Amazon 7 #26 January 16, 2007 Hell I learned all of them in school ages ago...in the USA in the 1950's and 60's depending on the class you used one or the other.Its just not that hard to convert in your head what each one means.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #27 January 16, 2007 QuoteWhy couldn't I have a scale called "quade" where zero is the same as Kelvin and 100 the triple point of water? Wouldn't that have made a whole F-load more sense than 273.16K? Triple point of water at what pressure? Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #28 January 16, 2007 Kelvin makes the most sense for scientific use, but for normal temps we see from day to day Celsius is easier and actually has some sense of relativity to it. Added bonus is that these two are easily interchanged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #29 January 16, 2007 >I know that putting zero on the scale makes sense, but what else is >so magical about the Kelvin scale? Because freezing and boiling water (at a standard pressure we all use, like sea level) is a common and easy-to-understand phenomena. It's also based on a repeatable physical quantity which is nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy couldn't I have a scale called "quade" where zero is the same as Kelvin and 100 the triple point of water? Wouldn't that have made a whole F-load more sense than 273.16K? Triple point of water at what pressure? TP is defined as both a temp and pressure, so asking it is a bit embarassing for all of us to see. (If I recall correctly, it was about 800 years ago.) Edit: never heard of the Reaumur until now. learned something.... also, absolute scales don't use the term "degrees" anymore - as in 180K, not 180 degrees K ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #31 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy couldn't I have a scale called "quade" where zero is the same as Kelvin and 100 the triple point of water? Wouldn't that have made a whole F-load more sense than 273.16K? Triple point of water at what pressure? TP is defined as both a temp and pressure, so asking it is a bit embarassing for all of us to see. (If I recall correctly, it was about 800 years ago.) Edit: never heard of the Reaumur until now. learned something.... also, absolute scales don't use the term "degrees" anymore - as in 180K, not 180 degrees K Exactly!! So in response to quades suggestion of making some scale with one point at that triple point of water really makes no sense unless you specify the pressure. We'd have sliding temp scales all over the place. Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #32 January 16, 2007 Quote>I know that putting zero on the scale makes sense, but what else is >so magical about the Kelvin scale? Because freezing and boiling water (at a standard pressure we all use, like sea level) is a common and easy-to-understand phenomena. It's also based on a repeatable physical quantity which is nice. But . . . I wasn't asking about Centigrade. The good professor had made a comment about Kelvin being superior and I just don't see what is so magical about it since at the freezing point of water, the temperature of the Kelvin scale reads 273 K. At the boiling point of water, it reads 373 K. I just do not understand why the Kelvin scale is somehow superior to my mythical "quade" scale.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #33 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy couldn't I have a scale called "quade" where zero is the same as Kelvin and 100 the triple point of water? Wouldn't that have made a whole F-load more sense than 273.16K? Triple point of water at what pressure? TP is defined as both a temp and pressure, so asking it is a bit embarassing for all of us to see. (If I recall correctly, it was about 800 years ago.) Edit: never heard of the Reaumur until now. learned something.... also, absolute scales don't use the term "degrees" anymore - as in 180K, not 180 degrees K Exactly!! So in response to quades suggestion of making some scale with one point at that triple point of water really makes no sense unless you specify the pressure. We'd have sliding temp scales all over the place. The pressure IS specified at the TP.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #34 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote>I know that putting zero on the scale makes sense, but what else is >so magical about the Kelvin scale? Because freezing and boiling water (at a standard pressure we all use, like sea level) is a common and easy-to-understand phenomena. It's also based on a repeatable physical quantity which is nice. But . . . I wasn't asking about Centigrade. The good professor had made a comment about Kelvin being superior and I just don't see what is so magical about it. It won't involve rewriting ALL the science textbooks in the world, or more importantly, I won't have to rewrite my notes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #35 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhy couldn't I have a scale called "quade" where zero is the same as Kelvin and 100 the triple point of water? Wouldn't that have made a whole F-load more sense than 273.16K? Triple point of water at what pressure? TP is defined as both a temp and pressure, so asking it is a bit embarassing for all of us to see. (If I recall correctly, it was about 800 years ago.) Edit: never heard of the Reaumur until now. learned something.... also, absolute scales don't use the term "degrees" anymore - as in 180K, not 180 degrees K Exactly!! So in response to quades suggestion of making some scale with one point at that triple point of water really makes no sense unless you specify the pressure. We'd have sliding temp scales all over the place. The pressure IS specified at the TP. Yes - so the temperature on top of mount everest would be the same as the temperature at the bottom of the marianas trench?Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #36 January 16, 2007 Quote It won't involve rewriting ALL the science textbooks in the world, or more importantly, I won't have to rewrite my notes. Ah ha! So you then admit it's an arbitrary and flawed system that is simply kept around for the sake of convention . . . much like Fahrenheit!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #37 January 16, 2007 >The good professor had made a comment about Kelvin being > superior and I just don't see what is so magical about it since at the > freezing point of water, the temperature of the Kelvin scale reads > 273 K. At the boiling point of water, it reads 373 K. Well, as you state, it's good to have a zero for scientific work. It's also good to have an easier conversion from one set of units to the other, and kelvin fits the bill for that. It's easier to add 273 to a number than to add 1793.44 and multiply by .003117. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #38 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote It won't involve rewriting ALL the science textbooks in the world, or more importantly, I won't have to rewrite my notes. Ah ha! So you then admit it's an arbitrary and flawed system that is simply kept around for the sake of convention . . . much like Fahrenheit! The zero is NOT arbitrary. Fahrenheit is doubly arbitrary.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #39 January 16, 2007 QuoteWell, as you state, it's good to have a zero for scientific work. It's also good to have an easier conversion from one set of units to the other, and kelvin fits the bill for that. It's easier to add 273 to a number than to add 1793.44 and multiply by .003117. But the other part of what the good professor had stated was that if we were to have ONE system it would have to be Kelvin. I disagree, if we have ONE system, it should be redesigned from the ground up so that it makes sense in its entirety and not for the sake of a previous convention. I hearby proclaim that the unit of temperature known as the "quade" is therfore perfect, that you can throw away all previous systems and you don't need to do any conversions. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #40 January 16, 2007 QuoteThe zero is NOT arbitrary. Fahrenheit is doubly arbitrary. The zero (of Kelvin) may not be arbitatry, but all the other points along it are, so, in fact, the entire scale is.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bazelos 0 #41 January 16, 2007 I grew up with celcius, I know that at 45c I should drink a bit more water than usualy, and that at 10c I should wear really warm clothes, I have no idea what that would be in f, so I either going to freeze to death, or get bbq'ed in the sun.He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #42 January 16, 2007 QuoteIt won't involve rewriting ALL the science textbooks in the world Except all the textbooks are rewritten every few years anyway. Not because anything changes, but to be sure the used book market fails and students keep forking over $60 to the publisher for every class year after year. What a scam! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #43 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe zero is NOT arbitrary. Fahrenheit is doubly arbitrary. The zero (of Kelvin) may not be arbitatry, but all the other points along it are, so, in fact, the entire scale is. ok, you agree on the zero. So what scaling factor do you suggest that isn't arbitrary? If we are going to have an arbitrary scaling factor, let's use the one we already use in all scientific disciplines.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dontiego 0 #44 January 16, 2007 for conversions, google is great: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=EnE&q=50+fahrenheit+in+celsius&btnG=Search&meta= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=SoE&q=3540+feet+in+meters&btnG=Search&meta= Even complex ones: [url]http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=2mE&q=12+celsius+kPa+in+kelvin+N+per+square+meter&btnG=Search&meta= [/url] It would be impressive to automatically change the strings "ft" and "feet" in all posts to links where the numbers written just before are translated to meters... And the other way around."We call on the common man to rise up in revolt against this evil of typographical ignorance." http://bancomicsans.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dontiego 0 #45 January 16, 2007 No, i forgot the best one: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=esE&q=answer+to+life%2C+the+universe+and+everything&btnG=Search&meta="We call on the common man to rise up in revolt against this evil of typographical ignorance." http://bancomicsans.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #46 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt won't involve rewriting ALL the science textbooks in the world Except all the textbooks are rewritten every few years anyway. Not because anything changes, but to be sure the used book market fails and students keep forking over $60 to the publisher for every class year after year. What a scam! It may seem like that, but the true reason is that students' attention spans get shorter every year, so the books HAVE to be rewritten with more pictures, colored sidebars, and shorter sentences. Go pick up a copy of a physics text from the 1950s and compare it with today's and you will see just what I mean.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #47 January 16, 2007 QuoteAll I know is that my blood freezes at 70F. Celsius? YOU do the math...or else Steven will do it for you. thats about 22 Celsius... or 295K.Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 January 16, 2007 Quoteok, you agree on the zero. So what scaling factor do you suggest that isn't arbitrary? absolute zero = 0 total plasma conversion of the universe in a vacuum = infinity linear scale in between ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #49 January 16, 2007 QuoteQuote If you're going to have only one scale, it will need to be Kelvin. Whoa there chief! Lemme think about this. I know that putting zero on the scale makes sense, but what else is so magical about the Kelvin scale? Why couldn't I have a scale called "quade" where zero is the same as Kelvin and 100 the triple point of water? Wouldn't that have made a whole F-load more sense than 273.16K? One requirement of any scale for it to be widely accepted is that it be easily duplicated with a minimum of equipment. Kelvin meets that requirement since it's two most commonly used points are freezing and boiling of water in standard atmospheric conditions. These conditions can easily be duplicated almost anywhere. If the equipment isn't available then adjustments can be made using known formulas. A thermometer marked in Kelvin can be made in your own kitchen. The one descriptive point on a Kelvin scale not easily duplicated (never has been) is 0. But we don't use that point very much in our every day lives, unless you do research at those temps. The triple point of water is not easily duplicated, and is very sensitive to any change in either pressure or temperature. Even then you would still need a second point to measure to get a scale, other than the aforementioned 0 Kelvin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #50 January 16, 2007 Who would have thunk it - Turtle - making a topic that can be disputed, argued about, and discussed with civility . . . what is this world coming to?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
