# OT Fahrenheit

Page 6 of 7
• posted on November 10, 2006, 5:37 pm

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 05:57:49 GMT, "Stephen B."

"KPH" is not really a metric unit. It's a hybrid of metric (kilometer) and something else (hour).
Converting some (non-metric) time units to metric:
1 minute = 60S (60 seconds) 1 hour = 3.6KS (3.6 kiloseconds) 1 day = 86.4KS 1 month (approx.) = 2.6MS (2.6 megaseconds) 1 year (approx.) = 31.56GS (31.56 gigaseconds)
Few (if any) people use metric for everything.
Note that I never said I recommended doing it this way.
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 11, 2006, 2:20 am
snipped-for-privacy@xmail.com0.invalid says...

Certainly it is. It my not be MKS, nor purely SI, but it is metric. K==kilometers (1E3 meters) H==Hours(3.6E3 seconds), both of which are SI units. KPH is then a "derived unit" and perfectly acceptable.

Who cares? <snip>
--
Keith

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 11, 2006, 7:37 pm

The metric unit of time is the second.

Where'd you get your omniscience? Others could use some too.
--
44 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 11:12 am

There's definitely something wrong with your math. 23 km / 100 kph = 0.23 hours, or 13 minutes 48 seconds.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 3:33 pm
Doug Miller wrote:

I knew that didn't sound right when I wrote it but couldn't see where :)
Harry K

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 1:59 am
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:11:22 -0500, Dave Smith

If we are going to make these things simple, why not use a digital clock and calender. Now if we can just get the rotation of the earth to be an even base 10 number, compared to it's circuit of the sun..

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 2:32 am
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:59:25 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

When, after The French Revolution, the modern metric system was developed and adopted in France, it included "metric" time (10 hour days, etc). (Of course, because it was a part of nature and not a human construct, nothing could be done about the number of days in a year.) Because the time part of the system was resisted so much by the general public, it was eventually disgarded.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 5:39 pm
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:59:25 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Time calculations would be a lot easier if we didn't have to deal with TWO important natural cycles (day and year). The year isn't even a multiple of the day (days per year is approximately 365.24).
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 11:04 pm
Goedjn wrote:

But.... 100 mph is not a legal speed while 60 mph zones becomes 100 kph zones.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 5:41 pm
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:04:38 -0500, Dave Smith

If you can't go 100MPH, you could try figuring half that (50MPH) and approximating the value for 60MPH. Experience should be helpful in this case.
--
45 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 3:38 am
Goedjn wrote:

Not at all stupid. 100kph is a quite reasonable average speed over distance. 100 mph is not.
Harry K

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 11:15 am

Absolutely it's a stupid example -- although the demonstration of its stupidity could have been better done, e.g. "If you're going 60 mph, a 300 mile trip also takes five hours. If you're only using one set of units, it doesn't make any difference what they are."
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 5:11 am
----------------------------

------ Right on- by the way, I am 75 and have no problem with Celsius after our long overdue conversion. 20-21C is fine , 0C cover your tender plants and watch for icy atches. -40 C= -40F -Shirtsleeves are fine for 50-100 meters depending on the wind as humidity is not a problem (better than NYC at temperatures near 0C). 100C makes sense as well as 0C in that boiling water is something you don't want to wash your willie with. It really is a matter of associating what you feel with the scale.
(Fahrenheit zero is based on the commonsense measure of the freezing point of a saturated salt solution which everyone has on hand, and boiling point is 180 degrees above the freezing point of "pure" water. Completely logical of course )
As for thermostats- I wonder how many are accurate to within 1 division on their scale and, if so, what does it mean at some other location in the house or even the room?
--

Don Kelly snipped-for-privacy@shawcross.caremove the X to answer

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 3:47 pm
Don Kelly wrote:

Correction: the F scale was based the freezing point of that solution and set at 32 degrees. Then 100 was selected as the normal human body temp, or that is what I heard, not sure). Just why they set the freezing point at 32 vice 0 escapes me.
Harry K

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 5:10 pm
Harry K wrote:

Oops. Correction to the correction. You are correct. I just can't come up with how the 0F mark was arrived at.
Harry K

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 5:30 pm

http://chem.oswego.edu/chem209/Misc/fahrenheit.htm
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 10, 2006, 3:32 am
Malcolm Hoar wrote:

Thanks. That took me back to school days in the 40s.
Harry K

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 10:15 pm
wrote:

Maybe to help those unable to handle negative numbers, but still needed a way to express temperatures below freezing?
Of course, the REAL 0 point (no heat at all) is considerably lower than either 0C or 0F.
--
46 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 5:15 am
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:37:49 -0500, Dave Smith

It we were talking just about temperature, people could adapt to either scale. However, in general the metric system is much more sensible.
--
47 days until the winter solstice celebration

Mark Lloyd

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on November 9, 2006, 5:22 pm
Dave Smith wrote:

I disagree, even though I have a science background (Physics). Metric is great for doing that sort of thing, but for weather, not so much.
Fahrenheit is good because 100F is really nice and hot, and 0F is really nice and cold. Bounds the temps that humans deal with rather nicely. 100C is outside the range of experience (one hopes) and 0C is coldish. Who cares what temperature water boils at?
The degrees F have nice granularity, so you don't have to deal with fractional ones when describing the weather.
Brian
--
If televison\'s a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won\'t shut up.