Joe, At the top of that mail (USMA 24766) I placed the following remarks, which you must have missed:: "Found this in to-day's Irish Times. Only the '600 F' mentioned is 60 degrees F, otherwise I would not understand this letter. I have copied the sentence that was really on the front page on February 3: "The rise was most marked -- 60 degrees Fahrenheit (15.5 Celsius) - on the mid-fuselage and particularly around the left wheel well as Columbia crossed California."
In fact, this was a rise of 60 Fahrenheit degrees, which would have been a better expression; and that is equal to 33.3 Celsius degrees. This is a difference in temperature, and sometimes I see that expressed in kelvins, also in weather reports. Han Han ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2003-02-07 15:37 Subject: [USMA:24769] Re: Another pro-metric letter in Irish Times > Han Maenen wrote in USMA 24766: > > > > The report refers to a rise in temperature of 600 Fahrenheit, and converts this into 15.50 Celsius. Now a temperature in the atmosphere of 600 F does indeed represent 15.50 C. However, the two temperatures scales do not share a common zero point, and a temperature of zero Fahrenheit represents a temperature of minus 17.80 Celsius. Thus, a rise in temperature of 600 F converts into a rise of (15.5 + 17.8)0 C, i.e. 33.30 Celsius. > > > > I don't understand this. I get that a temperature rise of 600�F is a temperature rise of 333�C, but that a temperature of 600�F is a temperature of 316�C. > -- > Joseph B. Reid > 17 Glebe Road West > Toronto M5P 1C8 Telephone 416-486-6071 > > >
