Talk:Fahrenheit
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Fahrenheit".

content
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated Start-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-Class, High-importance)
Lightning0.jpg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Measurement (Rated Start-Class, High-importance)
Nuvola apps kruler.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Information icon.svg This article has an assessment summary page.

For Wiki articles, there's a handy template to display the same temperature in two units, e.g. {{convert|18|°C|°F|1}} yields 18 °C (64.4 °F). Also, Google provides a conversion tool -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Talk

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.

OH GOD! I hate that argument. Just because it gets colder where you are from, does not mean that 0 degrees Fahrenheit is not cold. If you really think that 0 degrees Fahrenheit is not cold, then why do you still wear winter clothes when it is 0 degrees Fahrenheit and not shorts and a tank top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.68 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

We have an article about that: Bisection. Shinobu (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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
while we're at it, there's Fahrenheit by Dior (kidding) -- Tarquin 10:44 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Other factors contributing to selection of reference points

Has anyone else noticed that by the current Fahrenheit scale, a freezing temperature of 0 degrees for pure water would mean a core temperature of 66.6 degrees for a human, an uncomfortable number for churches during his time. Think about it... Freezing and boiling separated by 180 degrees but neither at 0 or 180.

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).

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)

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

No comments about his name, but the article does state that Fahrenheit was a physicist. you would be hard-pressed to find a Fahrenheit biographer that identified him primarily as a physicist by trade. Notably, the article about Daniel Fahrenheit on this same website does not mention that he was a physicist, nor that he ever studied physics explicitly. I've read that Fahrenheit invented his scale while working as a maker of glass instruments in the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.245.59 (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
Only old people use Imperial measurements in Canada. Elementary schools only mention Imperial when teaching how to convert to metric. Any high school or university worth anything has little to do with imperial. Honestly, Canada should outlaw the imperial system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.177.83 (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
asians ARE puzzled by the Americans and their use of non-metric units in general. I grudgeingly accept to do the maths if I am in the US, but when US Tourists not only refuse to understand metric units when in Europe, but allow themselves to yell at you for refering to temperatures and distances in metric units, I get PUZZLED. Okay, let's put into the article that the US, with less than 5% of the world's population, now is the only country using the Fahrenheit system. Osopolar —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:02, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Being an American currently living overseas, I have found it difficult to get used to Celcius, and overtime I have thought of some clear advantages to Fahrenheit when discussing the weather, possibly explaining why Americans have been so resistant to a change to Celcius. I have therefore added an "Advantages in weather readings" section, as I feel that this article should discuss advantages (as well as disadvantages) to the scale. I would welcome a disadvantages section as well.Ds9kicks (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for the contribution. Unfortunately, the text is primarily opinion, unsupported by any references, and has had to be removed. Please don't take this as a comment on the quality of your opinions, as that is not the issue at hand. The problem stems from the fact that it is your opinion, and as doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion. (If you can find a documented survey or some scientific research that draws such a conclusion, that would be more appropriate.) Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC).


Imperial measurement is not taught in Canadian schools. I can't even imagine an elementary/secondary/university science program in Canada using anything other than metric. The reference on here that Canadians use F for water temperature is certainly odd and incorrect.

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.your dumb 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

I wouldn't agree that individuals don't mix the two systems. It's common to hear the same person use Celsius for cold temperatures and Fahrenheit for hot ones. Nearly everyone refers to freezing weather as 0 degrees (Celsius) but come summer the same people will say 'it's 80 degrees' meaning Fahrenheit. Crazy I know but a typical British 'compromise' Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Certainly. I also noticed this when my country switched from the guilder to the euro; after a few days it's like a mental switch flips and the euro seems normal. Shinobu (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Danzig, Gdansk

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)

Then please read the voting page and the associated talk pages. Anyway, to me it looks like a reasonable guideline, but if you feel a need to protest and make your voice heard, you can do it here: Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. Shinobu (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

Page name

Discussion moved to Talk:Units of measurement because it affects several units of measurement. bobblewik


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)

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)

Really simple, any graphing calculator can do it....two straight lines, crossing at the left with F rising more steeply. --Dan (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
   What do you mean "crossing at the left"? The lines cross at -40 degrees. Ted. 203.161.131.164 (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Celsius 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)

I think this approximate conversion is "common knowledge" as I've been aware of it for many years. Another somewhat useful conversion is 61 °F is approximately 16 °C (i.e. reverse the digits).Mspearpoint 10:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be common knowledge, because it trivially follows from the formulas given in the article, just by replacing 5/9 by 1/2 which makes calculation simpler and choosing an origin for the scale that lies roughly in the center of the temperature range that one is likely to encounter. Most of the time you won't get anything below -10 or above 30 and usually the temperature lies between 0 and 20. Shinobu (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


The 16°C=61°F is interesting but not too useful as a "conversion" and not perfectly accurate either. I've been aware of the doubling of Celsius and adding 30 for some time. It’s an old pilot’s trick and pilots have to do that a lot in the US. I think my extension of this might be original but I'm not positive. And, it's not really "original", but my approach might be somewhat unique. . If you get comfortable remembering that double it and add 30 approximation, you can easily make the conversion exact. Merely adjust your result toward 50°F by 10% of the difference between your result and °50F. It might sound difficult but it’s not. So for example, if your preliminary approximation is 40°F, you would adjust it to 41°F. Or, if your preliminary result were 90°F, adjust it to 86°F. The formula is [°F]= ([°C]*2+30) + (50-([°C] * 2 +30)) * .1 which looks awful but it’s a lot easier to do in your head than [°F] = [°C] × 9⁄5 + 32. If one does the mathematics it’s easy to prove that the formulas are equivalent, so that’s why I say it’s not all that original.. just unique and easier. . It’s not too bad for converting from °F to °C either. The first step in adjusting away from °50F by 10% leads to some slight inaccuracies but it’s real close. To be accurate you’d have to adjust it away from 50°F by 11.111...% That’s not as easy to do in your head. 138.32.32.166 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Paul Crawford (not a registered user)

I used the "x 2 + 30" conversion extensively while in the US. Another useful approximation is that F = C * 2 at around 200 C, useful for converting recipes. The cross-over point for that is 160 °C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.33.30 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

20 °C represents the temperature one fifth of the way from melting ice to boiling water. :-) It turns out to be a comfortable temperature to live in, so most houses have there thermostates set somewhere between 18 and 22. Shinobu (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
I have reverted it. The text is (in addition to the other concerns) poorly written, uncited, and not particularly relevant. Fahrenheituser, you've been trying to insert this material for a while now, going against the wishes of several other editors. Why? --Ckatzchatspy 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There... now it says "assert". --Ckatzchatspy 05:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

usa

who other than usa actually uses farenheit


Jamaica and Belize Use it as well.

-Just passing by :)

If anyone cares... I've seen the Jamaica/fahrenheit claim a few times now, but I haven't found any support for it. I searched Jamaican government websites and only found celsius. My wife just asked a co-worker from Jamaica, and he confirmed that Jamaica uses Celsius. Saraalan 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted reference in the article to Jamaica using Fahrenheit. I'm not sure where to put this note to make it clear, but Jamaica officially has converted to celsius and teaches celsius. http://www.metservice.gov.jm/ Perhaps I should put a note in the article that "It's commonly thought that Jamaica uses Fahrenheit, but ..."? Saraalan 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
Yes, (°C + 40) * 9/5 - 40 = °F and (°F + 40) * 5/9 - 40 = °C. Notice that 40 * 9/5 = 32 and 40 * 5/9 - 40 = -32 * 5/9. So the two units scale linearly in each other, it's just that the origin from which to scale isn't located at zero. Shinobu (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

I was taught in school that the 100F point was defined as the temperature of Farenheit's pet dog. This is both reasonable and humourous, although of uncertain truth. 192.91.191.29 (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Wikipedia, and are even regarded as Vital articles. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Measurement to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactness of definitions

This article is very imprecise when it comes to the definition of Fahrenheit. "Some time after his death, it was decided to recalibrate the scale with 32 °F and 212 °F as the exact melting and boiling points of plain water." - surely there must be a more precise definition than that: at what altitude? What barometric pressure? What does it mean by plain water? Is this an international standard? Is the scale now defined in relation to SI units (as some other imperial measurements now are)? And does anybody know who did this or when?

Also in the first section, it should make it clear whether absolute zero is exactly or approximately −459.67 F (or -459.67 to 2 decimal places, if you prefer to express it that way), in view of the fact that Celsius is defined by absolute zero being exactly 273.15 degrees below 0 C. If absolute zero in Fahrenheit is not an exact fraction, the article should clearly distinguish definitions from approximations. Unbendingtree 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The zero point is determined by placing the thermometer in a mixture of ice, water, and ammonium chloride, a salt. This is a type of frigorific mixture. The mixture automatically stabilizes its temperature at 0 °F. " seems to be redundant to me. If not completely meaningless -- zero point was based on a mixture, which just happens to have a temperature of zero degrees fahrenheit? PirateAngel (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti

Yea, some retard put Tara Rules there, and another "hi how r u doing i'm fine thanx". I think that we should cancel the editing if this happens again. I'll remove those two things right now. Ceil-Sama 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The page history has an undo option now. It generally works quite well, and even when it doesn't the history can help you pinpoint the exact areas of text that are affected. Shinobu (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage

I just deleted reference in the article to Jamaica using Fahrenheit. The statement referenced a tourism website aimed at U.S. travelers, so it proved nothing. I'm not sure where to put this note to make it clear, so I apologize for entering it twice. But Jamaica officially has converted to celsius and teaches celsius. http://www.metservice.gov.jm/ In addition to that link, I have found others supporting that point, and my wife has discussed this with someone from Jamaica. It's possible that there are people in Jamaica still using Fahrenheit, and statements to that effect are fine, but the idea that "Jamaica uses Fahrenheit" is not true. Should I put a note in the article that "It's commonly thought that Jamaica uses Fahrenheit, but ..."? Saraalan 04:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not unless it's notable and verifiable that it's commonly thought that Jamaica uses Fahrenheit. Anyway, thanks for the fix. Shinobu (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to spell

http://www.celsius-to-fahrenheit.com/ has a list of misspellings of Fahrenheit that is quite impressive: farenheit, faernheight, fahenheit, fahernheight, fahranheit, fahreheight, fahreheit, fahrehnheit, fahreinheigt, fahreinheit, fahren, fahren heat, fahrenaites, fahreneheit, fahreneit, fahrengheit, fahrenghieght, fahrenhait, fahrenheid, fahrenheiet, fahrenheight, fahrenheite, fahrenheith, fahrenhet, fahrenhiet, fahrenhight, fahrenhite, fahriet, faireheit, fairenheit, fairenheite, fairenthigh, fairheight, fanrenhite, farahein, faranheat, faranhiet, faranhight, fareheint, fareheit, farehnait, fareienheit, fareigheight, fareighheight, fareignheit, fareingheit, fareinheight, fareinheigt, fareinheit, farengheit, farenhaid, farenhaight, farenhait, farenhaith, farenheat, farenheeight, farenheid, farenheidt, farenheight, farenheigt, farenheiht, farenheit, farenheite, farenheith, farenhieght, farenhiet, farenhight, farenhit, farenhute, farenight, farheight, farheneight, farheneit, farhenheit, farhenhiet, farhenit, farhienhiet, farhreheit, farhrenheit, fariegn, farienheight, farienheit, farienhieght, farienhiet, faringhight, farinhaert, farinhart, farinheight, farinhight, farinhit, farneheit, farnehight, farneit, farnheit, farnhiet, farren height, farrenheit, fehernheit, fehrenheit, fehrenhit, fehrenhite, feirenheirt, feirinheight, fenrnhight, fereheith, fereinheit, ferenheight, ferenheit, ferenheith, ferenhight, ferenhite, ferheinight, ferhienight, ferienhiet, ferihite, ferinheight, ferinheit, ferinhet, ferinhiet, ferinhight, ferinhite, fernheit, fernhit, fharenheit, foreignheit, forenghiet, forenhiet, franenheit, and frenihieght

A search for almost any of these misspellings comes up with no result. Is there any way to include this in the page in some kind of meta-info so that these misspellings of fahrenheit bring it up when people search for it? Or should we just use 80 redirect pages?Brinerustle 08:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually we don't link from misspellings because the base for which misspellings to include and which not to include is completely arbitrary. However, sometimes a misspelling is so common that we link it for convenience, in which case the {{R from misspelling}} template can be used to signify this. That said, I don't think Fahrenheit is particularly hard to spell and I think most of the misspellings you listed look contrived and I cannot imagine that any of them are even remotely common. Shinobu (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Usage Citation?

I find it interesting that someone feels it necessary to provide a published, verifable source for the statement that "Fahrenheit is still sometimes used by older generations in many English speaking countries, especially for measurement of higher temperatures and for cooking", whereas similar statements are made in the Celsius#Worldwide_adoption section without any such requirement. However, if the WikiMasses insist, I'll start throwing up ISBNs of cookbooks in current publication. 142.162.37.141 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dangit; tried to 'watch this page' and found I wasn't signed in - the above is me *blush* Empath (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

big deal?

Temperatures and intervals
As with the Celsius scale, the same symbol, "°", is used to denote both a point on the temperature scale, with a letter (C, F) indicating which scale is being used (e.g. "Gallium melts at 85.5763 °F") and to denote a difference between temperatures or an uncertainty of temperature (e.g. "The output of the heat exchanger is hotter by 72 °C," and "Our standard uncertainty is ±5.4 °C").

... that's a characteristic of each and every "interval/cardinal scale". Just think of measures of distance, volume, weight, etc. Is there any reason to leave that information in the article? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


"the words are too complicated, i'm just a kid after all." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.230.187 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ammonium or Sodium?

The References 2 and 3 and the article Frigorific mixture state the use of common salt i.e. sodium chloride (NaCl) as a part of zero reference. The article makes use of reference 6 which states ammonium chloride (NH4Cl). Can someone competent correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.222.53.82 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
© jGames.co.uk 2007 (some content from Wikipedia under GDL ) !-- ValueClick Media 468x60 and 728x90 Banner CODE for jgames.co.uk -->
Your Ad Here