Talk:Fahrenheit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is the temperature conversion table backwards from the Celsius and Kelvin pages. On those pages it has the To Find, and From columns in reverse. Would their be a standard way to format them?
Why does it stand 0F = extremly cold? That's not cold at all! Temperatures here where I live are in the winter often way below ~-30C, sometimes even -40 to -50C.
It Says: allowing him to mark degree lines on his instruments by simply bisecting the interval six times (since 64 is 2 to the sixth power).
What the heck does that mean? Phillybiggs 12:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation
Not sure how good an idea it is to have a disambiguation page here - have you looked at the multitude of pages that link here, all for the temperature scale meaning? Someone's going to have to fix all those links if this is to remain a disambiguation page. Mkweise 03:28 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree and I'm moving it back. The graphics API is not at all famous enough to cause a reasonable ambiguity over the use of "Fahrenheit". --mav 03:51 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Done. I gave the API a disambiguation block even though very few people will actually use it. --mav
[edit] Contentious historical details
I want to suggest that the selection of zero degrees was the temperature at which Fahrenheit found that salt water in the harbor would freeze. Saying it was determined by a "mixture of snow and salt" doesn't make sense, because the snow could be at 32 degrees and and the salt could be warmer still. I don't believe that mixing them will make the mixture get colder! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.92.66.172 (talk • contribs).
- Combining snow and water at 0 C will cause them to melt (a fact well known in winter-afflicted areas). According to the relevant accounts, Fahrenheit took snow (being near-pure water) and mixed in as much salt as he could. That produced saturated salt water, which he cooled until it froze. He set that as zero. Ocean water has much less salt, and begins to freeze at lower temperatures. Michaelbusch 23:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other factors contributing to selection of reference points
I removed this for now:
- Other accounts assert that Fahrenheit's goal was to produce a scale where the coldest and warmest air temperature extremes in Europe would be zero and 100 degrees, respectively, because the scale was devised to measure air temperature moreso than for laboratory experiments. It follows that his choice of salt water's freezing/melting point and the healthy human body temperature were just convenient, stable, consistently measurable reference points that would always be near these values.
- Some accounts go further and say that the scale was devised with each degree being the minimum change in air temperature that a human could perceive.
Checking three encyclopedias, the top Google hits and the Dictionary on Scientific Biography could not verify either claim. AxelBoldt 20:45 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
- Both claims were in a middle school science textbook in the early 1980s. As punishment for talking in class and tipping my seat, I had to manually transcribe several pages from it, including one about the Fahrenheit scale. Of course, I don't have the textbook now, and am recalling it from memory. But before adding those paragraphs, I spent about an hour trudging through articles that I found through Google. It was surprising how little consensus there is among the stories of Mr. Fahrenheit. However, I did find a "verification" of the first claim (i.e, an article stating that the purpose of the scale is believed to have been for common air/water temperature measurement). I felt that it should still be phrased in a manner that clarifies that there's very little reference material to back up any of the claims. I'm not terribly attached to the phrases either way; I just thought they should be mentioned in a "some say, others disagree" kind of way before someone comes along and plops them in as indisputable fact.mjb 20:32 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
The claim that I heard
- I heard that Mr. Farenheit decided to calibrate his scale with freezing water at the low point and the healthy human body at the high point. Unfortunately he was a bit light headed that day, and didn't think the process of taking the measurements though. He went outside on a Winter morning and took a reading of the temperature of the snow on the ground and called that 0. Then it took his own temperature, and unbenounced to him, he had a fever that day, explaining why he didn't think though his process for "freezing water." Like i said, i heard that story second hand, and i don't recall the source. take it however you want :) -- — Nate | Talk 05:46, Jun 14, 2005
(UTC)
It's inaccurate to say that Fahrenheit's goal in establishing his scale was to avoid the negative temperatures given by Romer's scale, since both scales have more or less the same zero! More accurately, he probably wanted to avoid the fractionnal temperatures which were common with Romer's scale ( plain water freezing at 7.5 degrees for instance).
[edit] Fahrenheit's name
When signing for Royal Society Fahrenheit wrote: Fahrenheit, Polonus. AM
- Anyone care to comment on this? — mjb 07:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fahrenheit's Nationality
If Mr. Fahrenheit was born in Danzig now Gdańsk, and signs his name as abovementioned (Polonus: Pole in Latin), it leaves much doubt as to his actual (albeit perhaps adopted) nationality.
— Clarification needed. Luceus
[edit] Adoption and abandonment of Fahrenheit system
There is still very little info in the article about which countries adopted the Fahrenheit scale, when this occurred, and when the scale was officially abandoned. If anyone has any info, even for a single country, please add it to the history section. — mjb 07:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Avoid implicit criticism of countries that use Fahrenheit
Yes, the USA, and Jamaica, apparently, are the last holdout for Fahrenheit for everyday, non-scientific temperature measurement, but Wikipedia editors should not parlay their annoyance at this situation into non-NPOV prose. As of today, I've toned down the text in this article and in the Celsius article so that it reads less like commentary. There is no need to mention that Europeans find it "puzzling" that the USA is one of a "declining number of countries" "still" using this system, phrases which together imply fault. - mjb 00:47, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The article gives the impression that many European countries only switched to the Celsius scale in the 1960s. Is that correct? (I would have thought that only a few European countries ever used Fahrenheit, and that most of them adopted to Celsius (centigrade) much earlier, perhaps still in the 19th century. France in particular must have skipped straight from Réaumur to centigrade.)
Jorge Stolfi 07:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- I must add that Canada still uses (in part) Imperial measurements such as the Fahrenheit (see here: Metrication_in_Canada). Most of the conversion from Imperial to Metric was done in the 1970s and 1980s, but imperial units are still taught in elementary classes, highschools, and universities. cheater 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fahrenheit in the UK
Recently added by an anonymous contributor:
- In the United Kingdom, Fahrenheit is used mainly during summer months, and Celcius during winter months.
Is this really true? If so, it's fascinating, and there's probably more to say about it. If not, maybe some kind Brit can remove it. Cdc 18:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's true. I live in Scotland and people refer to cold temperatures in Celcius and warm temperatures in Fahrenheit. I have trouble relating to temperatures like 39 ºF or 27 ºC, but I know what 4 ºC and 80 ºF feel like. I suppose we think in a scale of comfort where 0 is too cold, and 100 is too hot.
Added by David Brinicombe:
- Nobody has mentioned the BBC weather forecasts which have had to mediate between Celsius and Fahrenheit. There is certainly a resistance to metrication in previous generations, but schools have been teaching in metric for about two decades at least. The Meteorological Office, which supplies the UK weather forecast data, has been metricated like all scientific institutions since the War, but Britain officially adopted the Metric system universally in 1980.
Met Office forecasts at that stage gave Celsius temperatures in addition to Fahrenheit but some time in the 1980's (please check) decided to issue Celsius first and Fahrenheit second. The BBC weather forecasts followed this practice. The metric scale was still often called "Centigrade", but on official metrication, this was normally corrected. Wikipedia doesnl't seem to have a date for the introductio of "Celsius".
Current practice seems to be to give forecsats in Celsius and occasionally give a Fahrenheig equivalnet in parenthesis or as an observation.
One profession which has not gone over te Celsius is Medicine, where body temperture is still usually given in Fahrenheit. The British reluctance to change has resulted in a confusing situation.
Feb 2007 David Brinicombe 85.210.147.147 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- As this point seems to have become obscured in recent updates, I've just rearranged the last paragraph of the history section a bit to make note of Fahrenheit's continued use in parts of Great Britain. I also borrowed some phrasing from the metrication article, which mentions Canada as another partial holdout, and also included a phrase from the U.S. customary units article, which provides further explanation for the continued popularity of non-metric measurement, aside from the "temperate climate air temps range from 0–100 ºF" explanation already given. — mjb 07:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Speaking as a Brit' I think this is sort of a half truth. Metrication was only made absolute standard in the last generation, subsequently younger people will refer to temperatures in Celcius - almost always, without fail - while older people use almost solely fahrenheit. Susbequently if you tried discussing temperatures with a mixed group of British you'd get the impression they use both. I havn't met many people how are well versed enough in both gauges to use them in that way, most are only adept at one gauge (Leading to much confusion) --80.242.32.51 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Ryuujin
- Newspapers in Britain certainly use Fahrenheit for hot (weather) temperatures and centigrade for cold. I think it's so they can say 'temperatures approach 100 degrees!' or 'temperatures drop below zero!' as needs be. However, young people who are still in school tend to not encounter Fahrenheit much, and old people tend to stick to Fahrenheit alone. In between, where most people are, is this muddle. 86.139.237.132 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Bands"
I edited the section about the "user friendliness" of Fahrenheit and reported that as a supporter's opinion. It seems to me quite parochial that people think their system is the only "natural" one: people using Celsius will develop similar scales, with the added benefit of ice formation made immediately evident by the minus sign.--Orzetto 11:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Danzig, Gdansk
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
I don't see where anybody voting on some other article's talk page was ever given the authority to decide this issue for this page. Gene Nygaard 23:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Common usage
"However, despite official attempts to displace it, Fahrenheit remains in use for everyday, non-scientific temperature measurement by the general population of many English-speaking countries out of habit."
I think the sentence makes the assumption that America is the only english speaking country and because they still use fahrenheit the rest of the english speaking world does.
I find this statement to be misleading. I live in New Zealand and Fahrenheit is never used here. I dont think there would be many people in the population who have any idea what temperatures in Fahrenheit mean. ie. very few people would know at what temperature water froze in degrees fahrenheit.
Other than american tv shows and movies i never here any reference to temperatures measured in fahrenheit, so would believe that the opposite of the statement is true.
Im fairly certain this state of affairs is common with Australia.
[edit] Common usage II
removed - "However, despite official attempts to displace it, Fahrenheit remains in use for everyday, non-scientific temperature measurement by the general population of many English-speaking countries out of habit."
As above. This does not hold true for much of the UK, and any of Australia or New Zealand. Additionally, virtually all non-english speaking countries use celcius. While I agree no critism is necessary/wanted or warrented of those countries which retain Fahrenheit, it's misleading to state the above.
[edit] Space?
This page seems to insist on putting a space between the number and the degree sign—32 °F as opposed to 32°F. I think the latter is what I tend to see in textbooks, though. For example, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer by Incropera and DeWitt (copyright 2002) and Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker (copyright 1997) both use the tightly-set version. Is there a rason to do otherwise?―BenFrantzDale 09:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. For one thing, to consistently follow a rule of putting spaces between numbers and symbols for units of measure. Second, to clarify that the temperature degree sign is associated with and butts up to the letter and not the number, and is inseparable from that letter. In other words, no 48° without a letter, no 37° to 53°C, and no 18° F with a space between the degree sign and the letter, another fairly commonly seen form especially in older works. Furthermore, the modern rules clarify that prefixes can be added to degrees Celsius, such as 13 m°C,[1] even though such formulations will rarely be encountered in practice (in part because this will almost always be a temperature difference and you can use mK instead with the very same number), it makes for consistent and easily understandable rules.
- Yes, the closed up version was often recommended in the past. Less so now. For example, the NIST Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), NIST Special Publication 811 (1995) says in section 7.2:[2]
- This rule means that:
-
- (a) The symbol °C for the degree Celsius is preceded by a space when one expresses the values of Celsius temperatures.
- It often takes textbooks a few years to catch up with the new rules. In the 1970s, there were still many physics textbooks using "new" or "nt" as the symbol for newtons, even though "N" had been clearly established as the only symbol back in 1960. Actually, I think there are some 21st century textbooks still doing that; I know that there are still some websites of college science classes doing so. Gene Nygaard 13:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page name
Discussion moved to Talk:Units of measurement because it affects several units of measurement. bobblewik
[edit] Help
I am in need of help. I need information of Gabrial Fahrenheit
PLEASE HELP!!!
- Though it's probably of no use to you by now, see Gabriel Fahrenheit Richard001 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Graph to show relationship
A graph that shows the linear relationship between fahrenheit and celsius would be quite useful at the top, as readers could instantly visualize and understand the relationship between the two scales as soon as they reach the article. I don't have much skill at imaging myself, but maybe someone could make (or find) a suitable graph for these two articles? Richard001 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seventh Version
I was reading the History section and ran across this:
"A seventh version insists that Fahrenheit established the 100 °F point based on the temperature at which butter melts."
It was a good laugh, but unless someone provides a credible source, it should probably be removed. Bwhack 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formula wrong
I try to convert C into F using the formula "(C+32) * 1.8" (It's the formula on top of the page right.) However, it seems what you need to do is:
C * 1.8 + 32
Ex:
( 37 + 32 ) * 1.8 = 124F
37 * 1.8 + 32 = 98.6F
I didn't check on the other formulas, they may be wrong too. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
203.218.160.79 01:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
(Another user, on 11:08 HST 27 November 2006): The formula still appears to be wrong. Could someone fix this? I'm getting pretty absurd values out of it, but I don't trust myself to fix it.
- All of the formulae are now correct. Michaelbusch 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Estimating conversion from Celsius
If you are an American travelling abroad and want to understand the local weather reports in Fahrenheit, you can just double the Celsuis temperature and add 30. This is easier than multiplying by 1.8 and adding 32 mentally. This formula gives an exact conversion if the temprature is 10°C (=50°F), and the further you go from 10°C, the less precise the estimate becomes. It probably should not be used for the melting temperature of iron or anything like that, but it's fine for outdoor temperatures. I derived this idea myself, so I guess it's original research. --Zachm 23:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This question was placed on the main page and is moved here
Someone tell me what 20°C represents?? and 30? and 22, 25, 37. 40???
If you're serious (which I doubt), try Google:
for example: 20°C http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=20+C+in+F
[edit] NPOVing
I've been attempting to NPOV this article, but a couple of people have reverted. See the comments I made at User talk:Michaelbusch. Also, User:Ckatz claimed my version was "Americancentric," but an article on Fahrenheit is going to disproportionately focus on the US, since that's the main country where this system is used. At any rate, the important thing is that NPOV is maintained and both sides are given a fair hearing. FahrenheitUser 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The unsubstantiated claims are not NPOVing. CMacMillan 04:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Which claim is not substantiated? If anything stated as fact has not been cited, then please mark it with a "needs citation" claim and I will find citations. Additionally, what's been reverted is changes I've made to the tone of the article to make it more NPOV. Like I said, "the article before I got there had an anti-Fahrenheit POV and tone. Phrases like "Fahrenheit supporters claim" should be avoided. When you say that someone "claims" something, the implication is that they're claiming something dubious. Words like assert are better and more neutral." FahrenheitUser 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- To avoid cyclic reverts, I have not yet removed the material, which would be for about the fifth time. However, I agree with Ckatz that the version is Americancentric. Saying that this article must be Americancentric is false: an article can be about the USA without having a USA POV - that is implied in the definition of NPOV. Also, I believe the additions to be without basis in fact, as I have stated before, and also misleading. I recommend removal. Michaelbusch 05:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] usa
who other than usa actually uses farenheit
Jamaica Uses it as well.
-Just passing by :)
[edit] Proposed Terminology Change
Editors, please vote on the following:
john tedwards---
It's an interval scale and needs to be listed as such
I oppose this because this terminology is very infrequently used and will likely confuse most users. In occurdance with policy, I have reverted the additions until this matter is resolved. Michaelbusch 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unit of Scale
I would like to have all verbage removed that references Fahrenheit is 5/9 of a degree Celsius. This is incorrect and does not hold true at -40°F == -40°C Brammp 22:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding (Michael B. or other editors, please let me know if this isn't quite right) is that the units follow that ratio; however, the scales don't start from a common point. They cross over at -40, which is probably where the confusion arises. --Ckatzchatspy 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Usage (Temperature bands)
Description of the 10deg bands are massively subjective. I can wear shorts and a T-shirt when it's in the 40s. I personally don't think breaking out every 10 degrees is necessary beyond mentioning it in what is now the lead-up. Maybe add mention that contour weather maps use 10deg increments. Marimvibe 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to chime in with that. 0F is most certainly not "Extremely cold"; -40F, now /that's/ extremely cold. phrawzty 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Site Correction
Hi,
Apparently someone rewrote part of the this page to stay childish things. Will someone fix it?
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.10.24.197 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Linkage of Farenheit scale to body temperatures
It is no suprise that there may be some ambiguity about which body temperature Farenheit may (or may not) have used. Resting healthy human temperatures vary with site of measurement, time of day, and activity. Axillary temperatures are about 1 C below rectal, and 0.5 C below sublingual. The normal quoted central range is 36.8-37.8 C. This falls with age. Otherwise healthy elderly people may have temperatures as low as 35.5. In short, there is nothing in the Farenheit scale which imports on whether he measured horses, cows, or humans, on whether he was well or sick or had just been out jogging when he stuck a thermometer in his mouth/armpit/ear or ......
Also, and suggestion that 1 F is the limit of sensitivity of a person is wrong. At around body temperature people are very sensitive to temperature changes, and further out less so. The capacity to sense a tempurature difference in a solid material depends strongly on the temperature of surrounding radiant surfaces (eg the walls of the room you are in: Under normal indoor conditions, with ambient temperatures ~20-25 C most heat transfer to an exposed human body is by radiation from solid bodies). I suggest that the article would be less confusing if the unknowable questions regarding what Farenheit (the man) may or may not have been thinking or measuring at the ~96-100 range were de-emphasised.
Of course, if there is some historical evidence that Farenheit actually measured horse blood, or tried to judge how small a temperature difference he himself could notice, that is historically interesting. Speculation in this doesn't add much though. BruceGramm 10:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
