http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/fahrenheit.html
Actually Remek, if you read the article you will see that Fahrenheit kept
changing the scale. From below, he used 22.5, 90, 96, and the finally 98.6,
because 98.6 is a conversion from 37°C. He may have used 100 too.
An excerpt:
In 1708, the German physicist, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (not "Gabriel
Daniel"), visited Ole Roemer in Copenhagen. Roemer showed him the two-point
calibration system he had developed. Roemer was also testing small thermometers
designed for meteorological use which had divisions marked from 0 to 22.5 deg.
(normal blood temperature) using Roemer's scale.
Fahrenheit was so impressed with Roemer's thermometers and the two-point
calibration scale that he adopted them for use back in Germany. While it
appears that Fahrenheit used the same lower calibration point as that of
Roemer, it is clear (from a letter written by Fahrenheit to Boerhaave in 1729
and rediscovered in 1936) that Fahrenheit used Roemer's 22.5 deg ("normal body
temperature") as the upper point. From a 1724 paper, Fahrenheit determined the
upper point either in the mouth or under the armpit (the third alternative
technique was not noted :-)). It is not clear whether Fahrenheit (or Roemer)
distinguished a male or female body temperature (in his Latin paper Fahrenheit
used the word "hominis").
Fahrenheit later multiplied Roemer's scale numbers by four for easier reading.
This made the melting point of ice 30 deg. and body temperature 90 deg.
Eventually Fahrenheit adjusted the calibration points to 32 (ice melting point)
and 96 (body temperature) to simplify marking the scale divisions (i.e., 64
divisions). Thus the boiling point of water would be measured experimentally
near 212 deg. Later, the b.p. of water, at a fixed atmospheric pressure, was
used as the upper calibration point of 212, returning to Roemer's initial
calibration concept. (With these two calibration points, the experimentally
determined temperature of a healthy person is now accepted to be approximately
98.6 deg.)
Fahrenheit's scale is typical of the history of imperial. Definitions changed
at whim over time an place.
Did you read the article about 0°F below?
Dan
----- Original Message ----
From: Remek Kocz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 6:38:46 PM
Subject: Re: [USMA:38184] RE: One
Dan, chill a bit OK? (Pun intended). This is actually an interesting topic.
My cousin who is an inorganic chemist, told me that Fahrenheit screwed up with
the original 100 degrees. He had a bit of a fever the day he measured his
body temperature, but Mr. Fahrenheit's 100 degrees stuck, and we ended up with
a ridiculous 98.6F. Can anyone confirm this? I certainly don't remember this
from my chemistry days, but then again, Fahrenheit wasn't even mentioned in my
curriculum.
Remek
On 3/13/07, Daniel Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fahrenheit is not only inaccurate, it is in error. Fahrenheit originally chose
96° as human body temperature. He also wanted zero to be the coldest a
salt-water mixture could be before it froze. That also proved to be in error.
Thus the whole Fahrenheit scale is in error.
See:
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/zero-fahrenheit.shtml
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
