OT, but On Topic

I am with Europe on this one.

I work almost exclusively with SI units so I generally agree, except in two cases.

Pascals is the all time dumbest unit. Its so small that it is pretty much useless, so everything has to be Megapascals or Gigapascals.

The other is the Celsius temperature scale. It cannot be reproduced anywhere in the world and originally was dependent on another variable, pressure. Deriving the scale as defined today requires sophisticated equipment. The Fahrenheit scale datum points (0,32) can be reproduced anywhere in the world at any elevation with a bucket of water, some ice, and a couple of scoops of ammonium chloride salt, so who besides the French cares that water doesn't boil at some nice round number - nothing else does either.
 
Last edited:
I work almost exclusively with SI units so I generally agree, except in two cases.

Pascals is the all time dumbest unit. Its so small that it is pretty much useless, so everything has to be Megapascals or Gigapascals.

The other is the Celsius temperature scale. It cannot be reproduced anywhere in the world and originally was dependent on another variable, pressure. Deriving the scale as defined today requires sophisticated equipment. The Fahrenheit scale datum points (0,32) can be reproduced anywhere in the world at any elevation with a bucket of water, some ice, and a couple of scoops of ammonium chloride salt, so who besides the French cares that water doesn't boil at some nice round number - nothing else does either.

I guess the Celsius temperature scale is a metric system derivative...At sea level pressure, water freezes at 0 Celsius degrees and boils at 100 Celsius degrees...any processor loves zeroes and ones...:p
 
Yes, yes, the dumb ones fall out of favor over time, no matter where they are from if they are cumbersome. I never liked the pressure values on tire curing press pressure indicators; always had to do math in my head to get a feel for kilopascals -> psi. Due to familiarity.

In grade school we did learn millimeters and centimeters and fahrenheit but inches and foot were overwhelmingly everywhere and taught to us from about 3rd grade onward. And I recall being totally let down when I learned about age 8 that a 2 x 4 isn't really a 2 x 4...how disappointing, lets just use cubits.
 
Last edited:
..... And I recall being totally let down when I learned about age 8 that a 2 x 4 isn't really a 2 x 4...how disappointing.....

Last time I tried to buy some 2 x 4 they were out of stock...

Had to make do with 4 x 2 instead.


Anyway, back to the original question.....

Nobody has yet said "5". Wondering why....

Peter said "One can debate if the answer of 4 using integer math is a valid answer.". I say it is valid because you can only divide 9 into 4 2's, and you are left with one over that can't be divided.
 
Is it it WORD 9 BIT 2 ? That would be BIT # 161.

I make it bit # 146 if we are talking about 16-bit words, or bit # 290 if using 32-bit words.

But I was using the / as the Divide math operator.
 
At sea level pressure...

That right there is the problem with the Celsius scale, at least as originally defined. What day of the year? Morning or evening? What did the previous day's sunset look like? All of that impacts the derivation of the scale under the original definition, which is the reason it takes expensive scientific equipment to derive it with the modern definition.

OTOH, the equilibrium point of ice/water (32F) and equilibrium point of a saturated solution of ammonium chloride brine ice (0F) does not depend on pressure, and can be replicated anywhere, anytime with something no more sophisticated than a plastic bucket and a pair of dividers to divide the scale exactly 5.0 times. Alas, even if we has stuck with the Fahrenheit scale the definition would have been complicated by now.

FWIW, I do not do not use °F in this factory. We measure temperatures exclusively in °C so I'm far more at home with the Celsius scale than the Fahrenheit scale, especially for elevated temperatures. That familiarity does not mean I pretend that its derivation was not flawed from the beginning. However, we are stuck with it, so I use it and reserve the right to gripe and moan about it.
🍻
 
Last time I tried to buy some 2 x 4 they were out of stock...

Had to make do with 4 x 2 instead.


Anyway, back to the original question.....

Nobody has yet said "5". Wondering why....

Peter said "One can debate if the answer of 4 using integer math is a valid answer.". I say it is valid because you can only divide 9 into 4 2's, and you are left with one over that can't be divided.

Try this in Logix5k, with a DINT result. Now we have another "correct" answer: 4
 
The triple point is actually, 0.01°C, now fixed at that value by definition, making 0.01°C a datum point, not 0°C as commonly believed. Until about 60 years ago 0° was the freezing point of water, and 100° was the boiling point of water at sea level when the barometric pressure was exactly 101.325 KPa. Recognizing that this definition was problematic (but unable to admit for whatever reason that Fahrenheit was brilliant and had a better way, or maybe because the old wives tale about armpit temperature just would not die, it was not a datum point for his scale, just a coincidence.) the international commission of standards redefined the scale.

Today the scale is defined by absolute 0 and the triple point of water. Not just any water, but a formulation of water containing specific isotope ratios known as mean standard ocean water. Then to set the scale, the triple point was fixed by definition at 273.16K and a degree is 1/273.16th of the difference between the two. The Celsius scale is then defined in relation to this with -273.15°C = 0K by definition. Notice the .01° shift, which makes the triple point 0.01° on the Celsius scale. While the new definition is vastly improved and removes the pressure problem from determining the scale datum point, it introduces a need for sophisticated equipment to measure absolute zero and the triple point of mean standard ocean water. Additionally, it is dependent upon an exact formulation of water. Its also more difficult to divide a distance on a thermometer into 273.16 equal parts than it is to bisect it five times. The former is dependent upon having a measurement scale, the latter is not.

IMO, even had the F scale won out, we would have still tweaked the definition to improve its accuracy. But as long as 0° and 32° were the datum points, anyone with a bucket, ice, ammonium chloride, and a compass divider could have produced it with reasonable accuracy anywhere in the world.

That's probably more pedantic rambling about history than you wanted to know and history is full of what ifs. Its now what we have. In a modern first world country it doesn't really matter anymore and standardization is more important, so in the end, the Fahrenheit scale really needs to go the way of the Dodo bird. Now don't get me started on the foolish US public's intransigence over adopting the the SI standard and getting with the program. It's just plain stupid on our part and it hurts us economically and scientifically. o_O

Gripe over, this thread has gone far enough off topic. 🍻
 
When people these days complain about the conversios which would be needed I ask, about how much is 2 liters? They hold their hands representing the now standard larger bottle for beverages. I note "No conversion needed, you just learn how much it is from the start". Many also know 750 milliliters and 1.5 liters also.
 
When people these days complain about the conversios which would be needed I ask, about how much is 2 liters? They hold their hands representing the now standard larger bottle for beverages. I note "No conversion needed, you just learn how much it is from the start". Many also know 750 milliliters and 1.5 liters also.

But 750 milliliters and 1.5 liters are very important measurements. Much more important than the US/Metric discussion...
 

Similar Topics

This is the motor nameplate from one of the powder hoist motors on the USS Texas an older generation battle ship, built in 1911-1914 ish. The...
Replies
1
Views
295
Totally off topic, but strange observation. I purchased a few cisco ethernet switches off of ebay some years ago. They are part of a home lab...
Replies
6
Views
2,080
Hi Guys, Please, I need a topic that I can work on, to practise and improve my PLC programming skills and add to my portfolio. Thanks
Replies
30
Views
4,155
HI, im a student and never experience changing PLC battery. i have some questions in mind. 1. how will i know if the battery is low or it...
Replies
6
Views
3,057
Good morning, Please excuse me if this is too off topic here, but it is a programmable controller of sort. I have an Omron ES100P temperature...
Replies
4
Views
2,345
Back
Top Bottom