←back to thread

896 points tux3 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.806s | source
Show context
shadowgovt ◴[] No.43547706[source]
This reminds me of how the Fahrenheit scale came about.

For all its flaws, Fahrenheit was based on some good ideas and firmly grounded in what you could easily measure in the 1720s. A brine solution and body heat are two things you can measure without risking burning or freezing the observer. Even the gradations were intentional: in the original scale, the reference temperatures mapped to 32 and 96, and since those are 64 units apart, you could mark the rest of the thermometer with a bit of string and some halving geometry. Marking a Celsius scale from 0 to 100 accurately? Hope you have a good pair of calipers to divide a range into five evenly-spaced divisions...

Nowadays, we have machines capable of doing proper calibration of such mundane temperature ranges to far higher accuracy than the needle or alcohol-mix can even show, but back then, when scientists had to craft their own thermometers? Ease of manufacture mattered a lot.

replies(2): >>43548657 #>>43552359 #
oddmiral ◴[] No.43548657[source]
100 + 28 degrees are not harder to mark than 64, and then aim 0 and 100 properly. :-/
replies(1): >>43548935 #
shadowgovt ◴[] No.43548935[source]
What would be the process to do that? To aim 0 and 100 properly, you'd need a tool to calculate a 100:28 (25:7) ratio on an arbitrary distance, wouldn't you?

One can build such a tool, but it's not a doubled-over piece of string.

replies(2): >>43549542 #>>43550334 #
1. fluoridation ◴[] No.43549542[source]
Surely you can simply use a ruler and rotate it away from the parallel to achieve any arbitrary scale, right?
replies(1): >>43549779 #
2. shadowgovt ◴[] No.43549779[source]
If you happen to have a good ruler (again, 1720s... Those also cost money or time to make). A ruler and a T-square would work. But still, it's more complicated and requires a lot more bench to secure things in place at angles than folding a piece of string in half.
replies(1): >>43550105 #
3. fluoridation ◴[] No.43550105[source]
Well... Yeah. It costs money and/or time to make things. That's as much true now as it was back then, but I don't think a ruler would have been particularly difficult to make, even with 18th century technology.
replies(1): >>43552341 #
4. ◴[] No.43552341{3}[source]