[USMA 310] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

[John Altounji]

I agree.  Here is a thermometer pic from the internet that I edited.

John Altounji
One size does not fit all.
Social promotion ruined Education.
http://bit.do/tounj

From: USMA [mailto:usma-boun...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Henschel
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:21 PM
To: Kaimbridge M. GoldChild 
Cc: US Metric Assn M 
Subject: [USMA 305] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

Don't make this into hard work. 30 is hot, 20 is nice, 10 is chilly, 0 is ice. 
No temperature scale is perfect, but this one works much better than Fahrenheit 
since it is based on water and not ammonia.

Mark Henschel

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Kaimbridge M. GoldChild 
> wrote:
In terms of temperature measurement, it would seem that both the Fahrenheit 
*and* Celsius scales are flawed.
In angle measurement, there is the raw radian—where 1 radian along a circleʼs 
circumference equals its radius—and two other, more user friendly magnitudes, 
the degree (D°) and centesimal degree, or gradian (Hᵍ):

1ᵍ = .9°;  1° = 1.11...ᵍ;

Right Angle =  90° = 100ᵍ;
 Straight Angle = 180° = 200ᵍ;
 Full Angle = 360° = 400ᵍ;

There are two modern temperature scales in use today, both based
on angle measurement, and each having two different rates/intervals with 
different baselines or “offsets”—two for degrees (Fahrenheit, “°F”, and 
Rankine, “°R”) and two for gradians (Celsius, “°C”, and Kelvin, “K”, with no 
“ᵍ” or “°”).
Both Rankine and Kelvin are based on 0 being absolute zero (i.e.,
all thermal motion ceases), while Celsius is based on 0 being the
freezing point of water and Fahrenheit being the lowest freezing
point for brine (a specific salt water mixture).
One flaw (or at least discrepancy) is that the freezing-boiling point spread 
for Fahrenheit is 180°/200ᵍ (a straight angle), while for Celsius it is only 
90°/100ᵍ (a right angle).
And with Fahrenheit, there is the “+32” offset.
Back when they adjusted and made Celsius the SI temperature
standard, wouldnʼt it have been better to create a “straight angle” 
degree/gradian set (where º = Crtl+Shft+BA
and ᵍ = Crtl+Shft+1D4D), D°S or just Dº equals HᵍS or just Hᵍ, and have either 
just gotten rid of the “32” and designated Fahrenheit as being from 0-180° 
(rather than 32-212°) and used that as the standard, or—if they particularly 
wanted a gradian based scale—double what is now known as Celsius, so it would 
range from 0-200ᵍ, thereby making it more precise than Fahrenheit (since 1ᵍ = 
.9° and 1 °C = 2ᵍS = 1.8°S),
thus 45º = 45°S = 77 °F = 25 °C = 50ᵍS = 50ᵍ?
(Since it is a direct angle based scale, I would suggest that there be no space 
between the number and °S/ᵍS.)
Or, if they wanted a degree scale corresponding to the gradian Celsius, reduce 
Fahrenheit to half its size, without the offset: 1 °F_h = 2 °F, thus having a 
freezing-boiling point range of 0-90°F_h (0-100ᵍ)—though, as sometimes Celsius 
is expressed in half increments, I would think either 0-180º or 0-200ᵍ would be 
the best scale.
From all this, the following temperatures relate as such:

 [ -491.67º =-459.67 °F = 0 °R = 0 K =-273.15 °C = -546.3ᵍ ]
|   |  | |   |
  0º =  32 °F = 491.67 °R = 273.15 K =   0 °C =   0ᵍ
  9º =  41 °F = 500.67 °R = 278.15 K =   5 °C =  10ᵍ
 18º =  50 °F = 509.67 °R = 283.15 K =  10 °C =  20ᵍ
 
   22.5º =54.5 °F = 514.17 °R = 285.65 K =12.5 °C =  25ᵍ
 30º =  62 °F = 521.67 °R ≈ 289.82 K ≈16.7 °C ≈33.3ᵍ
 45º =  77 °F = 536.67 °R = 298.15 K =  25 °C =  50ᵍ
 60º =  92 °F = 551.67 °R ≈ 306.48 K ≈33.3 °C ≈66.7ᵍ
   66.6º =98.6 °F = 558.27 °R = 310.15 K =  37 °C =  74ᵍ
   67.5º =99.5 °F = 559.17 °R = 310.65 K =37.5 °C =  75ᵍ
 
 70º = 102 °F = 561.67 °R ≈ 312.05 K ≈38.9 °C ≈77.8ᵍ
 90º = 122 °F = 581.67 °R = 323.15 K =  50 °C = 100ᵍ
180º = 212 °F = 671.67 °R = 373.15 K = 100 °C = 200ᵍ

Thus the extreme human “comfort zone” is about 25-75ᵍ (22.5-67.5º), with a 
narrower, more moderate “comfort zone” of about 30-60º (33.3-66.7ᵍ)!
Is/was such a °S and/or ᵍS scale in use or ever considered?
Finally, on the USMA temperature page, it says that “the freezing and boiling 
temperatures of water are whole numbers, but not round numbers as in the 
Celsius temperature scale”.
What does that mean?

 ~Kaimbridge~

-- -- --
 Wiki—Sites Contribution History Pages:

   
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 
math.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 
wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge

[USMA 306] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

[john]

Good luck with selling that to the rest of the world. And all for marginal 
benefit (if in fact there is any practical benefit at all).


-Original Message- 
From: Kaimbridge M. GoldChild

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:05 PM
To: US Metric Assn M
Subject: [USMA 303] Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

In terms of temperature measurement, it would seem that both the
Fahrenheit *and* Celsius scales are flawed.
In angle measurement, there is the raw radian—where 1 radian
along a circleʼs circumference equals its radius—and two other,
more user friendly magnitudes, the degree (D°) and centesimal
degree, or gradian (Hᵍ):

1ᵍ = .9°;  1° = 1.11...ᵍ;

Right Angle =  90° = 100ᵍ;
 Straight Angle = 180° = 200ᵍ;
 Full Angle = 360° = 400ᵍ;

There are two modern temperature scales in use today, both based
on angle measurement, and each having two different
rates/intervals with different baselines or “offsets”—two for
degrees (Fahrenheit, “°F”, and Rankine, “°R”) and two for
gradians (Celsius, “°C”, and Kelvin, “K”, with no “ᵍ” or “°”).
Both Rankine and Kelvin are based on 0 being absolute zero (i.e.,
all thermal motion ceases), while Celsius is based on 0 being the
freezing point of water and Fahrenheit being the lowest freezing
point for brine (a specific salt water mixture).
One flaw (or at least discrepancy) is that the freezing-boiling
point spread for Fahrenheit is 180°/200ᵍ (a straight angle),
while for Celsius it is only 90°/100ᵍ (a right angle).
And with Fahrenheit, there is the “+32” offset.
Back when they adjusted and made Celsius the SI temperature
standard, wouldnʼt it have been better to create a “straight
angle” degree/gradian set (where º = Crtl+Shft+BA
and ᵍ = Crtl+Shft+1D4D), D°S or just Dº equals HᵍS or just Hᵍ,
and have either just gotten rid of the “32” and designated
Fahrenheit as being from 0-180° (rather than 32-212°) and used
that as the standard, or—if they particularly wanted a gradian
based scale—double what is now known as Celsius, so it would
range from 0-200ᵍ, thereby making it more precise than Fahrenheit
(since 1ᵍ = .9° and 1 °C = 2ᵍS = 1.8°S),
thus 45º = 45°S = 77 °F = 25 °C = 50ᵍS = 50ᵍ?
(Since it is a direct angle based scale, I would suggest that
there be no space between the number and °S/ᵍS.)
Or, if they wanted a degree scale corresponding to the gradian
Celsius, reduce Fahrenheit to half its size, without the offset:
1 °F_h = 2 °F, thus having a freezing-boiling point range of
0-90°F_h (0-100ᵍ)—though, as sometimes Celsius is expressed in
half increments, I would think either 0-180º or 0-200ᵍ would be
the best scale.
From all this, the following temperatures relate as such:

 [ -491.67º =-459.67 °F = 0 °R = 0 K =-273.15 °C = -546.3ᵍ ]
|   |  | |   |
  0º =  32 °F = 491.67 °R = 273.15 K =   0 °C =   0ᵍ
  9º =  41 °F = 500.67 °R = 278.15 K =   5 °C =  10ᵍ
 18º =  50 °F = 509.67 °R = 283.15 K =  10 °C =  20ᵍ
 
   22.5º =54.5 °F = 514.17 °R = 285.65 K =12.5 °C =  25ᵍ
 30º =  62 °F = 521.67 °R ≈ 289.82 K ≈16.7 °C ≈33.3ᵍ
 45º =  77 °F = 536.67 °R = 298.15 K =  25 °C =  50ᵍ
 60º =  92 °F = 551.67 °R ≈ 306.48 K ≈33.3 °C ≈66.7ᵍ
   66.6º =98.6 °F = 558.27 °R = 310.15 K =  37 °C =  74ᵍ
   67.5º =99.5 °F = 559.17 °R = 310.65 K =37.5 °C =  75ᵍ
 
 70º = 102 °F = 561.67 °R ≈ 312.05 K ≈38.9 °C ≈77.8ᵍ
 90º = 122 °F = 581.67 °R = 323.15 K =  50 °C = 100ᵍ
180º = 212 °F = 671.67 °R = 373.15 K = 100 °C = 200ᵍ

Thus the extreme human “comfort zone” is about 25-75ᵍ
(22.5-67.5º), with a narrower, more moderate “comfort zone” of
about 30-60º (33.3-66.7ᵍ)!
Is/was such a °S and/or ᵍS scale in use or ever considered?
Finally, on the USMA temperature page, it says that “the freezing
and boiling temperatures of water are whole numbers, but not
round numbers as in the Celsius temperature scale”.
What does that mean?

 ~Kaimbridge~

-- -- --
 Wiki—Sites Contribution History Pages:

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 math.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
rosettacode.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge

 *  Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer.  *

___
USMA mailing list
USMA@colostate.edu
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
USMA mailing list
USMA@colostate.edu
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma

[USMA 307] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

[Al Lawrence]

I agree.  People who are technically correct make it seem complicated and 
confusing and are counterproductive when it comes to the real world and when 
promoting the metric system


Al Lawrence






From: USMA  on behalf of Mark Henschel 

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:21 PM
To: Kaimbridge M. GoldChild
Cc: US Metric Assn M
Subject: [USMA 305] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

Don't make this into hard work. 30 is hot, 20 is nice, 10 is chilly, 0 is ice. 
No temperature scale is perfect, but this one works much better than Fahrenheit 
since it is based on water and not ammonia.

Mark Henschel

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Kaimbridge M. GoldChild 
> wrote:
In terms of temperature measurement, it would seem that both the Fahrenheit 
*and* Celsius scales are flawed.
In angle measurement, there is the raw radian—where 1 radian along a circleʼs 
circumference equals its radius—and two other, more user friendly magnitudes, 
the degree (D°) and centesimal degree, or gradian (Hᵍ):

1ᵍ = .9°;  1° = 1.11...ᵍ;

Right Angle =  90° = 100ᵍ;
 Straight Angle = 180° = 200ᵍ;
 Full Angle = 360° = 400ᵍ;

There are two modern temperature scales in use today, both based
on angle measurement, and each having two different rates/intervals with 
different baselines or “offsets”—two for degrees (Fahrenheit, “°F”, and 
Rankine, “°R”) and two for gradians (Celsius, “°C”, and Kelvin, “K”, with no 
“ᵍ” or “°”).
Both Rankine and Kelvin are based on 0 being absolute zero (i.e.,
all thermal motion ceases), while Celsius is based on 0 being the
freezing point of water and Fahrenheit being the lowest freezing
point for brine (a specific salt water mixture).
One flaw (or at least discrepancy) is that the freezing-boiling point spread 
for Fahrenheit is 180°/200ᵍ (a straight angle), while for Celsius it is only 
90°/100ᵍ (a right angle).
And with Fahrenheit, there is the “+32” offset.
Back when they adjusted and made Celsius the SI temperature
standard, wouldnʼt it have been better to create a “straight angle” 
degree/gradian set (where º = Crtl+Shft+BA
and ᵍ = Crtl+Shft+1D4D), D°S or just Dº equals HᵍS or just Hᵍ, and have either 
just gotten rid of the “32” and designated Fahrenheit as being from 0-180° 
(rather than 32-212°) and used that as the standard, or—if they particularly 
wanted a gradian based scale—double what is now known as Celsius, so it would 
range from 0-200ᵍ, thereby making it more precise than Fahrenheit (since 1ᵍ = 
.9° and 1 °C = 2ᵍS = 1.8°S),
thus 45º = 45°S = 77 °F = 25 °C = 50ᵍS = 50ᵍ?
(Since it is a direct angle based scale, I would suggest that there be no space 
between the number and °S/ᵍS.)
Or, if they wanted a degree scale corresponding to the gradian Celsius, reduce 
Fahrenheit to half its size, without the offset: 1 °F_h = 2 °F, thus having a 
freezing-boiling point range of 0-90°F_h (0-100ᵍ)—though, as sometimes Celsius 
is expressed in half increments, I would think either 0-180º or 0-200ᵍ would be 
the best scale.
From all this, the following temperatures relate as such:

 [ -491.67º =-459.67 °F = 0 °R = 0 K =-273.15 °C = -546.3ᵍ ]
|   |  | |   |
  0º =  32 °F = 491.67 °R = 273.15 K =   0 °C =   0ᵍ
  9º =  41 °F = 500.67 °R = 278.15 K =   5 °C =  10ᵍ
 18º =  50 °F = 509.67 °R = 283.15 K =  10 °C =  20ᵍ
 
   22.5º =54.5 °F = 514.17 °R = 285.65 K =12.5 °C =  25ᵍ
 30º =  62 °F = 521.67 °R ≈ 289.82 K ≈16.7 °C ≈33.3ᵍ
 45º =  77 °F = 536.67 °R = 298.15 K =  25 °C =  50ᵍ
 60º =  92 °F = 551.67 °R ≈ 306.48 K ≈33.3 °C ≈66.7ᵍ
   66.6º =98.6 °F = 558.27 °R = 310.15 K =  37 °C =  74ᵍ
   67.5º =99.5 °F = 559.17 °R = 310.65 K =37.5 °C =  75ᵍ
 
 70º = 102 °F = 561.67 °R ≈ 312.05 K ≈38.9 °C ≈77.8ᵍ
 90º = 122 °F = 581.67 °R = 323.15 K =  50 °C = 100ᵍ
180º = 212 °F = 671.67 °R = 373.15 K = 100 °C = 200ᵍ

Thus the extreme human “comfort zone” is about 25-75ᵍ (22.5-67.5º), with a 
narrower, more moderate “comfort zone” of about 30-60º (33.3-66.7ᵍ)!
Is/was such a °S and/or ᵍS scale in use or ever considered?
Finally, on the USMA temperature page, it says that “the freezing and boiling 
temperatures of water are whole numbers, but not round numbers as in the 
Celsius temperature scale”.
What does that mean?

 ~Kaimbridge~

-- -- --
 Wiki—Sites Contribution History Pages:

   
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 
math.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 
wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge

[USMA 309] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 20:05:27 Kaimbridge M. GoldChild wrote:
> In terms of temperature measurement, it would seem that both the
> Fahrenheit *and* Celsius scales are flawed.
> In angle measurement, there is the raw radian—where 1 radian
> along a circleʼs circumference equals its radius—and two other,
> more user friendly magnitudes, the degree (D°) and centesimal
> degree, or gradian (Hᵍ):
> 
>  1ᵍ = .9°;  1° = 1.11...ᵍ;
> 
>  Right Angle =  90° = 100ᵍ;
>   Straight Angle = 180° = 200ᵍ;
>   Full Angle = 360° = 400ᵍ;
> 
> There are two modern temperature scales in use today, both based
> on angle measurement, and each having two different
> rates/intervals with different baselines or “offsets”—two for
> degrees (Fahrenheit, “°F”, and Rankine, “°R”) and two for
> gradians (Celsius, “°C”, and Kelvin, “K”, with no “ᵍ” or “°”).
> Both Rankine and Kelvin are based on 0 being absolute zero (i.e.,
> all thermal motion ceases), while Celsius is based on 0 being the
> freezing point of water and Fahrenheit being the lowest freezing
> point for brine (a specific salt water mixture).
> One flaw (or at least discrepancy) is that the freezing-boiling
> point spread for Fahrenheit is 180°/200ᵍ (a straight angle),
> while for Celsius it is only 90°/100ᵍ (a right angle).

Degrees of temperature have nothing to do with degrees of angle. There are 
also degrees Brix and degrees Baumé, which have nothing to do with temperature 
or angle.

> And with Fahrenheit, there is the “+32” offset.
> Back when they adjusted and made Celsius the SI temperature
> standard, wouldnʼt it have been better to create a “straight
> angle” degree/gradian set (where º = Crtl+Shft+BA
> and ᵍ = Crtl+Shft+1D4D), D°S or just Dº equals HᵍS or just Hᵍ,

What OS and desktop environment are you using? On mine, I type ° by typing 
compose-o-o.

Pierre

-- 
The gostak pelled at the fostin lutt for darfs for her martle plave.
The darfs had smibbed, the lutt was thale, and the pilter had nothing snave.

___
USMA mailing list
USMA@colostate.edu
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma

[USMA 308] Re: Fahrenheit-Celsius Both Flawed

[James]

I think that you are starting from a false premise:

There are two modern temperature scales in use today, both based
on angle measurement...


Jim

On 2016-08-31 15:05, Kaimbridge M. GoldChild wrote:

In terms of temperature measurement, it would seem that both the
Fahrenheit *and* Celsius scales are flawed.
In angle measurement, there is the raw radian—where 1 radian along a
circleʼs circumference equals its radius—and two other, more user
friendly magnitudes, the degree (D°) and centesimal degree, or gradian
(Hᵍ):

1ᵍ = .9°;  1° = 1.11...ᵍ;

Right Angle =  90° = 100ᵍ;
 Straight Angle = 180° = 200ᵍ;
 Full Angle = 360° = 400ᵍ;

There are two modern temperature scales in use today, both based
on angle measurement, and each having two different rates/intervals with
different baselines or “offsets”—two for degrees (Fahrenheit, “°F”, and
Rankine, “°R”) and two for gradians (Celsius, “°C”, and Kelvin, “K”,
with no “ᵍ” or “°”).
Both Rankine and Kelvin are based on 0 being absolute zero (i.e.,
all thermal motion ceases), while Celsius is based on 0 being the
freezing point of water and Fahrenheit being the lowest freezing
point for brine (a specific salt water mixture).
One flaw (or at least discrepancy) is that the freezing-boiling point
spread for Fahrenheit is 180°/200ᵍ (a straight angle), while for Celsius
it is only 90°/100ᵍ (a right angle).
And with Fahrenheit, there is the “+32” offset.
Back when they adjusted and made Celsius the SI temperature
standard, wouldnʼt it have been better to create a “straight angle”
degree/gradian set (where º = Crtl+Shft+BA
and ᵍ = Crtl+Shft+1D4D), D°S or just Dº equals HᵍS or just Hᵍ, and have
either just gotten rid of the “32” and designated Fahrenheit as being
from 0-180° (rather than 32-212°) and used that as the standard, or—if
they particularly wanted a gradian based scale—double what is now known
as Celsius, so it would range from 0-200ᵍ, thereby making it more
precise than Fahrenheit (since 1ᵍ = .9° and 1 °C = 2ᵍS = 1.8°S),
thus 45º = 45°S = 77 °F = 25 °C = 50ᵍS = 50ᵍ?
(Since it is a direct angle based scale, I would suggest that there be
no space between the number and °S/ᵍS.)
Or, if they wanted a degree scale corresponding to the gradian Celsius,
reduce Fahrenheit to half its size, without the offset: 1 °F_h = 2 °F,
thus having a freezing-boiling point range of 0-90°F_h (0-100ᵍ)—though,
as sometimes Celsius is expressed in half increments, I would think
either 0-180º or 0-200ᵍ would be the best scale.
From all this, the following temperatures relate as such:

 [ -491.67º =-459.67 °F = 0 °R = 0 K =-273.15 °C = -546.3ᵍ ]
|   |  | |   |
  0º =  32 °F = 491.67 °R = 273.15 K =   0 °C =   0ᵍ
  9º =  41 °F = 500.67 °R = 278.15 K =   5 °C =  10ᵍ
 18º =  50 °F = 509.67 °R = 283.15 K =  10 °C =  20ᵍ
 
   22.5º =54.5 °F = 514.17 °R = 285.65 K =12.5 °C =  25ᵍ
 30º =  62 °F = 521.67 °R ≈ 289.82 K ≈16.7 °C ≈33.3ᵍ
 45º =  77 °F = 536.67 °R = 298.15 K =  25 °C =  50ᵍ
 60º =  92 °F = 551.67 °R ≈ 306.48 K ≈33.3 °C ≈66.7ᵍ
   66.6º =98.6 °F = 558.27 °R = 310.15 K =  37 °C =  74ᵍ
   67.5º =99.5 °F = 559.17 °R = 310.65 K =37.5 °C =  75ᵍ
 
 70º = 102 °F = 561.67 °R ≈ 312.05 K ≈38.9 °C ≈77.8ᵍ
 90º = 122 °F = 581.67 °R = 323.15 K =  50 °C = 100ᵍ
180º = 212 °F = 671.67 °R = 373.15 K = 100 °C = 200ᵍ

Thus the extreme human “comfort zone” is about 25-75ᵍ (22.5-67.5º), with
a narrower, more moderate “comfort zone” of about 30-60º (33.3-66.7ᵍ)!
Is/was such a °S and/or ᵍS scale in use or ever considered?
Finally, on the USMA temperature page, it says that “the freezing and
boiling temperatures of water are whole numbers, but not round numbers
as in the Celsius temperature scale”.
What does that mean?

 ~Kaimbridge~

-- -- --
 Wiki—Sites Contribution History Pages:

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 math.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
 wiki.gis.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge
rosettacode.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaimbridge

 *  Void Where Permitted; Limit 0 Per Customer.  *

___
USMA mailing list
USMA@colostate.edu
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma



--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stoney Point Mountain Road
Doyle TN 38559-3030

(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
___
USMA mailing list
USMA@colostate.edu
https://lists.colostate.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usma