On Mon, 07 May 2001 22:21:35 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Hi Clarence:
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:27 -0500, Clarence Verge wrote:
>> I don't mind the metric system in all other respects, but the Centigrade/
>> Celsius temperature scale is just plain stupid for relating to the human
>> sensations.
>> With F you know that 0 is bloody cold and 100 is too damn hot - the degrees
>> of discomfort are about the same, and you will survive.
> This is an interesting point for you to make, but who are you as an
> individual living in a temperate climate zone to arbitrarily say that zero
> degrees is the point at which it becomes bloody cold and a hundred degrees is
> the exact mark when it is too damn hot for the human body to well withstand
> without considerable discomfort? An Eskimo or an African tribesman might
> have a quite different perception as to when it is bloody cold or when it is
> too damn hot. Their sensations are just as valid to them as your sensations
> are to you. One's chances of surviving the heat or the cold are dirctly
> related to the particular climate to which his body has become accustomed.
Well Sam, I agree with your comments re perception of discomfort, but
the survivability is independant of adaptation at those temperatures
assuming reasonable attire and no wind chill.
>> With C you find 0 rather pleasant and at 100 you've been dead a long time.
> With C, 0 is when water freezes and 100 is when water boils (assuming
> a sea level mean atmospheric pressure of 30 milibars). This is a most
> clearly defined scientific standard that all of us can universally relate
> to. There are absolutely no subjective sensations involved in our
> judgement here.
That's the point. Regardless of your adaptation, the comfort range in C
or K is very small compared to our ability to discriminate.
> <snip>
> So, Kelvin is based on the point at which nothing happens. Celsius is
> based on the points at which water changes states from liquid to solid or
> to gaseous form. Both the Kelvin scales and the Celsius scales are
> scientifically defined. They both make perfect sense to me.
As the size of a degree is the same in both systems, and neither relate
adequately to human sensations, the C scale is redundant/pointless IMHO.
> Does anyone know when and how and by whom the Farenheit scale was developed?
> Is the Farenheit scale based on any scientific observations or theory, or is
> it just an arbitrary scale based on somebody's subjective sensations as to
> what's hot and what's not?
The Fahrenheit scale was arrived at by an interesting series of mistakes.
Fahrenheit, German by birth, thought he was using a method described by
a contempory Dane, Roemer to calibrate his thermometers. He got the zero
point right - it was the coldest temperature they could regularly achieve
in the early 1700s - obtained by mixing ice and salt.
The first mistake was the high point which he misunderstood to be "BLOOD"
heat.
The next happened when the scale was modified (rationalized) to put the
high point an even multiple of the freezing point of water which was 32.
This now made blood heat 96. (wrong u say?)
Finally, an inaccurate measurment he made of the boiling point of water
came out to 212 on his scale. This number later became accepted as the
high point for calibration which, when measured properly, finally resulted
in blood heat being 98.6F.
It WAS the 1700s and you have to admit there appears to be some human
element in the calibration - the LACK of which is what I complained
about re: "C".
> Maybe we don't really need a Farenheit scale any more than we need a
> Clarence scale.
It could be that I just don't care for any kind of "C".
Centigrade, Celsius, "C" code or the Clarence scale.
BTW, I knew about the salt ice and the blood, but I just now got the error
detail via GOOGLE. <G>
- Clarence Verge
- Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
