Discussion:
Fahrenheit BS
(too old to reply)
Michal
2006-05-08 01:16:37 UTC
Permalink
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769


Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??

"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 01:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.

If not, tough rocks.
Michal
2006-05-08 02:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 02:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations where
"scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure multiplying by 10
by 5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to post here ;)

Phil
Michal
2006-05-08 03:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter
is in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations where
"scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure multiplying by 10 by
5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to post here ;)
Phil
This isn't about you.
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 03:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter
is in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations where
"scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure multiplying by 10 by
5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to post here ;)
Phil
This isn't about you.
Nope .. definitely about you (your thread, after all); I'm happy with
deg-F, deg-C, and deg-K. Have to be in any scientific/engineering
mileiu anywhere in the world I've worked, including Europe.

Phil
Pat O'Connell
2006-05-08 03:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter
is in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations where
"scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure multiplying by 10 by
5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to post here ;)
Phil
This isn't about you.
Nope .. definitely about you (your thread, after all); I'm happy with
deg-F, deg-C, and deg-K. Have to be in any scientific/engineering
mileiu anywhere in the world I've worked, including Europe.
And don't forget Degrees Rankine...

Mr. Michal "Civilized" has forgotten that not every country is metric,
and that not being into metric (individually or as a country) doesn't
make one uncivilized. Rantig about other units of measure seems rather
petty. Not every unit of energy, for instance, needs to be in Joules.
Calories or kilocalories (for instance) are often more useful for
specific purposes.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 05:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat O'Connell
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in
Fahrenheit when Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that
Jupiter is in the midst of a global climate change that will
alter its average temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10
degrees Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations
where "scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure
multiplying by 10 by 5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to
post here ;)
Phil
This isn't about you.
Nope .. definitely about you (your thread, after all); I'm happy with
deg-F, deg-C, and deg-K. Have to be in any scientific/engineering
mileiu anywhere in the world I've worked, including Europe.
And don't forget Degrees Rankine...
Mr. Michal "Civilized" has forgotten that not every country is metric,
and that not being into metric (individually or as a country) doesn't
make one uncivilized. Rantig about other units of measure seems rather
petty. Not every unit of energy, for instance, needs to be in Joules.
Calories or kilocalories (for instance) are often more useful for
specific purposes.
Remember the most convient measure of speed is the "furlong per fortnight".
Starlord
2006-05-08 15:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Or how about the Los Angeles Second? The time between the stop light
changing to Green and the first car horn being sounded behind you!
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by David G. Nagel
Post by Pat O'Connell
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit
when Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that
Jupiter is in the midst of a global climate change that will alter
its average temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees
Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations where
"scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure multiplying by
10 by 5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to post here ;)
Phil
This isn't about you.
Nope .. definitely about you (your thread, after all); I'm happy with
deg-F, deg-C, and deg-K. Have to be in any scientific/engineering
mileiu anywhere in the world I've worked, including Europe.
And don't forget Degrees Rankine...
Mr. Michal "Civilized" has forgotten that not every country is metric,
and that not being into metric (individually or as a country) doesn't
make one uncivilized. Rantig about other units of measure seems rather
petty. Not every unit of energy, for instance, needs to be in Joules.
Calories or kilocalories (for instance) are often more useful for
specific purposes.
Remember the most convient measure of speed is the "furlong per fortnight".
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
Or how about the Los Angeles Second? The time between the stop light
changing to Green and the first car horn being sounded behind you!
I didn't think they waited that long. Must be the New York thing. ;^)
Protagonist
2006-05-08 07:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in
Fahrenheit when Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that
Jupiter is in the midst of a global climate change that will alter
its average temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees
Fahrenheit."
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
I said civilised..civilized...civil...
Actually, that part didn't really count: There are civilizations
where "scientific" is not all that prominent. But I figure
multiplying by 10 by 5/9 can't be all that tough for anyone able to
post here ;)
Phil
This isn't about you.
Nope .. definitely about you (your thread, after all); I'm happy with
deg-F, deg-C, and deg-K. Have to be in any scientific/engineering
mileiu anywhere in the world I've worked, including Europe.
Phil
Why don't you run a CNC machine, you'll find out quick, metric is the
way to go, cut much more accurately, because the resolution.
JS
AM
2006-05-08 11:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Why don't you run a CNC machine, you'll find out quick, metric is the
way to go, cut much more accurately, because the resolution.
JS
And yet the screws on most of my european rifles are
in English sizes......
--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
Bert Hyman
2006-05-08 17:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Why don't you run a CNC machine, you'll find out quick, metric is
the way to go, cut much more accurately, because the resolution.
Resolution?

I suspect that I can divide an inch into parts just as small as you
can divide a centimeter.

Even so, in the context of the original topic, you'll find that a
degree C is "bigger" than a degree F, and hence has worse
"resolution".
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | ***@iphouse.com
elaich
2006-05-08 17:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
I'm amazed anyone would care. If you are even consious of the
distinctiion, you should be smart enough to do the conversion in your head.
If not, tough rocks.
This is the same guy who was complaining earlier about "all this ephemeris
BS."

Either he's looking for trouble, or he's not one of the brightest 73P
fragments... ;)

Florian
2006-05-08 01:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Learn to convert. Or use google. Enter "10f in c" [without quotes] in a google search and it will convert for you.

-Florian
Protagonist
2006-05-08 07:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Florian
Learn to convert. Or use google. Enter "10f in c" [without quotes] in a
google search and it will convert for you.
-Florian
So we have to subscribe to the Internet now, to convert temperature?
JS
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 07:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Florian
Learn to convert. Or use google. Enter "10f in c" [without quotes] in
a google search and it will convert for you.
-Florian
So we have to subscribe to the Internet now, to convert temperature?
Well, that is a more practical use than this particular thread ;)
Shawn
2006-05-08 01:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
Is it because one of the requirements for acceptance into an
undergraduate journalism program at most U.S. universities is
consistently poor performance in all high school science and math classes?
;-)

Shawn
Brian Tung
2006-05-08 02:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn
Is it because one of the requirements for acceptance into an
undergraduate journalism program at most U.S. universities is
consistently poor performance in all high school science and math classes?
Heh.

But seriously, if most of the people reading it are from the U.S. (or
even the U.K.), I think Fahrenheit is a reasonable form--although if it
were up to me, I'd include the equivalent Celsius quantity.
--
Brian Tung <***@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Martin Brown
2006-05-08 10:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Tung
Post by Shawn
Is it because one of the requirements for acceptance into an
undergraduate journalism program at most U.S. universities is
consistently poor performance in all high school science and math classes?
Heh.
We have the same requirement for innumerate "meeja studdies" (sic)
types in the UK but they make their daft mistakes in metric units
instead. Ship displacements quoted to 15 significant figures being one
of my pet hates.
Post by Brian Tung
But seriously, if most of the people reading it are from the U.S. (or
even the U.K.), I think Fahrenheit is a reasonable form--although if it
were up to me, I'd include the equivalent Celsius quantity.
Anyone educated in the past 30 years would look at you quite blankly if
you used degrees Fahrenheit in the UK now. My old cooker about 20 years
old was entirely in Centigrade as are all the weather forecasts. But
they did include Fahrenheit conversions during the changeover period a
couple of decades ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/

These days Celsius is so implicit they don't specify units of
temperature on weathermaps.

Windspeed is still in mph though. The kg has found it much harder to
gain acceptance. People still like to buy their food in non-metric
quantities.

Regards,
Martin Brown
Richard Tobin
2006-05-08 11:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Brown
Anyone educated in the past 30 years would look at you quite blankly if
you used degrees Fahrenheit in the UK now.
This is complete nonsense. Only poorly educated people do not
understand both.

-- Richard
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 12:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Martin Brown
Anyone educated in the past 30 years would look at you quite blankly if
you used degrees Fahrenheit in the UK now.
This is complete nonsense. Only poorly educated people do not
understand both.
That's a temporary condition -- as time passes, more and more people
will forget about Fahrenheit degrees, just like few today remember
Reaumur degrees (where water freezes at 0 and boils at 80 degrees).
When you occasionally encounter them you can always look it up in some
encyclopedia, but it won't be something you remember every day.
Post by Richard Tobin
-- Richard
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Tim Auton
2006-05-08 14:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Martin Brown
Anyone educated in the past 30 years would look at you quite blankly if
you used degrees Fahrenheit in the UK now.
This is complete nonsense. Only poorly educated people do not
understand both.
I understand the fahrenheit system, but that doesn't mean I have an
intuitive sense of it. I don't know whether 85F is 'warm' or 'quite
hot' without mentally converting it to Celsius - I couldn't instantly
tell you if I'd wear a jacket outside, for example. And I would give
you a funny (though perhaps not blank) look if you used F and weren't
fairly old or American.

(For context: I'm 30 and from the UK)


Tim
--
Did I really still have that sig?
Michal
2006-05-08 02:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
Is it because one of the requirements for acceptance into an undergraduate
journalism program at most U.S. universities is consistently poor
performance in all high school science and math classes?
;-)
Shawn
LOL
Mark F.
2006-05-08 02:46:29 UTC
Permalink
I HATE Celsius!!!!
It should never be used again anywhere in the world.
We in the GOOD OLD USA OUTLAW CELSIUS!
Anyone caught using Celsius will be deported to Antarctica.

There that should stir him up.
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Starlord
2006-05-08 02:50:15 UTC
Permalink
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question that
just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a habit of
doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal., my Temp. gage
still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet, and miles.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Michal
2006-05-08 03:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question
that just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a
habit of doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal., my
Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier than
32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which IS
the CELSIUS system).

And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that water
boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 03:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question
that just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a
habit of doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal., my
Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier than
32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which IS
the CELSIUS system).
And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that water
boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.

In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.

Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)

Phil
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 11:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.
In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.
Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)
Phil
Then what about switching back and forth from furlongs per fortnight? :-)


Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons or km
per litre? I thought everyone did it the other way: gallons per mile,
or litres per kilometer.

But so far I've seen no-one using the most logical unit for fuel
consumption: a volume divided by a length becomes an area, right? And
a liter per kilometer is equal to one square millimeter (one liter is
a million cubic millimeters, and one kilometer is one million
millimeters, thus one million cubic millimeters divided by one million
millimeters becomes -- one square millimeter). "But that crazy unit
doesn't make sense!" I head you shout. Well, it actually does make
sense: imagine a thin string of fuel laid out on the road where you
intended to go, and suppose your vehicle could consume that for its
fuel needs. If the fuel consumption of the vehicle was 1 liter per
kilometer, then that fuel string would need a cross section area of at
least one square millimeter to supply the vehicle with the fuel it
needed.

So what is one US gallon per mile equal to? One US gallon is 231
cubic inches, and one mile is 1760 yards = 1760*3*12 inches.
Therefore one US gallon per mile is equal to:

231/(1760*3*12) = (3*7*11)/(32*5*11*3*12) = 11/1920 square inches

11/1920 is a quite small number: approximately 0.0057. So we meed
a smaller unit: one line = 12 inches, thus one square line is
12*12 square inches, and 11/1920 square inches is equal to
(16*9*11)/(128*3*5) = 33/40 = 0.825 square lines.

So if your vehicle consumes 1 gallon per mile (that's pretty much, but
perhaps it's a big vehicle?) and someone asks for its fuel consumption,
you can say: "it consumes 0.825 square lines of gallon".

Or you could even say something like: "it consumes 0.91 nano-acres of fuel"...

THAT'll be a test of how flexible they are in their use of units! :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Richard Tobin
2006-05-08 11:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons
Well yes. It has the advantage of being bigger than one!

And it fits with mph - you don't use hours/km do you?

-- Richard
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 13:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Paul Schlyter
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons
Well yes. It has the advantage of being bigger than one!
...well, if getting a number bigger than one is your main objective,
use e.g. pints-per-mile instead..... :-)

Why do you want a numer bigger than one for your fuel consumption?
Do you want to round it to the nearest integer, so you don't have
to learn arithmetic with fractions? <g>
Post by Richard Tobin
And it fits with mph - you don't use hours/km do you?
-- Richard
I think gpm fits better with mph -- just multiply the two and you'll
get your fuel consumption in gph (gallons per hour).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Paul Schlyter
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons
Well yes. It has the advantage of being bigger than one!
...well, if getting a number bigger than one is your main objective,
use e.g. pints-per-mile instead..... :-)
Why do you want a numer bigger than one for your fuel consumption?
Do you want to round it to the nearest integer, so you don't have
to learn arithmetic with fractions? <g>
Post by Richard Tobin
And it fits with mph - you don't use hours/km do you?
-- Richard
I think gpm fits better with mph -- just multiply the two and you'll
get your fuel consumption in gph (gallons per hour).
In many industrial environments you use "pounds per hour" for fuel
consumption. Jet aircraft use this method as well as most large piston
aircraft. This method directly relates to flight in that as fuel is
burned the aircraft becomes lighter and flies more efficiently. (more
mile per gallon). This is because to keep a given weight at a given
altitude takes a certain amount of power. Power if fuel burned. Fuel is
weight. Less weight less power to keep it at that given altitude.
Your Ox may be different from my OX.

Gore on.


Dave N
Richard Tobin
2006-05-08 17:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
Why do you want a numer bigger than one for your fuel consumption?
Units for everyday conversation, rather than scientific use, tend to
be smallish integers. We don't use miles or km for measuring
furniture, and we don't use feet or metres for measuring distances
between cities. This is an observed fact, and expecting people to use
units without this property is pointless (not to mention
discourteous).
Post by Paul Schlyter
I think gpm fits better with mph -- just multiply the two and you'll
get your fuel consumption in gph (gallons per hour).
Is that something people often want to know?

-- Richard
D& M B
2006-05-08 12:03:33 UTC
Permalink
After all of the following we in Canada, and the Uk, take that smaller US
gallon and multiply it by .8 to get a true Imperial gallon which we dump into
our Smart car and drive 82.45 miles to 1 imperial gallon. Incidently we pump
that from our 45 Imp. gal./ 55 US gal. /205 L oil drum :)
Deb
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Phil Wheeler
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.
In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.
Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)
Phil
Then what about switching back and forth from furlongs per fortnight? :-)
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons or km
per litre? I thought everyone did it the other way: gallons per mile,
or litres per kilometer.
But so far I've seen no-one using the most logical unit for fuel
consumption: a volume divided by a length becomes an area, right? And
a liter per kilometer is equal to one square millimeter (one liter is
a million cubic millimeters, and one kilometer is one million
millimeters, thus one million cubic millimeters divided by one million
millimeters becomes -- one square millimeter). "But that crazy unit
doesn't make sense!" I head you shout. Well, it actually does make
sense: imagine a thin string of fuel laid out on the road where you
intended to go, and suppose your vehicle could consume that for its
fuel needs. If the fuel consumption of the vehicle was 1 liter per
kilometer, then that fuel string would need a cross section area of at
least one square millimeter to supply the vehicle with the fuel it
needed.
So what is one US gallon per mile equal to? One US gallon is 231
cubic inches, and one mile is 1760 yards = 1760*3*12 inches.
231/(1760*3*12) = (3*7*11)/(32*5*11*3*12) = 11/1920 square inches
11/1920 is a quite small number: approximately 0.0057. So we meed
a smaller unit: one line = 12 inches, thus one square line is
12*12 square inches, and 11/1920 square inches is equal to
(16*9*11)/(128*3*5) = 33/40 = 0.825 square lines.
So if your vehicle consumes 1 gallon per mile (that's pretty much, but
perhaps it's a big vehicle?) and someone asks for its fuel consumption,
you can say: "it consumes 0.825 square lines of gallon".
Or you could even say something like: "it consumes 0.91 nano-acres of fuel"...
THAT'll be a test of how flexible they are in their use of units! :-)
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 13:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by D& M B
After all of the following we in Canada, and the Uk, take that smaller US
gallon and multiply it by .8 to get a true Imperial gallon
FYI: a Imperial gallon is bigger than a US gallon. Multiplying some
(positive) number with 0.8 makes it smaller, not bigger.....
Post by D& M B
which we dump into
our Smart car and drive 82.45 miles to 1 imperial gallon. Incidently we pump
that from our 45 Imp. gal./ 55 US gal. /205 L oil drum :)
Deb
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Phil Wheeler
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.
In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.
Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)
Phil
Then what about switching back and forth from furlongs per fortnight? :-)
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons or km
per litre? I thought everyone did it the other way: gallons per mile,
or litres per kilometer.
But so far I've seen no-one using the most logical unit for fuel
consumption: a volume divided by a length becomes an area, right? And
a liter per kilometer is equal to one square millimeter (one liter is
a million cubic millimeters, and one kilometer is one million
millimeters, thus one million cubic millimeters divided by one million
millimeters becomes -- one square millimeter). "But that crazy unit
doesn't make sense!" I head you shout. Well, it actually does make
sense: imagine a thin string of fuel laid out on the road where you
intended to go, and suppose your vehicle could consume that for its
fuel needs. If the fuel consumption of the vehicle was 1 liter per
kilometer, then that fuel string would need a cross section area of at
least one square millimeter to supply the vehicle with the fuel it
needed.
So what is one US gallon per mile equal to? One US gallon is 231
cubic inches, and one mile is 1760 yards = 1760*3*12 inches.
231/(1760*3*12) = (3*7*11)/(32*5*11*3*12) = 11/1920 square inches
11/1920 is a quite small number: approximately 0.0057. So we meed
a smaller unit: one line = 12 inches, thus one square line is
12*12 square inches, and 11/1920 square inches is equal to
(16*9*11)/(128*3*5) = 33/40 = 0.825 square lines.
So if your vehicle consumes 1 gallon per mile (that's pretty much, but
perhaps it's a big vehicle?) and someone asks for its fuel consumption,
you can say: "it consumes 0.825 square lines of gallon".
Or you could even say something like: "it consumes 0.91 nano-acres of fuel"...
THAT'll be a test of how flexible they are in their use of units! :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 13:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Phil Wheeler
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.
In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.
Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)
Phil
Then what about switching back and forth from furlongs per fortnight? :-)
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons or km
per litre? I thought everyone did it the other way: gallons per mile,
or litres per kilometer.
US Government mileage and consumer test data is in Miles per Gallon. Is
such data published in litres per Km in European automobile publications?
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Phil Wheeler
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.
In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.
Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)
Phil
Then what about switching back and forth from furlongs per fortnight? :-)
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons or km
per litre? I thought everyone did it the other way: gallons per mile,
or litres per kilometer.
US Government mileage and consumer test data is in Miles per Gallon. Is
such data published in litres per Km in European automobile publications?
Since very long I'm used to fuel consumtion being given as litres per
10 km (= litres per (Swedish) mile). But since modern cars tend to consume
less and less fuel, a lot of cars consume considerably less than 1 liter
per 10 km nowadays. So today fuel consumption is more and more often
given as litres per 100 km instead. The principle is volume per distance
though, not distance per volume.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 16:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
The principle is volume per distance
though, not distance per volume.
"Principle"? You silly goose, it's all a matter of *convention*.

For example, how do you define your location (lat-long)on the surface of
the earth? In deg, min and sec? In decimal degrees?

Either way, in an ideal metric world an entirely different set of
decimal based units would be used, but astronomy and timekeeping did not
evolve that way. A different set of *conventions* came down to us.

Does it matter? Nope .. no more than this silly temperature discussion
really matters.

Phil
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 15:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Phil Wheeler
It's not that we don't understand. It's just that we don't really have
problem being flexible: It is just *no big deal* .. well, except to one.
In fact, I'm not an "F person": Use deg-K more frequently. And when in
Europe, etc. I can even figure out what to wear based on weather
forcasts in deg-C.
Going from miles per gallon to km per litre and back again is a tad less
obvious; but even that is easy enough (and lots more timely if driving
away from home) ;)
Phil
Then what about switching back and forth from furlongs per fortnight? :-)
Regarding fuel consumption - do you really use miles per gallons or km
per litre? I thought everyone did it the other way: gallons per mile,
or litres per kilometer.
But so far I've seen no-one using the most logical unit for fuel
consumption: a volume divided by a length becomes an area, right? And
a liter per kilometer is equal to one square millimeter (one liter is
a million cubic millimeters, and one kilometer is one million
millimeters, thus one million cubic millimeters divided by one million
millimeters becomes -- one square millimeter). "But that crazy unit
doesn't make sense!" I head you shout. Well, it actually does make
sense: imagine a thin string of fuel laid out on the road where you
intended to go, and suppose your vehicle could consume that for its
fuel needs. If the fuel consumption of the vehicle was 1 liter per
kilometer, then that fuel string would need a cross section area of at
least one square millimeter to supply the vehicle with the fuel it
needed.
So what is one US gallon per mile equal to? One US gallon is 231
cubic inches, and one mile is 1760 yards = 1760*3*12 inches.
231/(1760*3*12) = (3*7*11)/(32*5*11*3*12) = 11/1920 square inches
11/1920 is a quite small number: approximately 0.0057. So we meed
a smaller unit: one line = 12 inches, thus one square line is
12*12 square inches, and 11/1920 square inches is equal to
(16*9*11)/(128*3*5) = 33/40 = 0.825 square lines.
So if your vehicle consumes 1 gallon per mile (that's pretty much, but
perhaps it's a big vehicle?) and someone asks for its fuel consumption,
you can say: "it consumes 0.825 square lines of gallon".
Or you could even say something like: "it consumes 0.91 nano-acres of fuel"...
THAT'll be a test of how flexible they are in their use of units! :-)
And your point is?

I still prefer speed as "furlongs per fortnight".
Shawn
2006-05-08 03:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question
that just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a
habit of doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal., my
Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier than
32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which IS
the CELSIUS system).
And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that water
boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
STP doesn't occur here to often (7200 ft er, 2200 m MSL).
Fahrenheit is a perfectly legitimate scale to use when discussing the
weather. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot.

Shawn
Protagonist
2006-05-08 07:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a
question that just because other countrys follow other ways, that the
USA has a habit of doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged
by the Gal., my Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use
inch's, and Feet, and miles.
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier
than 32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure
which IS the CELSIUS system).
And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that
water boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
STP doesn't occur here to often (7200 ft er, 2200 m MSL).
Fahrenheit is a perfectly legitimate scale to use when discussing the
weather. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot.
Shawn
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
JS
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 07:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only when
you have definitive results.
Protagonist
2006-05-08 08:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only when
you have definitive results.
Hole world is metric now days, Yankee boy, if you want to do business
with them efficiently, convert.
Your drill charts and tools don't work in Europe.
..and don't try to force the English way, to drive on the left side of
the road.
JS

http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/5463.htm#1

Why use the metric system?

By encouraging use of the metric system in U.S. trade and commerce, the
Federal Government is helping U.S. industry gain advantages that will
benefit the entire Nation. Exports have been responsible for most of our
domestic economic growth in recent years. Exports are important for U.S.
workers because each $1 billion in merchandise exports supports almost
20,000 jobs, over seventy million Americans work in export-related jobs,
and export-related jobs have higher than average pay. U.S. exports must
compete in foreign markets where quality, cost effectiveness, and
reliability are defined by international standards, including the metric
system—which is the international standard for measurement. By
converting to use of the metric system in trade and commerce, U.S.
industry can make its products more acceptable to foreign customers. Our
metric products will sell more easily in export markets, and that will
lead to greater economic growth and more jobs in the United States.

What are the advantages of metric use for U.S. industry?

U.S. industry will gain increased access to growing world markets and a
resulting increased ability to export, and it will benefit from improved
efficiency and greater competitiveness, by using the metric system.
Improvements in efficiency and competitiveness can result from the use
of the same product standards for both domestic and foreign markets, the
standardization of parts and part sizes, the ability to maintain smaller
inventories, and the inherent simplicity of the metric system. These
advantages will help U.S. industry to gain an even larger share of world
markets and create even more new high-quality jobs.

What are the national benefits of metric use?

The entire Nation will benefit from the metric-driven economic expansion
of U.S. industry, as well as from the creation of new jobs. In addition,
the Nation will benefit from eliminating inefficiency in business and
daily life that is caused by use of two different systems of measurement
units. By adopting the metric system as the preferred system, education
and training can be improved, especially mathematics and science
education. This is one of the President's goals.
AM
2006-05-08 12:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Why use the metric system?
Carpentry !!!

With the english system it is a royal PITA !!!
(to me)

I agree, the metric system is better, and
only takes a short while to get used. Better
is just being used to *both* systems.

It's just with distance, and yardage estimation
that I am still instinctive with the english
system. Easier to visualize a mile driving
over a kilometer to me.
--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
Michal
2006-05-08 13:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only when
you have definitive results.
Hole world is metric now days, Yankee boy, if you want to do business with
them efficiently, convert.
Your drill charts and tools don't work in Europe.
..and don't try to force the English way, to drive on the left side of the
road.
JS
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/5463.htm#1
Why use the metric system?
By encouraging use of the metric system in U.S. trade and commerce, the
Federal Government is helping U.S. industry gain advantages that will
benefit the entire Nation. Exports have been responsible for most of our
domestic economic growth in recent years. Exports are important for U.S.
workers because each $1 billion in merchandise exports supports almost
20,000 jobs, over seventy million Americans work in export-related jobs,
and export-related jobs have higher than average pay. U.S. exports must
compete in foreign markets where quality, cost effectiveness, and
reliability are defined by international standards, including the metric
system—which is the international standard for measurement. By converting
to use of the metric system in trade and commerce, U.S. industry can make
its products more acceptable to foreign customers. Our metric products
will sell more easily in export markets, and that will lead to greater
economic growth and more jobs in the United States.
Yankee boys are just too stupid to switch.
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only when
you have definitive results.
Hole world is metric now days, Yankee boy, if you want to do business with
them efficiently, convert.
Your drill charts and tools don't work in Europe.
..and don't try to force the English way, to drive on the left side of the
road.
JS
http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/5463.htm#1
Why use the metric system?
By encouraging use of the metric system in U.S. trade and commerce, the
Federal Government is helping U.S. industry gain advantages that will
benefit the entire Nation. Exports have been responsible for most of our
domestic economic growth in recent years. Exports are important for U.S.
workers because each $1 billion in merchandise exports supports almost
20,000 jobs, over seventy million Americans work in export-related jobs,
and export-related jobs have higher than average pay. U.S. exports must
compete in foreign markets where quality, cost effectiveness, and
reliability are defined by international standards, including the metric
system—which is the international standard for measurement. By converting
to use of the metric system in trade and commerce, U.S. industry can make
its products more acceptable to foreign customers. Our metric products
will sell more easily in export markets, and that will lead to greater
economic growth and more jobs in the United States.
Yankee boys are just too stupid to switch.
:-)

http://home.comcast.net/~igpl/Temperature.html
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Shawn
2006-05-08 15:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Protagonist
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only
when you have definitive results.
Hole world is metric now days, Yankee boy, if you want to do business
with them efficiently, convert.
snip blah blah

I don't think s/he gets it Phil.

Shawn
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 15:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn
Post by Protagonist
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only
when you have definitive results.
Hole world is metric now days, Yankee boy, if you want to do business
with them efficiently, convert.
snip blah blah
I don't think s/he gets it Phil.
I think no desire to, really. Wonder how 'it' decided I'm a Yankee vs.
a Reb? ;)
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Shawn
Post by Protagonist
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Protagonist
In Europe 0C freeze, 100C boils your balls, simple is that.
Don't have to use fractions!
Try your "facts" on Mt. Blanc or the Matterhorn. Report back only
when you have definitive results.
Hole world is metric now days, Yankee boy, if you want to do business
with them efficiently, convert.
snip blah blah
I don't think s/he gets it Phil.
I think no desire to, really. Wonder how 'it' decided I'm a Yankee vs.
a Reb? ;)
To the British we are all Rebs and Yankees so it doesn't matter. ;^)
M***@aol.com
2006-05-08 15:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn
STP doesn't occur here to often (7200 ft er, 2200 m MSL).
Fahrenheit is a perfectly legitimate scale to use when discussing the
weather. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot.
Down here in Texas, 40dF is really cold, 100dF it typical summer
weather,
it does not get really hot until 110dF.
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 15:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by M***@aol.com
Post by Shawn
STP doesn't occur here to often (7200 ft er, 2200 m MSL).
Fahrenheit is a perfectly legitimate scale to use when discussing the
weather. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot.
Down here in Texas, 40dF is really cold, 100dF it typical summer
weather,
it does not get really hot until 110dF.
So much depends on humidity. 110 deg in Palm Springs (very dry) is more
pleasant that 100 deg in a humid Houston.
Shawn
2006-05-08 04:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question
that just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a
habit of doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal., my
Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier than
32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which IS
the CELSIUS system).
And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that water
boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
STP doesn't occur here too often (7200 ft er, 2200 m MSL).
Fahrenheit is a perfectly legitimate scale to use when discussing the
weather. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot.

Shawn
Starlord
2006-05-08 05:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Shawn
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question
that just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a
habit of doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal.,
my Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and
Feet, and miles.
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier
than 32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which
IS the CELSIUS system).
And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that
water boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
STP doesn't occur here too often (7200 ft er, 2200 m MSL).
Fahrenheit is a perfectly legitimate scale to use when discussing the
weather. 0F is really cold, 100F is really hot.
Shawn
Michal
2006-05-08 12:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
You mean 43 C.
Shawn
2006-05-08 15:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
You mean 43 C.
110 sounds hotter
:-)
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn
Post by Michal
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
You mean 43 C.
110 sounds hotter
:-)
If so, switch to Kelvin, which yields an even bigger number. Or why not
use Rankine.... <g>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
AM
2006-05-08 13:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
Actually I would trade with you !!
Round here (Wash. DC.) it can get over
100F and 110% humidity on a nice summer
day !! High 90's for days in a row are
common in July - Aug. Feels like you
are almost swimming through the air :(
Working outside all day on a ladder takes
on new meaning ! (and no I dont like the
dry burning heat either !!!)

In Great Falls park (on the river) the
terrain is triple canopy foliage in many
places, and assumes true jungle conditions.
(poisonous snake is Copperhead) There are
Owls, Osprey, Eagles, Herons and other species.
(the coolest is the Kingfisher !)
There are other little plants and critters
that want to leap out and bite ya too, Brown
Recluse, Black Widow, nettles, thorn cane etc
Incredibly rich soil, and the constant (!!)
decaying vegetation, moss, and fungi
covering everywhere a plant isnt
growing. One will alter their course to
avoid a black cloud of mosquitoes seen in
front of them. (when ya can see more than 5')
The air never seems to move at ground level,
there are places of fog, and heavy ground haze.
You almost feel like there is no air to breath
after a while. You are also soaked completely
in your own sweat. (carrying all that gear)
It literally sucks the life out of you...
(the smells can be incredible)
You are desperate to get into the river you
have been following for the past few miles.
(because the rocky, confining, slimy, and
difficult terrain takes a toll on you)

However...........
The fishing however is EXCELLENT !
(we dont call it fishing, we call it catching)


It's that 5% humidity that makes where you live
a so much better place for astronomy........

In both places fluid intake is important !!
--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
Starlord
2006-05-08 15:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Yep, if we don't have any winds in the desert the dry cooler nights can be
awesome. The dry heat is also why I can use a swamp cooler to cool my
trailer instead of the power soaker AC some use instead. While they get
$100+ a month power bills, I get $25.00 a month power bill.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by AM
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
Actually I would trade with you !!
Round here (Wash. DC.) it can get over
100F and 110% humidity on a nice summer
day !! High 90's for days in a row are
common in July - Aug. Feels like you
are almost swimming through the air :(
Working outside all day on a ladder takes
on new meaning ! (and no I dont like the
dry burning heat either !!!)
In Great Falls park (on the river) the
terrain is triple canopy foliage in many
places, and assumes true jungle conditions.
(poisonous snake is Copperhead) There are
Owls, Osprey, Eagles, Herons and other species.
(the coolest is the Kingfisher !)
There are other little plants and critters
that want to leap out and bite ya too, Brown
Recluse, Black Widow, nettles, thorn cane etc
Incredibly rich soil, and the constant (!!)
decaying vegetation, moss, and fungi
covering everywhere a plant isnt
growing. One will alter their course to
avoid a black cloud of mosquitoes seen in
front of them. (when ya can see more than 5')
The air never seems to move at ground level,
there are places of fog, and heavy ground haze.
You almost feel like there is no air to breath
after a while. You are also soaked completely
in your own sweat. (carrying all that gear)
It literally sucks the life out of you...
(the smells can be incredible)
You are desperate to get into the river you
have been following for the past few miles.
(because the rocky, confining, slimy, and
difficult terrain takes a toll on you)
However...........
The fishing however is EXCELLENT !
(we dont call it fishing, we call it catching)
It's that 5% humidity that makes where you live
a so much better place for astronomy........
In both places fluid intake is important !!
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
Actually I would trade with you !!
Round here (Wash. DC.) it can get over
100F and 110% humidity on a nice summer
day !!
No, you cannot have 110% humidity. If the humidity exceeds 100%,
the excess water will form mist, fog or dew, until the humidity is
down at 100% again.

Air supersatureted with water vapor can form only in extremely
clean air, where there are no condensation nuclei. Such air
rarely occurs naturally -- and it NEVER occurs in a metropolitan
area such as Washington DC !!!!
Post by AM
High 90's for days in a row are
common in July - Aug. Feels like you
are almost swimming through the air :(
Working outside all day on a ladder takes
on new meaning ! (and no I dont like the
dry burning heat either !!!)
In Great Falls park (on the river) the
terrain is triple canopy foliage in many
places, and assumes true jungle conditions.
(poisonous snake is Copperhead) There are
Owls, Osprey, Eagles, Herons and other species.
(the coolest is the Kingfisher !)
There are other little plants and critters
that want to leap out and bite ya too, Brown
Recluse, Black Widow, nettles, thorn cane etc
Incredibly rich soil, and the constant (!!)
decaying vegetation, moss, and fungi
covering everywhere a plant isnt
growing. One will alter their course to
avoid a black cloud of mosquitoes seen in
front of them. (when ya can see more than 5')
The air never seems to move at ground level,
there are places of fog, and heavy ground haze.
You almost feel like there is no air to breath
after a while. You are also soaked completely
in your own sweat. (carrying all that gear)
It literally sucks the life out of you...
(the smells can be incredible)
You are desperate to get into the river you
have been following for the past few miles.
(because the rocky, confining, slimy, and
difficult terrain takes a toll on you)
However...........
The fishing however is EXCELLENT !
(we dont call it fishing, we call it catching)
It's that 5% humidity that makes where you live
a so much better place for astronomy........
In both places fluid intake is important !!
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during
summer with less than 5% Hum.
Actually I would trade with you !!
Round here (Wash. DC.) it can get over
100F and 110% humidity on a nice summer
day !! High 90's for days in a row are
common in July - Aug. Feels like you
are almost swimming through the air :(
Working outside all day on a ladder takes
on new meaning ! (and no I dont like the
dry burning heat either !!!)
In Great Falls park (on the river) the
terrain is triple canopy foliage in many
places, and assumes true jungle conditions.
(poisonous snake is Copperhead) There are
Owls, Osprey, Eagles, Herons and other species.
(the coolest is the Kingfisher !)
There are other little plants and critters
that want to leap out and bite ya too, Brown
Recluse, Black Widow, nettles, thorn cane etc
Incredibly rich soil, and the constant (!!)
decaying vegetation, moss, and fungi
covering everywhere a plant isnt
growing. One will alter their course to
avoid a black cloud of mosquitoes seen in
front of them. (when ya can see more than 5')
The air never seems to move at ground level,
there are places of fog, and heavy ground haze.
You almost feel like there is no air to breath
after a while. You are also soaked completely
in your own sweat. (carrying all that gear)
It literally sucks the life out of you...
(the smells can be incredible)
You are desperate to get into the river you
have been following for the past few miles.
(because the rocky, confining, slimy, and
difficult terrain takes a toll on you)
However...........
The fishing however is EXCELLENT !
(we dont call it fishing, we call it catching)
Fishing is getting your line wet. Catching is eating tonight.
One is just as enjoyable as the other. The latter is more nourishing of
the body the former of the soul.

Dave N
Post by AM
It's that 5% humidity that makes where you live
a so much better place for astronomy........
In both places fluid intake is important !!
Shawn
2006-05-08 15:14:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
That's really *really* hot.
Got down to -18F here a couple winters ago. Really *really* cold.


Shawn
Starlord
2006-05-08 15:31:58 UTC
Permalink
there's a little area not awefull far from where I live that holds many of
the day time temp records, it also holds the record of being the lowest spot
in the Western Himisphere, and there they just tell you not to go outside
during the day if you can help it, not at the record temps of 130F 0% hum.
in the little area rightly named " Death Valley "
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Shawn
Post by Starlord
Out here in the High Mojave Desert it offen gets up to 110F during summer
with less than 5% Hum.
That's really *really* hot.
Got down to -18F here a couple winters ago. Really *really* cold.
Shawn
Shawn
2006-05-08 15:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
there's a little area not awefull far from where I live that holds many of
the day time temp records, it also holds the record of being the lowest spot
in the Western Himisphere, and there they just tell you not to go outside
during the day if you can help it, not at the record temps of 130F 0% hum.
in the little area rightly named " Death Valley "
I was there last spring. It rained. :-)

Shawn
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 16:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shawn
Post by Starlord
there's a little area not awefull far from where I live that holds
many of the day time temp records, it also holds the record of being
the lowest spot in the Western Himisphere, and there they just tell
you not to go outside during the day if you can help it, not at the
record temps of 130F 0% hum. in the little area rightly named " Death
Valley "
I was there last spring. It rained. :-)
It happens. One year (2004?) there was significant road damage in Death
Valley due to heavy rains, I think in August. Some of the dry lakes
were not dry, and there were photos of park personnel kayaking in them.

Phil
Starlord
2006-05-08 05:01:16 UTC
Permalink
I don't see nothing wrong in using the freezing point of water at 32F (which
is used in our freezers) and that water at sea level boils at 212F, less as
you go higher up in the mountains say 10,000FT.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Michal
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier
than 32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which IS
the CELSIUS system).
And it's too bad that some people here can't get above the fact that water
boils at 100 C....a nice round number!!!
Eugene Griessel
2006-05-08 05:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
I don't see nothing wrong in using the freezing point of water at 32F (which
is used in our freezers) and that water at sea level boils at 212F, less as
you go higher up in the mountains say 10,000FT.
Only if you like doing convoluted thermodynamic calculations.

Eugene L Griessel

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Starlord
2006-05-08 05:08:52 UTC
Permalink
POINK
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Michal
It's too bad that F people can't figure out that 0C is far more easier
than 32F when speaking
of the freezing point of water at STP (Standard Temp and Pressure which IS
the CELSIUS system).
Sjouke Burry
2006-05-08 03:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question that
just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a habit of
doing it on it's own. My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal., my Temp. gage
still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet, and miles.
And Nasa crashes Mars mission(s) because of
silly conversions.
Yesterday I read that the US of A is < 25
percent of the WWW.
You might use the standard units the rest
of the world adopted.
(Or you can choose to stay in the dark ages.)
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 03:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sjouke Burry
(Or you can choose to stay in the dark ages.)
History books record that as a uniquely European phenomenon.
Chuck Taylor
2006-05-08 05:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Wheeler
Post by Sjouke Burry
(Or you can choose to stay in the dark ages.)
History books record that as a uniquely European phenomenon.
ROFL!

But I do think the OP is just trolling.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon? If so, try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

If you enjoy optics, try
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/
*********************************************
Starlord
2006-05-08 05:06:30 UTC
Permalink
And JUST who was it that PUT MEN ON THE MOON? Japan maybe?

It really don't matter to us what the heck you use, the USA stands on it's
own, don't like it? Go take a dip in -312F He2.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Sjouke Burry
Yesterday I read that the US of A is < 25
percent of the WWW.
You might use the standard units the rest
of the world adopted.
(Or you can choose to stay in the dark ages.)
SkySea
2006-05-08 06:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Pew... smells like troll in here.
Post by Michal
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 11:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question that
just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a habit of
doing it on it's own.
There are three countries of the world which still haven't officially
switched to the metric system: USA, Burma and Liberia. Nice company
you have there....
Post by Starlord
My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal.,
....and you didn't even switch to the imperial gallon in 1824 but are
still using the pre-imperial gallon....
Post by Starlord
my Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
William Hamblen
2006-05-08 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
There are three countries of the world which still haven't officially
switched to the metric system: USA, Burma and Liberia. Nice company
you have there....
The USA officially adopted metric measures in 1866. American
customary measures have been defined administratively in terms of
metric untis since the 19th century. It is just that the customary
units have never been made illegal for trade, except for things like
wine and spirits.
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hamblen
Post by Paul Schlyter
There are three countries of the world which still haven't officially
switched to the metric system: USA, Burma and Liberia. Nice company
you have there....
The USA officially adopted metric measures in 1866. American
customary measures have been defined administratively in terms of
metric untis since the 19th century. It is just that the customary
units have never been made illegal for trade, except for things like
wine and spirits.
...which means it hasn't been officially adopted.... -)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Starlord
2006-05-08 15:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Back in the early 80's the Fed's tried to get everyone to change over to the
Meter system, you can still find a few left over's from the try, but it
totaly failed to get the everyday person to make the switch, the last metric
gas pump to be replaced was in the late 80's as when given the choise,
almost no one used that pump, they would use the pump that pumped in gal's
instead. Road signs and other things that had been put up in KM's instead of
miles have long since been replaced.

The people voted with their pocket books and the power was awesome.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question that
just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a habit of
doing it on it's own.
There are three countries of the world which still haven't officially
switched to the metric system: USA, Burma and Liberia. Nice company
you have there....
Post by Starlord
My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal.,
....and you didn't even switch to the imperial gallon in 1824 but are
still using the pre-imperial gallon....
Post by Starlord
my Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Starlord
Back in the early 80's the Fed's tried to get everyone to change over to the
Meter system, you can still find a few left over's from the try, but it
totaly failed to get the everyday person to make the switch, the last metric
gas pump to be replaced was in the late 80's as when given the choise,
almost no one used that pump, they would use the pump that pumped in gal's
instead. Road signs and other things that had been put up in KM's instead of
miles have long since been replaced.
The people voted with their pocket books and the power was awesome.
I'm happy the people of Europe was much less conservative some 100-150
years ago, when the European people went through the same process. If
they had done like the yanks, we would have had a dozen or so different
flavors of inches, pounds, miles, etc, to convert between --- each country
had their own of these units, which were slightly different from one another.
The French foot was the longest one - 0.3248 meters. An English foot was
"only" 0.3048 meters. The Swedish foot was 0.2969 meters. Our inch was
24.74 mm up to 1863, when we switched to a decimal inch of 1/10 foot,
i.e. 29.69 mm, until we went metric in 1889.

So we switched units twice: in 1863 and in 1889 ..... and you're
complaining about switching units once....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Starlord
It could be because 98% of all lay people in the USA still use the
Fahrenheit scale, you should know way before you asked such a question that
just because other countrys follow other ways, that the USA has a habit of
doing it on it's own.
There are three countries of the world which still haven't officially
switched to the metric system: USA, Burma and Liberia. Nice company
you have there....
Actually if you look you will find that the USA is an official user of
the METRIC system and has been for decades. We use it, we just don't
teach it.
Post by Paul Schlyter
Post by Starlord
My car's gas is still gaged by the Gal.,
....and you didn't even switch to the imperial gallon in 1824 but are
still using the pre-imperial gallon....
Post by Starlord
my Temp. gage still reads in the F scale and I still use inch's, and Feet,
and miles.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is
in the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average
temperature at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
David Knisely
2006-05-08 03:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
It isn't the "standard". The standard in Astronomy is the Kelvin scale.
--
David W. Knisely ***@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
Michal
2006-05-08 05:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Knisely
Post by Michal
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
It isn't the "standard". The standard in Astronomy is the Kelvin scale.
Not referring to astronomy. And I have rarely seen temperatures of stars
referred to
in Kelvins. Get a life!
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 11:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Post by David Knisely
Post by Michal
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
It isn't the "standard". The standard in Astronomy is the Kelvin scale.
Not referring to astronomy. And I have rarely seen temperatures of stars
referred to in Kelvins. Get a life!
He's right -- Kelvin degrees are the standard temperatures in
astronomy as well as in physics. All those formulas in physics and
astrophysics which involve temperatures get unnecessarily complex if
you insist on using Celsius rather than Kelvin degrees. Celsius is
used only for "display purposes" aimed at non-specialists.

And in stellar interiors, temperatures are so high that it doesn't
matter much if temperatures are given in Celsius or Kelvin; the
difference of 273 degrees is smaller than the uncertainty in the
temperature anyway.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
David Knisely
2006-05-08 13:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Not referring to astronomy.
Gee, this is an *Astronomy* newsgroup and the article you cited talks
about Astronomy (the planet Jupiter). What part of this don't you
understand?
Post by Michal
. And I have rarely seen temperatures of stars
referred to
in Kelvins.
Well, then perhaps you need to read a little more in the scientific
literature (or even a few introductory Astronomy texts). Not very many
Astronomers ever use the Celsius scale to cite stellar temperatures,
as they are nearly always referred to using Kelvin. All the standard
astrophysical formulae and equations use *Kelvin temperatures only*.
Stellar temperatures range from around 2,000 K to around 60,000 K, with
the sun's photospheric temperature being nearly 6,000 K.
Post by Michal
Get a life!
Get one yourself...
--
David W. Knisely ***@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
William Hamblen
2006-05-08 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Knisely
Well, then perhaps you need to read a little more in the scientific
literature (or even a few introductory Astronomy texts). Not very many
Astronomers ever use the Celsius scale to cite stellar temperatures,
as they are nearly always referred to using Kelvin. All the standard
astrophysical formulae and equations use *Kelvin temperatures only*.
I'm waiting for the weather reports to be in kelvins. I guess it will
be a long wait. "It's going to be a nice 293 today."
Phil Wheeler
2006-05-08 14:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hamblen
Post by David Knisely
Well, then perhaps you need to read a little more in the scientific
literature (or even a few introductory Astronomy texts). Not very many
Astronomers ever use the Celsius scale to cite stellar temperatures,
as they are nearly always referred to using Kelvin. All the standard
astrophysical formulae and equations use *Kelvin temperatures only*.
I'm waiting for the weather reports to be in kelvins. I guess it will
be a long wait. "It's going to be a nice 293 today."
Ah but think of the advantage of no negative temps ;)
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 16:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hamblen
Post by David Knisely
Well, then perhaps you need to read a little more in the scientific
literature (or even a few introductory Astronomy texts). Not very many
Astronomers ever use the Celsius scale to cite stellar temperatures,
as they are nearly always referred to using Kelvin. All the standard
astrophysical formulae and equations use *Kelvin temperatures only*.
I'm waiting for the weather reports to be in kelvins. I guess it will
be a long wait. "It's going to be a nice 293 today."
The formulae used in the computer programs for weather prediction all
use Kelvins internally, not Celsius.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Chris L Peterson
2006-05-08 14:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Not referring to astronomy. And I have rarely seen temperatures of stars
referred to
in Kelvins. Get a life!
Kelvins are normally the only units used to display star temperatures,
unless they are being converted to something else for lay consumption
(and converting between kelvins and celsius for star temperatures is a
bit silly). Celsius is more common for planetary scientists, but kelvins
are also the norm there, too.

(BTW, as units "kelvin" and "kelvins" aren't proper nouns, and aren't
capitalized. Same for "celsius".)

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Odysseus
2006-05-08 03:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Be thankful they bothered to specify the scale at all!

To my mind the only error there is reporting a temperature *change*
in °F: they should have written "... by as much as 10 Fahrenheit
degrees." The same problem exists with °C and C°, so SI uses
"kelvins" for temperature differences and absolute temperatures
both--no "degrees"--relying on context to make the distinction. Note
that 1 C° = 1 K (as a differential), but 1°C =/= 1 K (as a
temperature). Likewise 1 C° = 1.8 F°, but 1°C = 33.8°F.
--
Odysseus
Michal
2006-05-08 05:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Odysseus
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Be thankful they bothered to specify the scale at all!
To my mind the only error there is reporting a temperature *change*
in °F: they should have written "... by as much as 10 Fahrenheit
degrees." The same problem exists with °C and C°, so SI uses
"kelvins" for temperature differences and absolute temperatures
both--no "degrees"--relying on context to make the distinction. Note
that 1 C° = 1 K (as a differential), but 1°C =/= 1 K (as a
temperature). Likewise 1 C° = 1.8 F°, but 1°C = 33.8°F.
--
Odysseus
Oh.
Protagonist
2006-05-08 07:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Whole world, 99% converted to metric long time ago, except England, US
and their ball suckers. Still measuring length by foot, tums, knockels,
volume by pint and spit.
Even machinery runs better on metric, more accurate, exactly 2.5x.
JS
Rich
2006-05-08 07:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
Because it sounds bigger than 5 deg. C.
Arnold
2006-05-08 08:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19769
Why do these people have the audacity to make reports in Fahrenheit when
Celsius IS
the standard in the civilised and scientific world??
"Researchers think the Hubble images may provide evidence that Jupiter is in
the midst of a global climate change that will alter its average temperature
at some latitudes by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
I agree totally.

When I read an article in Astronomy, Sky & Telescope or National
Geographic, it is really annoying when the authors don't bother to
include distances, speeds, temperatures, etc. in metric units. Is it
asking too much to include the metric value in brackets?

I don't have a calculator with me when I sit and read in my garden - not
even talking about access to Google. Even if I did, I find it
distracting to calculate the metric value each time I come across an
imperial value. My whole frame of reference is in metric - and a couple
of billion other people. I have an an immediate appreciation of an
asteroid's size in kilometers - say 15km, the distance from my home to a
mall.

My time to read is limited, a luxury - I want to make the most of it.

So to everyone else who is annoyed by this - I suggest we write letters
to the editors of the above mentioned magazines to get them to change
their policy. It has been on my TO-DO list for a while now.

Why bother with international standards if people don't follow them?
--
25° 45' S
28° 12' E
GMT+2

Join the Planetary Society
http://www.planetary.org
Eugene Griessel
2006-05-08 08:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arnold
25° 45' S
28° 12' E
Meintjies street? Or Schoeman?

34° 05' 54" S
18° 22' 49" E


Eugene L Griessel

The Last Law of Product Design: If you can't fix it, feature it.
Paul Schlyter
2006-05-08 11:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arnold
I don't have a calculator with me when I sit and read in my garden - not
even talking about access to Google. Even if I did, I find it
distracting to calculate the metric value each time I come across an
imperial value.
i.e it never happens, because you won't come across imperial values, except
in old literature. The imperial values was used in Great Britain and its
commonwealth, all of which now officially has switched to metric units.

The US doesn't use the imperial system and never did! Back when Great
Britain switched to imperial units, the US refused to go along, because the
US was independent of Great Britain and wanted to demonstrate that.
So instead US uses "The US customary system", which is different from the
imperial system. For details about the difference between the two, check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Imperial_and_US_customary_systems


No wonder things get confused when you don't even know what system of
measures you're actually using !!!!!!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Arnold
2006-05-08 12:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Schlyter
The US doesn't use the imperial system and never did! Back when Great
Britain switched to imperial units, the US refused to go along, because the
US was independent of Great Britain and wanted to demonstrate that.
So instead US uses "The US customary system", which is different from the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Imperial_and_US_customary_systems
No wonder things get confused when you don't even know what system of
measures you're actually using !!!!!!
I rest my case.
--
25° 45' S
28° 12' E
GMT+2

Join the Planetary Society
http://www.planetary.org
Eugene Griessel
2006-05-08 12:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arnold
Post by Paul Schlyter
The US doesn't use the imperial system and never did! Back when Great
Britain switched to imperial units, the US refused to go along, because the
US was independent of Great Britain and wanted to demonstrate that.
So instead US uses "The US customary system", which is different from the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Imperial_and_US_customary_systems
No wonder things get confused when you don't even know what system of
measures you're actually using !!!!!!
I rest my case.
When you have 4.2% of the world's population it means you have a
majority! Using the US_customary_system, of course!


Eugene L Griessel

In some cultures what I do would be considered normal.
Michal
2006-05-08 12:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Just remember this 1US Gal = 3.8 liters!!
Eugene Griessel
2006-05-08 13:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Just remember this 1US Gal = 3.8 liters!!
Who cares? I haven't used gallons since the days my great uncle used
to distill his own rotgut. The state allowed licensed witblitz and
mampoer stokers to produce an annual 21 gallons each (good old Brit
gallons) for "personal consumption" back in them days.

Good stuff it was too - three tots and ones teeth went soft.

Eugene L Griessel

In some cultures what I do would be considered normal.
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michal
Just remember this 1US Gal = 3.8 liters!!
In the USA:

One oil barrel is 41 USG.
One beer barrel is 36 1/2 USG.
Most other liquids are 31 1/2 USG.

Dave N
David G. Nagel
2006-05-08 16:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eugene Griessel
Post by Arnold
Post by Paul Schlyter
The US doesn't use the imperial system and never did! Back when Great
Britain switched to imperial units, the US refused to go along, because the
US was independent of Great Britain and wanted to demonstrate that.
So instead US uses "The US customary system", which is different from the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Imperial_and_US_customary_systems
No wonder things get confused when you don't even know what system of
measures you're actually using !!!!!!
I rest my case.
When you have 4.2% of the world's population it means you have a
majority! Using the US_customary_system, of course!
Eugene L Griessel
In some cultures what I do would be considered normal.
I think that if you really looked into the problem you will find that US
manufacturers are fully capable and competent to use metric measure in
the manufacture of a broad range of items for sale anywhere in the world
and are very competitive with other manufacturers across the world. All
it takes to make a metric sized article is to change one fitting in a
machine. (all right it's not quite that simple, it's just not impossible
to do). Virtually everything that US manufactures export are in metric
measure. About the only exception are aircraft and even they use a lot
of metric fittings. By the way you can tell metric fasteners by their
color. SAE and NC fittings are colorless.

Dave Nagel
David Knisely
2006-05-08 13:43:57 UTC
Permalink
When I read an article in Astronomy, Sky & Telescope or National Geographic, it is really annoying when the authors don't bother to include distances, speeds, temperatures, etc. in metric units. Is it asking too much to include the metric value in brackets?
Then perhaps you haven't read Sky and Telescope lately. They switched
to citing measurements in metric units years ago, although they do put
some English units in parentheses after some of the metric figures to
help those unfamiliar with (or uncomfortable with) the metric system.
Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely ***@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...