Apparently its possible to measure temperature in chirps too...
http://www.snopes.com/science/cricket.asp


NT

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"NT" wrote in message
...
Apparently its possible to measure temperature in chirps too...
http://www.snopes.com/science/cricket.asp


NT

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian


Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 02:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
NT wrote:

Apparently its possible to measure temperature in chirps too...
http://www.snopes.com/science/cricket.asp


NT

Who said cricket was dumb?
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 02:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
NT wrote:

Apparently its possible to measure temperature in chirps too...
http://www.snopes.com/science/cricket.asp


NT

Who said cricket was dumb?

Indeed, if there is no play, you can be sure its raining, and the
historical rainfall is highly correlated to the incidence of drawn
county matches.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Jun 16, 10:58*am, "Andy Bartlett" wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL


NT

On 16/06/2012 14:05, NT wrote:
On Jun 16, 10:58 am, "Andy wrote:
"Brian wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL

Celsius is the internationally agreed term, because it is unambiguous.
Centigrade has different meanings in different languages and technically
Fahrenheit is also a centigrade scale, in that its fixed points were
zero - the freezing point of concentrated brine - and 100 - blood
temperature. There is a theory that a prevalence of low level infections
meant that, in the time of Fahrenheit, the average blood temperature
really was 100F.

Colin Bignell

They mean the same thing so why change the word? At least they are similar,
for cycles per second ie frequency, we lost cycles in favour of Hertz, and I
bet the van company paid the eu to do that!

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Andy Bartlett" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian


Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

The snag with the basing of temperature on boiling and freezing is just what
you said, they vary according the air pressure, so are not constant.
Presumably, absolute zero is.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if you tried to go below absolute
zero?

is it a bit like the speed of light measured in the local framework, ie
cannot change?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"NT" wrote in message
...
On Jun 16, 10:58 am, "Andy Bartlett" wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL


NT

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:14:42 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

absolutely!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:18:50 +0100
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

The snag with the basing of temperature on boiling and freezing is
just what you said, they vary according the air pressure, so are not
constant.

That's why Standards use a specific Temperature and Pressure, so the
conditions are repeatable.
--
Davey.

On Jun 16, 6:18*pm, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 10:58 am, "Andy Bartlett" wrote:



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL

NT

The snag with the basing of temperature on boiling and freezing is just what
you said, they vary according the air pressure, so are not constant.
Presumably, absolute zero is.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if you tried to go below absolute
zero?

is it a bit like the speed of light measured in the local framework, ie
cannot change?

Brian

temperature is molecular motion. Its not possible to go below zero
motion.


NT

In article
, NT
wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:18 pm, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 10:58 am, "Andy Bartlett" wrote:



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has
an awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for
scientific and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points
(boiling (100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal
temperature and pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius
back in 1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL

NT

The snag with the basing of temperature on boiling and freezing is just
what you said, they vary according the air pressure, so are not
constant. Presumably, absolute zero is. Have you ever wondered what
would happen if you tried to go below absolute zero?

is it a bit like the speed of light measured in the local framework,
ie cannot change?

Brian

temperature is molecular motion. Its not possible to go below zero motion.

backwards?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In message
, NT
writes
On Jun 16, 6:18*pm, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 10:58 am, "Andy Bartlett" wrote:



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has an
awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for scientific
and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points (boiling
(100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal temperature and
pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius back in
1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL

NT

The snag with the basing of temperature on boiling and freezing is just what
you said, they vary according the air pressure, so are not constant.
Presumably, absolute zero is.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if you tried to go below absolute
zero?

is it a bit like the speed of light measured in the local framework, ie
cannot change?

Brian

temperature is molecular motion. Its not possible to go below zero
motion.

You've not been following Adams apprentice thread, have you?


--
geoff

On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:37:52 AM UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article
, NT
wrote:
On Jun 16, 6:18 pm, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

...
On Jun 16, 10:58 am, "Andy Bartlett" wrote:



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

...

Surprised we are not using Kelvin by now...

Brian

Kelvin has the same resolution and is based on "Centigrade" but has
an awkward offset back to absolute zero (273.15). This is fine for
scientific and engineering usage but nonsensical for the average Joe.

For everyday use having a unit based on familiar reference points
(boiling (100) and freezing (0) points of water under normal
temperature and pressure) is much more sensible.

As a point of note "Centigrade" is an old unit and has been replaced
officially by "Celsius". In fact the BBC changed to using Celsius
back in 1985!

Andy

says who? with what authority? Both are valid terms IRL

NT

The snag with the basing of temperature on boiling and freezing is just
what you said, they vary according the air pressure, so are not
constant. Presumably, absolute zero is. Have you ever wondered what
would happen if you tried to go below absolute zero?

is it a bit like the speed of light measured in the local framework,
ie cannot change?

Brian

temperature is molecular motion. Its not possible to go below zero motion.

backwards?


That's still a motion, at absolute zero the molecules stop moving which means they have zero energy so don;t exist is how I've understood it. ( or is it that after drinking a litre of absolute vodka I have zero movement ;-)

Even the coldest places in the universe are above absolute zero.