sundevil777 93 #151 February 12, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote I find it strange that in Canada, vehicle fuel economy is not measured as kilometers/liter, they use liters/100 km. That is the inverse of miles/gallon as in the US. That is odd that they inverted it, instead of just using metric units. Is it the same in other metric countries? Makes perfect sense. Most people are more interested in how much gas it takes to go on a trip of a certain distance. Also it's easier to calculate averages this way - such as a 100km trip that is 50km highway and 50km city. You are wrong. The Honda Civic gets 36 mpg on the highway (5.7 liters/100km as reported by Canadian test methods - a slightly different result). If you want to figure how much fuel is required to go on a 150 mile (241km)trip, you must do... 150/36=4.2 gal. In metric-land you must do... (241/100)*5.7=14 liters. The dividing by 100 is obviously easy to do, but you still must either divide or multiply by a 2 digit number. I assert that using mpg is more direct, and at the least doesn't make any less "perfect sense" than using liters/100km (or km/liter). A split city/hwy trip is also not any more conveniently calculated. No, you are wrong, as shown by the fact that you avoided the situation I described, which was calculating an average for mixed highway/city driving. As shown by the fact that you avoided demonstrating your assertion, I think you got nothing. People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #152 January 21, 2015 quade Quote If i said it here, i might get banned You are aware you've technically already crossed that line and I'm cutting you slack; right? What absolutely fascinates me is why some people actually care about the F vs C thing to begin with, since, you know, both systems are equally arbitrary. I suppose it's because they'd rather believe the system they're using is "correct" when in reality, it just doesn't matter. Ok, well, I say that glibly, I guess if you want to build a structure that would last over 5,000 years, you probably wouldn't use metric. ................................................................................ Arbitrary? Fahrenheit is arbitrary. Celcius is much easier to understand with ) degrees being freezing, while 10 degrees is the boiling temperature of water. In elementary school, they taught Fahrenheit, while they taught Celcius in high school. Is there any wonder I am confused????? I am even more confused about the French dialect they taught in high school. I have never heard that dialect spoken in Europe or North America????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #153 January 21, 2015 "Hey, 98.6 37, it's good to have you back again Oh, hey, 98.6 37, her lovin' is the medicine that saved me Oh, I love my baby" Yeah ...that just doesn't work so well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #154 January 21, 2015 muff528"Hey, 98.6 37, it's good to have you back again Oh, hey, 98.6 37, her lovin' is the medicine that saved me Oh, I love my baby" Yeah ...that just doesn't work so well. Same, same for Suzanne Vega's 99.9 F lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #155 January 21, 2015 Another Vega fan! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #156 January 21, 2015 But, of course! lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #157 January 21, 2015 riggerrobArbitrary? Fahrenheit is arbitrary. Celcius is much easier to understand with ) degrees being freezing, while 10 degrees is the boiling temperature of water. 1) Way to necro a four-year-old thread. LoL. 2) Yes, they are both utterly and completely arbitrary. Neither is anything "special" in terms of a universal standard. Both were based on what the creators thought were somewhat universal standards; both of which turned out to be inaccurate in universal terms. Both offer the same degree (pun intended) of "accuracy," but then again, so would standards based on other arbitrary criteria. The freezing point of salt water and the temperature of the human body were Farenheit's zero and 100. The freezing and boiling point of "pure" water were Celsius's. Neither takes into account a couple of other factors though, like in the case of Celsius, pressure, and so are arbitrary. In fact, Celsius has been redefined (just like all the other arbitrary metric units) in order to make them more precise and defined, but to do that the definition has to go well beyond what you learned in school. It's not simply the freezing and boiling point of water. So, what that means is, the original definitions were, as I said, arbitrary. Essentially just pulled out of the asses of the guys who thought them up.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,050 #158 January 21, 2015 Quote Essentially just pulled out of the asses of the guys who thought them up. That's only because Pythagoras never took a shot at it. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #159 January 21, 2015 quade***Arbitrary? Fahrenheit is arbitrary. Celcius is much easier to understand with ) degrees being freezing, while 10 degrees is the boiling temperature of water. 1) Way to necro a four-year-old thread. LoL. 2) Yes, they are both utterly and completely arbitrary. Neither is anything "special" in terms of a universal standard. Both were based on what the creators thought were somewhat universal standards; both of which turned out to be inaccurate in universal terms. Both offer the same degree (pun intended) of "accuracy," but then again, so would standards based on other arbitrary criteria. The freezing point of salt water and the temperature of the human body were Farenheit's zero and 100. The freezing and boiling point of "pure" water were Celsius's. Neither takes into account a couple of other factors though, like in the case of Celsius, pressure, and so are arbitrary. In fact, Celsius has been redefined (just like all the other arbitrary metric units) in order to make them more precise and defined, but to do that the definition has to go well beyond what you learned in school. It's not simply the freezing and boiling point of water. So, what that means is, the original definitions were, as I said, arbitrary. Essentially just pulled out of the asses of the guys who thought them up. Celsius is still superior since its only based on one arbitrary variable, water, where as Fahrenheit is based on two, salt water, and the body temperature of the dude who made it up when he had a fever.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #160 January 21, 2015 ArvoitusCelsius is still superior since... Nope. It's just something you happen to like. It's not "superior" in any way. Superior and non-arbitrary would be something like zero being set at the temperature at which all matter ceases to vibrate (aka "absolute zero") and some other completely universal temperature which would be standard, reproducible, and probably known by any other alien civilization in the universe. We make the assumption that life needs water to survive and it's not entirely unreasonable, but it's completely unreasonable to assume the boiling point of water on earth at "standard" sea level pressure is universal, so something better might be zero at absolute zero and one being the triple point of water.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #161 January 21, 2015 QuoteCelsius is still superior since its only based on one arbitrary variable, water, where as Fahrenheit is based on two, salt water, and the body temperature of the dude who made it up when he had a fever. Arguably, Fahrenheit is a single variable, that being the human body. Zero F is the freezing point of isotonic saline, which is the percentage of salt in solution in the human body. Nyeah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rickendiver 6 #162 January 21, 2015 Anybody use the Delisle scale? How about Newton, Reaumur, Romer scales? If one standard is good, then a shit ton of them is great, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #163 January 21, 2015 The only measurement that makes any sense at all is absolute zero. But then it's also arbitrary since, according to the laws of thermodynamics, absolute zero cannot be reached. How you go up from there is going to be arbitrary. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #164 January 22, 2015 lawrocketThe only measurement that makes any sense at all is absolute zero. But then it's also arbitrary since, according to the laws of thermodynamics, absolute zero cannot be reached. How you go up from there is going to be arbitrary. Negative. That's like saying the speed of light is arbitrary. No. It's a universal constant.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #165 January 22, 2015 quade***The only measurement that makes any sense at all is absolute zero. But then it's also arbitrary since, according to the laws of thermodynamics, absolute zero cannot be reached. How you go up from there is going to be arbitrary. Negative. That's like saying the speed of light is arbitrary. No. It's a universal constant. The magnitude of a Kelvin is arbitrary. It's still 0.01 of the temperature difference between the phase change temperatures of water under an arbitrarily defined condition of pressure, just like a degree Celsius.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #166 January 22, 2015 Celsius - better for cheap projects because you can get all reasonable temps on a two digit display. (And a three digit C display gives you MUCH better accuracy than a three digit F display.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #167 January 22, 2015 lawrocketThe only measurement that makes any sense at all is absolute zero. But then it's also arbitrary since, according to the laws of thermodynamics, absolute zero cannot be reached. How you go up from there is going to be arbitrary. min (0) = absolute zero (or a point that essentially approaches it) max (100?, 1000000? whatever) = planck temp? would that be rational (I hadn't read the other pages, so if this is old ground. too bad) For just those on this planet? I'm fine with a scale based on water's phase changes.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #168 January 22, 2015 >min (0) = absolute zero (or a point that essentially approaches it) >max (100?, 1000000? whatever) = planck temp? "Bad news, Mrs. Smith. Your child's fever is up. Yesterday he was at zero P and today his fever is zero P." "Aren't those the same?" "Well, I don't really have time to list all the zeroes. Trust me, he's worse." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #169 January 22, 2015 rehmwa***The only measurement that makes any sense at all is absolute zero. But then it's also arbitrary since, according to the laws of thermodynamics, absolute zero cannot be reached. How you go up from there is going to be arbitrary. min (0) = absolute zero (or a point that essentially approaches it) max (100?, 1000000? whatever) = planck temp? It doesn't have to go from absolute zero to the maximum that could possibly be reached, just up to a point that is universally constant like, the triple point of water. That becomes your base unit; 1.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ControlFreak 0 #170 January 23, 2015 billvon. (And a three digit C display gives you MUCH better accuracy than a three digit F display.) Wut?Alcohol never really solved any problems. But then again, neither did milk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #171 January 23, 2015 ControlFreak ***. (And a three digit C display gives you MUCH better accuracy than a three digit F display.) Wut? Well, he's the engineer, but I think his conclusion is poppycock too. It's ONLY more "accurate" for temperatures above 999°F. For temperatures in the normal earth range of say, -40 to +150°F I'm fairly certain his conclusion is pure fantasy.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,381 #172 January 23, 2015 quade ******. (And a three digit C display gives you MUCH better accuracy than a three digit F display.) Wut? Well, he's the engineer, but I think his conclusion is poppycock too. It's ONLY more "accurate" for temperatures above 999°F. For temperatures in the normal earth range of say, -40 to +150°F I'm fairly certain his conclusion is pure fantasy. I think he was referring to the fact that a degree in C is only 5/9 the range of a degree in F."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #173 January 23, 2015 ryoder *********. (And a three digit C display gives you MUCH better accuracy than a three digit F display.) Wut? Well, he's the engineer, but I think his conclusion is poppycock too. It's ONLY more "accurate" for temperatures above 999°F. For temperatures in the normal earth range of say, -40 to +150°F I'm fairly certain his conclusion is pure fantasy. I think he was referring to the fact that a degree in C is only 5/9 the range of a degree in F. It's LESS accurate if using integers.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #174 January 23, 2015 QuoteIt's LESS accurate if using integers. Paul, if you're going to have a discussion with engineers, at least try and use the correct terminology. It's less precise. Not less accurate.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #175 January 23, 2015 RemsterQuoteIt's LESS accurate if using integers. Paul, if you're going to have a discussion with engineers, at least try and use the correct terminology. It's less precise. Not less accurate. so what you are saying is that 32.00155793135 F, is less precise than 0.000865517 C?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
