parshyaa
- 307
- 19
How we got this formula i know that the ratio of scale difference is 180/100 =9/5 but why to add 32, is it because °F at 0°c is + 32
The 0 was moved to be the freezing point of water. Here is some info:parshyaa said:How we got this formula i know that the ratio of scale difference is 180/100 =9/5 but why to add 32, is it because °F at 0°c is + 32
Awesome linkBattlemage! said:The 0 was moved to be the freezing point of water. Here is some info:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/12/fahrenheit-scale-isnt-arbitrary-seems/
(interestingly, originally the freezing point of water was 100°C, and the boiling point was 0°C, but Carl Linnaeus made that modification- Good read)
Ha that is a cool way to see it.James Pelezo said:
FactChecker said:I'm not sure how clear it is in the references, but for seafaring nations like Britain and Denmark, the freezing temperature of salt water is very significant. So setting the 0 of the Fahrenheit scale at that point makes sense. Maritime issues drove the development of clocks, thermometers, etc.
I am certainly not an expert in the history of this. I have seen it said a few times that 0°F is the freezing point of brine. (This reference says that 0°F was the lowest temperature he could get reliably by freezing brine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine . That makes sense to me.) I might have seen it explained as important for sailing, I don't remember. Maybe I just erroneously jumped to that conclusion. Certainly he would have wanted to include the temperature of freezing sea water in his temperature range.David J Wilson said:I fortified myself to argue with you with the aid of Google, which asserts that seawater freezes at 28.4°F. I seem to remember that Fahrenheit produced the lowest temperature possible to him in the day in his laboratory to get to his zero.
rbelli1 said:Is there an explanation as to why the two scales match up so nicely? The defined points are rather arbitrarily chosen.