Re: Boiling

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 16:35 3/10/01 -0700, Jim Green wrote:
> /snip/ ... students and their teachers (as
> witnessed by comments on this thread) and for that mater apparently authors
> of current texts (Serway, H&R, & Apostle, et al.) advertise (and apparently
> the CRC Handbook) that Celsius is just another name for "Centigrade") It
> will take years to overcome this error -- just as it is taking years
> (centuries) to overcome other legends.
>
> It is not he inaccuracy in the data that I abhor as much as the poor
> conceptualization.
....
> I don't look upon this issue as trivia -- it is conceptually wrong to
> preach the traditional errors
/snip/
> Jim Green

Reviewing the progress of thermometry like this:
1) a centigrade system between fixed points provided by a specified
freezing mixture and mean human body core temperature (due to Fahrenheit)
2) a centigrade system between fixed points provided by the
freezing point of pure water, and the boiling point of pure water
at a pressure of 1 atm  (due to Celcius)
3) a linearly divided scale with one physical fixed point which
is very repeatable - the triple point of pure water, and a lower point
which can be repeatably and closely approached, scaled so as to
approximate as far as possible with a simple zero shift, an existing
temperature scale in which many important results were
historically expressed.

I find it difficult to drum up any of Jim's righteous indignation
on behalf of the worthy teams of international scientific
bureaucrats who promulgate standards and definitions which are
intended above all to make critical scientific units more repeatable,
and more standardized in all countries and laboratories.
This is worthy work, no doubt - but it is not religion, in my view.


brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>  Altus OK
                Eureka!