h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

SI unit of pressure is Pa, short for Pascal, equivalent to force of 1 Newton per square metre.

1 bar = 100,000 Pa = 100 kPa = 0.1 MPa

1 atmosphere = 101,325 Pa.

Therefore 1 atmosphere = 1.01325 bar

and 1 bar = 0.986923 atmospheres.

SoRB

So, just confirming that you're suggesting an amendment to Footnote 5, yes? Anywhere else on the entry that needs changing?

Paully

I think that's a bit pedantic meself. All I intended to say was that 1 bar is equivalent to 1 atmosphere approximately - which it is. (I don't think I put in a precise conversion).

Traveller in Time wondering what purpose the Forum on an entry has left
"It is not rally that significat to have the conversion in the enty. I doubt it is suitable as a home project to produce PTFE.

Any chance of a link to Quasicrystals And one back I suppose. "

"I think that's a bit pedantic meself. All I intended to say was that 1 bar is equivalent to 1 atmosphere approximately"

And if that's what you'd said, I wouldn't have corrected it, because you would have been right.

However, you didn't say that, and what you did say was wrong. I dare say you'll get over it.

SoRB

So is there a consensus on anything that might need changing?

P

Traveller in Time trying to keep another slippery Entry up
[Quasicrystals]
[ ]
[ ]

"A Reference to Quasicrystals < A6582675 > would be appropriate I guess. "

Well if you can write a sentence referencing Quasicrystals and let me know where to pop it into the article, then that's no problem!

Paully

'So is there a consensus on anything that might need changing?'

Just sday that '1 bar is approximately equal to 1 atmosphere'.

But it already says that in footnote 5... Am confused!

P

Which part of this is confusing for you, Paully?

In the ENTRY, footnote 5, it says: "One bar is equivalent to 1.01295 atmospheres". This statement is what we doctors call WRONG.

I have, FOUR TIMES NOW, pointed out that in the real world, 1 bar = 0.986923 atmospheres.

Now - just how many times do I have to repeat this perfectly simple fact before you understand what it is that needs changing?

I've been called pedantic for pointing this out, but to my mind if you're going to quote a number to seven significant figures, it would be nice if even ONE of them was right, don't you think?

SoRB

No need to be snappy, SoRB. Just trying to ensure that I make everyone's life a little bit happier, easier, less stressful and accurate. Please forgive me for not understanding you the first three times.

Please have a look at the amendment I've made and see if it's now accurate. I'd hate for it to remain a point of stress for you.

P

Thank you. And it only took two weeks.

SoRB

Well it might have taken less than two weeks if, in the first place, you'd actually explained what it was you wanted us to do, where the error was in the article and which bits needed changing... C'mon, try and throw us a bone when suggesting updates and corrections! We're busy people too!

Paully

Read correction: 30 seconds.

Open entry: 3 seconds.

Hit Control F: 1 second.

Type "bar": 5 seconds (assuming hunt'n'peck).

Press return: 1 second.

Read first search result: 10 seconds.

Realise correction does not apply to this result: 10 seconds.

Press return again: 1 second.

Read second and final search result: 10 seconds.

Realise correction applies to this result: 10 seconds.

Open edit entry box: 5 seconds.

Copy and paste correct figure: 5 seconds.

Save and close corrected entry: 1 second.

Total time: a little under a minute and a half.



If I bother to suggest corrections in future I'll try to take what you just said into account, I promise...

SoRB

Jeez SoRB - why don't you just change your name back to Hoo and have done with it...

Look, Paully, as the author of this, I would be far happier if it merely says that 1 bar is approximately equal to 1 atmosphere.

In the present context this is far more meaningful than a number quoted to however many d.p.'s it is now quoted to. This is what I intended in the first place, and I don't recall putting the original precise conversion in. However, I suppose I must've done for it to be there at all