stations in the 70's just led to
customers asking for "just enough liters to get me to a station
that sells gallons". It's hard to fight inertia. |
|
| |
Yes, it's strange that "inertia" and "momentum" are
synonymous amongst physicists, yet are antonyms in
Anglo-British relations. |
|
| |
You want something new then make room-temperature the new zero, so everybody whose comfort zone isn't centered all the time will feel a bit odd and need therapy. |
|
| |
No. I like my house set to 72. Not 71.6, and not 73.4. And
I'm sure as hell not going to resort to adding a decimal point
to delineate degree measurements. |
|
| |
Surely, in the spirit of the 'bakery, you could go for 22
1/2 °C? Or, if your attachment to older units is so
deep, how about twenty-two and thruppence
degrees? |
|
| |
What puzzles us greatly is that your species has failed to adopt a logarithmic temperature scale; your Kelvin scale, for example, has inconveniently large values for your local practical purposes, and most of the Universe is crammed into the lowest ten degrees. |
|
| |
Then again, it's one of the reasons that your show gets such consistently high ratings. And that's another puzzle; why don't you ever show up at the awards ceremonies ? |
|
| |
// It's hard to fight inertia. // |
|
| |
No it's not, if you're using a correctly-sized reaction propulsion system. |
|
| |
[Rayford], your thermostat is probably inaccurate by a few
tenths of a degree (at least) anyway. |
|
| |
The amount of temperature variation in my place is
about 4 degrees per inch anyway, so the thermostat
setting is just for decoration. But its beautiful in
theory. |
|
| |
Problems of scale would be immediately solved if we
made proper use of the elvin (0.001 Kelvin). |
|
| |
Plus everyone would feel a lot happier if they could
say "It's a quarter of a million Elvin outside today!" |
|
| |
I thought that's the word for more than one Elvis. |
|
| |
I have yet to see a convincing argument why Celsius is
better than Fahrenheit for everyday usage. For scientific
purposes, fine, but in general I don't really care how much
warmer it would need to be out for water to boil at sea
level. It makes no sense. You can't add temperatures, and it's not like there are any units other
than the
simple “degree” (i.e., nobody uses kilo-degrees or centi-degrees) so
there's no value to having standardized units as with grams,
meters, etc. |
|
| |
The choice of pure water at sea level as the reference
standard for Celsius is completely arbitrary. But with the
Fahrenheit system, most outside temperatures that you are
likely to encounter fall in the 0-100 range; anything outside
that would be extraordinary. With Celsius, the same range
is about -18 to 38. Utterly ridiculous. |
|
| |
Also, with Fahrenheit degrees being smaller, the basic unit
is about the minimum difference in temperature one can
detect. With Celsius this is not so, leading to the clumsy
use of half-degrees in many applications. |
|
| |
All so you can quickly determine that if it were X degrees
hotter, water would boil? Who cares? For that matter, who
even cares how much colder it would have to be for water
to freeze? That is completely irrelevant information—either
it's currently below freezing or it's not. |
|
| |
So what's the advantage of Celsius again, for the general
public? This is one application where the metric system
really is demonstrably worse. |
|
| |
//The -40 temperature thing is basically a coincidence (could possibly be used to DEFINE "co-incidence"). |
|
| |
That's an intersection. Coincidence is overlying. |
|
| |
The only true temperature scale is the Planck temperature scale [link]. Nobody understands exponential notation, so weather reports would round: 0 means you're fine or dead, and 1 means you're dead. Thermostats would be factory set to 0 for customer safety. It would greatly simplify things. |
|
| |
//This is one application where the metric system really is demonstrably worse. |
|
| |
Inches, cups, and pounds are also more human-friendly. |
|
| |
I agree, but there's an argument to be made that the ability
to convert easily between various measurements outweighs
the benefits of the human-scale units of the English system.
But for Celsius, there's no such advantage. It's just a less
convenient way of expressing the same thing. |
|
| |
I think the freezing point of water is highly relevant, and it
makes sense to have it be zero. |
|
| |
It makes very little difference to me whether it's 65°F or
66°F. But if it's less than 0°C I know that it might snow; that
I'll have to defrost the head gardener before he can get to
work; and that I should take the 'rover instead of the Jag. |
|
| |
Name me one other temperature, on either scale, where a
single degree's difference is generally relevant. Apart from
the 100°C needed to make a decent cup of tea, which is
what in °F? |
|
| |
//Name me one other temperature, on either scale, where
a
single degree's difference is generally relevant.// |
|
| |
Room temperature. A single degree Celsius can easily mean
the difference between comfortable and too cold. Which is
why many electronic thermostats allow you to set the
temperature in half-degree increments. Which is patently
ridiculous. |
|
| |
//But it’s everywhere. Celsius is more or less universal// |
|
| |
So we should use an inferior standard because everyone
else isn't smart enough to use something that's
unambiguously better? |
|
| |
//Which is why many electronic thermostats allow
you to set the temperature in half-degree
increments. Which is patently ridiculous.// |
|
| |
Why is that ridiculous? Are we not pleased to discuss
this on a half- rather than a whole-bakery? Give me
the answer in half an hour. |
|
| |
Everyone knows the two reference points of celsius are the boiling and melting points of water, but few people know that two reference points of fahrenheit originally were the melting point of water and body temperature. These 'constant' temperatures were positioned at 32 and 96, so there would be 64 divisions between them, to ease the production of thermometers. However at some point the scale obviously drifted by a few degrees and this fact is now totally useless. |
|
| |
//Everyone knows the two reference points of celsius are the boiling and melting
points of water// |
|
| |
Except… everybody's wrong. |
|
| |
From the 'Pedia: One effect of defining the Celsius scale at the triple point of
Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW, 273.16 K and 0.01 °C), and at
absolute zero (0 K and −273.15 °C), is that neither the melting nor boiling point of
water under one standard atmosphere (101.325 kPa) remains a defining point for
the Celsius scale. |
|
| |
The net result is that the 0-100 scale is actually slightly off, so it's really more like
0.01-99.9839. |
|
| |
Besides, my point is that even if it's “close enough”, so what? Close enough for
what purpose? It's meaningless to most people. Even for making the aforementioned
cup of tea, you don't need to know the temperature at which water boils. Just
apply heat until you see bubbles and/or hear the teakettle go off. At that point,
you can be assured that the water is indeed boiling—no need to measure it. |
|
| |
... except in the US of A, where the reference points appear to be the melting point of Donald Trump's hairspray and the boiling point of illegal Mexican immigrants ... |
|
| |