SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the There's-nothing-hotter-than-ITS-90 dept.
At face value, measuring the temperature using Celsius instead of Fahrenheit seems to make sense. After all, the freezing point of water in Celsius is a perfect 0 degrees C — not that inexplicable 32 degrees, as in Fahrenheit. Also, the boiling point of water in Celsius is right at 100 degrees (Okay, 99.98, but what's a couple hundredths of a degree among friends?), instead of the awkward 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
But Fahrenheit may be the best way to measure temperature after all. Why? Because most of us only care about air temperature, not water temperature.
Celsius is great for measuring the temperature of water. However, we're human beings who live on dry ground. As a result, it's best to use a temperature gauge that's suited to the air, as opposed to one that's best used for water. This is one reason why Fahrenheit is superior.
Fahrenheit is also more precise. The ambient temperature on most of the inhabited world ranges from -20 degrees Fahrenheit to 110 degrees Fahrenheit — a 130-degree range. On the Celsius scale, that range is from -28.8 degrees to 43.3 degrees — a 72.1-degree range. This means that you can get a more exact measurement of the air temperature using Fahrenheit because it uses almost twice the scale.
A precise reading of temperature is important to us because just a little variation can result in a perceivable level of discomfort. Most of us are people who are easily affected even by even slight changes in the thermometer, and the Fahrenheit scale is more sensitive to those changes.
It seems the author is saying that nobody uses fractions of degrees in day-to-day life, so Fahrenheit is a better scale because it has smaller increments. I'm not sold on this, because you'll get the same temperature variation within a room whether you set your air-conditioning system to 21°C or 70°F, and people will complain that they prefer the room to be a bit warmer/cooler/whatever.
Does anyone here have another reason for advocating the continued use of the Fahrenheit scale ?
(Score: 2) by N3Roaster on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:32PM (12 children)
I've long advocated that it also makes more sense to roast coffee in Fahrenheit degrees. That's still often done with a human monitoring a temperature read out that's changing continuously and adjusting controls manually (automation in coffee roasting tends to lag about a half century behind the state of the art in industrial process control, which works fine for giant roasters but kills the machine versatility that smaller roasters benefit from). Getting better precision for the number of digits you're looking at does make it easier to produce the same flavors consistently. Significant chemical changes in coffee roasting also happen closer to rounder numbers in Fahrenheit. I recommend that anybody roasting outside of the US take a week to try roasting in Fahrenheit and see if they like it better.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:38PM (7 children)
On the other hand, a round-numbered 40-60-70 (or, for some grain bills, 50-60-70) 3-step infusion process measured in degrees celsius is pretty much ideally suited to brewing beer. [howtobrew.com]
Beer is better than coffee, therefore your argument is invalid.
(Score: 2) by N3Roaster on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:43PM (6 children)
Not at all, you can use C for beer, F for coffee, and everybody can be happy. This notion around scales that there can be only one is bizarre.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:49PM (5 children)
Please, compromise!
You use Kelvin for both beer and coffee!
(Score: 2) by N3Roaster on Thursday July 27 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)
Kelvin has the same problems as Celsius. Now, Rankine, on the other hand...
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:20PM (2 children)
Wrong! Kelvin has no negatives!
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
Nope. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:00PM
It's a failure of definition, not a temperature that is actually colder than absolute zero. You guys bring this up every time :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 28 2017, @09:39AM
No, the only true temperature scale is, of course, Delisle! [wikipedia.org] ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @08:48PM (3 children)
better precision for the number of digits
For hot water, the Fahrenheit temperatures would be written with three digits before the decimal. In Celsius, they'd be written with two digits before the decimal. Suppose you had a three-digit readout with a decimal point. Then you could read it to the nearest 0.1 degree Celsius or the nearest 1 degree Fahrenheit. If you had a four-digit readout with a decimal, you could read to the nearest 0.01 Celsius or the nearest 0.1 Fahrenheit: the Celsius scale can show smaller increments in those scenarios.
I suppose that if you have a two-and-a-half-digit readout and confine yourself to temperatures below 200 Fahrenheit, or if you have a readout with no decimal point, the Fahrenheit scale is advantageous. Those seem a little contrived.
(Score: 2) by N3Roaster on Thursday July 27 2017, @09:36PM (2 children)
You're either replying to the wrong comment or coffee roasting happens at substantially higher temperatures than you seem to think.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 27 2017, @10:03PM (1 child)
Above 200°F, right? So what's the advantage of the Fahrenheit scale?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday July 27 2017, @11:38PM
If you go much above 200F, you're going to be hitting three digit temperatures in Celsius too. So you lose the decimal, and once again Fahrenheit can be displayed with more precision. So across the range from -70C to 540C, the only places where Celsius gives more precision with the same number of digits are within ~40C to 100C or -10C to 10C. Granted, 40C to 100C is a pretty common range, works well for brewing tea or something...but not for ovens or roasting or anything like that, and also not really for outdoor temperatures as 40C would be right at the top end of the scale.
Of course, you've also gotta consider the tolerances on the equipment. Just because it displays to the nearest digit doesn't mean it's actually measuring with that much accuracy/precision. I suspect arguing about the precision of fractional degrees is pretty pointless really...