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

gibber gibber gibber

Whisky is on holidays with no internet access for a week, so I presume we won't hear from him until Monday next. Since a few things have been suggested which he might like to include in the entry, I'd suggest that the editors leave this until he gets back.

Me too. The worldwide standards:

Room Temperature and Pressure: 298K (25 deg. C), 1 atm
Standard Temperature and Pressure: 273K (0 deg. C) 1 atm

Whoami?

Ok... just to pick up on the last few postings...

Added to the Kelvin bit, but I don't want to go too deep in this entry.


Amalgad Gwayanir... I've used Britannica as a source for this entry so I'm reasonably happy that the setup for Fahrenheit they've given is correct... However, if you can come up with a source for your information I'd be more than willing to change things... for the moment though I'd rather go with Britannica.

As to the discussion on what exactly is room temperature... I'd actually taken 70°F as room temperature, which is how it ended up as 21 and not 20... but to be quite honest the idea of putting room temperature in the chart was more to give people the idea of whether something was hot or cold, (for example, if someone is not used to the Celsius scale and see on the TV that it's going to be 32°C tomorrow, taking a rouge estimate at room temperature being around 20 should let them see fairly easily that it's going to be hot, d**ned hot tomorrow - I'm not aiming at a scientific entry on what exactly 'room temperature' is.

(I've added the word 'approximately' to the room temperature figure, but to be honest I'd prefer to leave it at a round figure than to use 'exact' standards)


Ashley - I think it's ready to go now... unless of course someone's got anything else I should add?

I just realized how much this is infringing on my last section of A1010683

Anyway, well done Whisky

I've had a glance at your entry... shouldn't think there'll be too much of a problem when it's time for yours in PR... maybe insert a link to wherever the edited version of this one ends up

It's not going into PR, I justed wanted to say something besides Well done

I can't remember where I read about Fahrenheit basing his scale on much bigger units. But a quick search of the World-Wide Web shows that other people have the same impression. For example, Dr Math:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52561.html

He says that Fahrenheit used a scale of 12 degrees with body temperature = 12. He later subdivided them into 8 to give body temperature = 96. So I probably read this before and just mis-remembered the figures (I thought it was a scale of 8 divided into 12 subdivisions). He says this is according to the encyclopedia but doens't say which one he is using.

Hmm, strange...

Looks like he was using Britannica 1970, so his version's a little older than mine...

Tell you what, give me till this afternoon and I'll add in another paragraph giving the alternative story and play with the wording to say there is some doubt as to the origin of the scale

If the 1970s version of Britannica had that story and the later edition doesn't mention it, that suggests to me that they discovered it wasn't true. So I wouldn't mention it. After all, early versions of Britannica had the story about lemmings committing suicide!

You mean they didn't







Another one of my illusions shattered

Give me half an hour to figure out how to word this... I think the point should be addressed, even if it's just to say it's 'probably' not correct

Never trust a Britannica.

My 1953 edition firmly states that "The atom is the smallest unit of matter and is indivisable", which obviously wasn't paying a lot of attention to recent history.

B

...although it does spell "indivisible" correctly.

B

Hello,

I dunno if it's been mentioned before (too lazy for the backlog):

Nice Entry

For the sake of completeness Is there some biographic data on Rankin?

If Rankin scale is the same for °F as Kelvin is for °C, then 459,67 should be on a different position in the table, or you have to add 32 degrees to the value you give in the table.

Cheerio,

HELL

I think Hell is right!

**quickly tries to do some mental arthmetic..**

You're right

I must admit I couldn't find anythng out about Rankine... anyone know anything? Having said that, I must admit I'm not too worried about not including it... outside of US engineering circles I don't think the scale would be considered anything but a curiosity... and eventually I imagine it'll be phased out altogether.

Changed the temperature in the table to the correct one... (and the one in the paragraph on Rankines that was out by about 200°F )

Still wondering what I should do about the other possible method for Fahrenheit's scale.

Scottish engineer and physicist William Rankine (sic with an 'e'): 1820-72

Found this here (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0841129.html)

"Rankine, William John Macquorn , 1820–72, Scottish engineer and physicist. Serving as a professor of engineering at the Univ. of Glasgow from 1855, he made valuable contributions to civil and mechanical engineering as well as to thermodynamics. His manuals of applied mechanics and of civil engineering and one on the steam engine and other such engines went into many editions."

Bye,

HELL

I'm just wondering one thing... What makes Awu's method so great? (No offense Awu ) I mean, I can remember 5/9 and 32. And when I don't, am I likely to remember 212 and 32?

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!