Kelvin vs. Celsius

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Capt.Awesome
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:46 pm UTC

Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Capt.Awesome » Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:54 pm UTC

So, with 83+ pages of topics in "Science" I decided just to start a new topic for my question

I am an AP chemistry student and I came across a slight problem when converting between Kelvin and Celsius.
When you convert from Celsius to Kelvin you simply add 273.15 to the Celsius temperature. that part is easy. But when I tripple the number they should be the same.
i.e. if I take 6C and I tripple it I get 18C. When I convert 6C into Kelvin I get 279.15K. When I tripple 279.15K and convert back into Celsius (873K -273= 564C) I get 564C. These are obviously off a little bit.
Which is correct? What am I doing wrong, and why is it wrong?

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Tass » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:13 pm UTC

Capt.Awesome wrote:So, with 83+ pages of topics in "Science" I decided just to start a new topic for my question

I am an AP chemistry student and I came across a slight problem when converting between Kelvin and Celsius.
When you convert from Celsius to Kelvin you simply add 273.15 to the Celsius temperature. that part is easy. But when I tripple the number they should be the same.
i.e. if I take 6C and I tripple it I get 18C. When I convert 6C into Kelvin I get 279.15K. When I tripple 279.15K and convert back into Celsius (873K -273= 564C) I get 564C. These are obviously off a little bit.
Which is correct? What am I doing wrong, and why is it wrong?


Why should you triple it? Multiplying a temperature only makes physical sense on the absolute (that is: Kelvin) scale. 2C is not "twice as hot" as 1C.

Also be careful when considering differences: The difference between 10C and 6C is 10C-6C=4C. I you do it in Kelvin you get 283K-279K=4K. Note the difference is the same in both scales. You can't convert back and say that the difference is 277K. (I've seen books do this, although with Celcius and Farenheit. No 2degreesC/m is not 36degreesF/m).

If your triple temperature goes in any sort of formula then it is safe to say that doing it on the Kelvin temperature is the right.

User avatar
Gigano
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:38 pm UTC
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Gigano » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:43 pm UTC

The scale of Kelvin and Celcius are the same: the differ in what temperature they label with 0 degrees. Celcius sets 0 degrees to be the melting point of water, while Kelvins sets 0 degrees to be the absolute thermodynamic zero (-273.15 degrees C).

Thus when tripling a temperature in Celcius, and wanting to convert it to Kelvin, you should just triple the temperature in C, then add 273.15. So your tripling of 6 C and subsequent conversion to Kelvin would be (6 * 3) + 273.15 = 291.15 K.

And as Tass has pointed out, only factoring temperatures in the Kelvin scale actually mean that one temperature is a factor n hotter than another temperature (i.e. 500K is twice as hot as 250K; respectively 226.85 and -23.15 degrees C).
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby yurell » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:36 am UTC

For your chemistry uses, you'll likely be needing temperature in Kelvin before performing any maths on it.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

mfb
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby mfb » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:54 am UTC

Tass wrote:Also be careful when considering differences: The difference between 10C and 6C is 10C-6C=4C. I you do it in Kelvin you get 283K-279K=4K.

Use Kelvin for temperature differences please, exactly for that reason. A difference of 4°C has no physical meaning, a difference of 4K has.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:07 pm UTC

mfb wrote:A difference of 4°C has no physical meaning, a difference of 4K has.
A difference of 4 degrees C has exactly the same meaning as a difference of 4K, actually.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
BobTheElder
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:30 pm UTC
Location: England, near Bournemouth

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby BobTheElder » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:33 am UTC

Surely the problem here is just the basic math?
multiplying a BIG number by amount x gives you a bigger increase than multiplying a SMALLER number by x.
Surely this just means you shouldn't be doing multiplication with temperature? It will always increase by the same PROPORTION, won't it? So the physical logic still makes sense.
Rawr

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:44 am UTC

But it's perfectly okay to multiply temperatures on an absolute scale. The problem is where the 0 of your temperature scale is somewhere else, bcause what multiplication really does is change the distance from zero.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

pnyxtr
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:03 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby pnyxtr » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

I used to have to think a little about this stuff whenever someone asked.

But after having made control systems for cryocoolers for a couple of years, Celcius isn't more natural to me than Kelvin, it's obvious that it's just popular because it's a quite convenient scale for people. (The reasons for people to use Fahrenheit elude me, though, it's so incredibly impractical.)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 11, 2011 9:50 pm UTC

How is Fahrenheit any less convenient for people than Celsius?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
cpt
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:02 am UTC
Location: Boston/Cambridge

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby cpt » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:06 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:How is Fahrenheit any less convenient for people than Celsius?


Because 0 is less arbitrary than 32.


kidding

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:37 pm UTC

0 is also less arbitrary than -17.77777...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

ajd007
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:18 am UTC
Location: Providence, RI

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby ajd007 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:34 am UTC

Fahrenheit is nice because an average person's experience with temperature is going to be in the range of 0 to 100 degrees F. It's intuitive in the sense that 0 is probably the coldest temperature you've experienced, and 100 is probably the highest. It makes no sense for scientific uses, but it's very convenient for everyday usage.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby PM 2Ring » Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:21 am UTC

ajd007 wrote:Fahrenheit is nice because an average person's experience with temperature is going to be in the range of 0 to 100 degrees F. It's intuitive in the sense that 0 is probably the coldest temperature you've experienced, and 100 is probably the highest. It makes no sense for scientific uses, but it's very convenient for everyday usage.

I think that'd depend on where you live. I've never experienced weather with temperatures below freezing. I don't think I'd want to live where the temperature got below 5°C on a regular basis; I think the coldest it got here last winter was 8°C. And while I'll agree that 100°F can be classed as rather hot, it's not unbearably hot. Add another 10°F onto that though, and I don't feel like doing very much. :) OTOH, I know guys that regularly work outdoors in such high temperatures.

FWIW, Australia changed from using Fahrenheit to Celsius when I was in my early teens. So I grew up being familiar with temperatures expressed in Fahrenheit, but these days I have to convert them to Celsius in order to make sense of them. In contrast, I can cope equally well with length measurements given in metric or imperial units.

But even though I'm much more comfortable these days dealing with temperatures expressed in Celsius, and agree that the definition of the Celsius scale is a bit more sensible than that of the Fahrenheit scale, I do think that the Fahrenheit degree is a more conveniently sized unit than the Celsius degree, at least when it comes to talking about the weather. Of course, our weather reports could state temperatures to the nearest half a degree, but they never do - it's always (rounded ?) to a whole number of degrees.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Diadem » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:50 am UTC

ajd007 wrote:Fahrenheit is nice because an average person's experience with temperature is going to be in the range of 0 to 100 degrees F.

I know preference of one scale over another is large cultural and subjective, but I have to disagree with this statement.

The lowest temperature you experience will depend hugely on where you live. In many places it'll never get anywhere close to 0 F. In others temperatures can drop far below them. Fahrenheit himself, who was from Poland / Germany / The Netherlands, must have experienced temperatures below 0 F. It's not common in those parts, but it does happen every few years.

The highest temperature the average person experiences on a regular basis however will definitely be above 100 F for everybody. Everybody cooks food, or has experience with boiling things in some way or form. And if you're running a fewer you're already above a 100 F.

The celsius scale is quite natural, I think, because the freezing and boiling of water are two very common and very important natural phenomena. Noone ever cares about the difference between -1F and +1F. But the difference between -1°C and +1°C, that is the difference between being well fed in the coming months, or dying of starvation because your entire crop just got destroyed. It is the difference between driving home safely, or dying in a carwreck because of glaze.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby yurell » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:34 am UTC

To be fair, your last point is also true of Farenheit, just at a different point (31 - 33).
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:11 pm UTC

And in both cases it's not actually true on account of ice being able to exist above "freezing" and liquid water being able to exist below it. It's not as if entire crops die the second there's a bit of frost on them, nor do roads glaze over the second it drops below freezing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby LaserGuy » Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:40 am UTC

Diadem wrote:The celsius scale is quite natural, I think, because the freezing and boiling of water are two very common and very important natural phenomena. Noone ever cares about the difference between -1F and +1F. But the difference between -1°C and +1°C, that is the difference between being well fed in the coming months, or dying of starvation because your entire crop just got destroyed. It is the difference between driving home safely, or dying in a carwreck because of glaze.


Doesn't everyone regularly need to use 1:1:1 mixtures of ice, water, and ammonium chloride in their daily lives?

User avatar
jmorgan3
Posts: 710
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:22 am UTC
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby jmorgan3 » Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:46 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Diadem wrote:The celsius scale is quite natural, I think, because the freezing and boiling of water are two very common and very important natural phenomena. Noone ever cares about the difference between -1F and +1F. But the difference between -1°C and +1°C, that is the difference between being well fed in the coming months, or dying of starvation because your entire crop just got destroyed. It is the difference between driving home safely, or dying in a carwreck because of glaze.


Doesn't everyone regularly need to use 1:1:1 mixtures of ice, water, and ammonium chloride in their daily lives?

I believe most northern Europeans drink this with breakfast.
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Tass » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:49 am UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:I think that'd depend on where you live. I've never experienced weather with temperatures below freezing. I don't think I'd want to live where the temperature got below 5°C on a regular basis; I think the coldest it got here last winter was 8°C. And while I'll agree that 100°F can be classed as rather hot, it's not unbearably hot. Add another 10°F onto that though, and I don't feel like doing very much. :) OTOH, I know guys that regularly work outdoors in such high temperatures.


:shock:

37°C is not unbearably hot?? I prefer it to stop at 25°C, the few summer days where it climbs to 30 are not nice.

jmorgan3 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Doesn't everyone regularly need to use 1:1:1 mixtures of ice, water, and ammonium chloride in their daily lives?

I believe most northern Europeans drink this with breakfast.


We do like ammonium chloride, but not that much.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby yurell » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:25 am UTC

Tass wrote:37°C is not unbearably hot?? I prefer it to stop at 25°C, the few summer days where it climbs to 30 are not nice.


Don't spend summer here, where almost every day is 30+ and a good chunk of that is 35+, with the occasional burst of 40+ (which I'm sure we can all agree is uncomfortable).
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:47 pm UTC

People deal with ice on roads and snow more often than they deal with frozen brine.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Darryl » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:48 pm UTC

ajd007 wrote:Fahrenheit is nice because an average person's experience with temperature is going to be in the range of 0 to 100 degrees F. It's intuitive in the sense that 0 is probably the coldest temperature you've experienced, and 100 is probably the highest. It makes no sense for scientific uses, but it's very convenient for everyday usage.

As others have said, that's entirely dependent on location. My range of experience is from about -10 F to 90 F. -30 F on the low end if we're counting wind-chill.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby PM 2Ring » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

Tass wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:I think that'd depend on where you live. I've never experienced weather with temperatures below freezing. I don't think I'd want to live where the temperature got below 5°C on a regular basis; I think the coldest it got here last winter was 8°C. And while I'll agree that 100°F can be classed as rather hot, it's not unbearably hot. Add another 10°F onto that though, and I don't feel like doing very much. :) OTOH, I know guys that regularly work outdoors in such high temperatures.


:shock:

37°C is not unbearably hot?? I prefer it to stop at 25°C, the few summer days where it climbs to 30 are not nice.

Pfft! 30°C is nothing. :) It's not unusual during a hot spell here for the temperature to stay above 30°C for several days in a row, although I will admit it's not so easy to get to sleep in weather like that without air conditioning. I'm currently living in the sub-tropical part of Australia, but they get temperatures like that even in the southern parts of the country, and it can get really unpleasant away from the coast, where they don't get the benefit of the coastal humidity or sea breezes. Australia may be hotter than Denmark, but my Scandinavian ancestors managed ok, and that was in the days before aircon. :)

The warm climate might seem too hot for you, but the wildlife seem to like it. I get lots of birds visiting my bird-bath, including (at least) 4 species of parrot. [ Hi, Rasmine! ]

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:48 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:The warm climate might seem too hot for you, but the wildlife seem to like it.
Well yeah, but the same can be said for undersea thermal vents.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby PM 2Ring » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:54 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:The warm climate might seem too hot for you, but the wildlife seem to like it.
Well yeah, but the same can be said for undersea thermal vents.

I'll let you get away with that remark since you have personal experience of this wide brown land. :) Or am I mis-remembering, and you only visited NZ?

* gathers up several huntsman spiders to email to gmal *

User avatar
Dason
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Dason » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:* gathers up several huntsman spiders to email to gmal *

Gmail dis-activated my account for doing exactly that. You might want to create a throwaway account for emailing any living beings.
double epsilon = -.0000001;

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

ajd007 wrote:Fahrenheit is nice because an average person's experience with temperature is going to be in the range of 0 to 100 degrees F. It's intuitive in the sense that 0 is probably the coldest temperature you've experienced, and 100 is probably the highest. It makes no sense for scientific uses, but it's very convenient for everyday usage.


To add to the anecdote lists, in the winter here in Ottawa, we hit -30C (-22F) a few times a year. If you count windchill, we average about 2-3 weeks below -30C. If you're in the Canadian prairie provinces, or certainly anywhere up North, you'll occasionally be treated to days in the -40C range.

drj
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:03 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby drj » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:42 pm UTC

It's like distances, in the following analogy: Is 2nd street in Manhattan twice as far from San Francisco as 1st street? Obviously not. Same way 2 degrees Celsius is not twice as hot as 1 degree C. Two degrees IS twice as far from 0 degrees C as 1 degree is, but that's all.

Me, I prefer degrees Reaumur - used in the famous infograph of Napoleons retreat from Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minard.png

pnyxtr
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:03 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby pnyxtr » Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:14 am UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:Pfft! 30°C is nothing. :) It's not unusual during a hot spell here for the temperature to stay above 30°C for several days in a row, although I will admit it's not so easy to get to sleep in weather like that without air conditioning. I'm currently living in the sub-tropical part of Australia, but they get temperatures like that even in the southern parts of the country, and it can get really unpleasant away from the coast, where they don't get the benefit of the coastal humidity or sea breezes. Australia may be hotter than Denmark, but my Scandinavian ancestors managed ok, and that was in the days before aircon. :)

The warm climate might seem too hot for you, but the wildlife seem to like it. I get lots of birds visiting my bird-bath, including (at least) 4 species of parrot. [ Hi, Rasmine! ]

Given that it does get up to 35 or above here, your Scandinavian ancestors would have had to live somewhere other than Scandinavia to not experince those temperatures. Also, we can get -35, no sweat. Maybe not where I live (thankfully), but there are many places where it goes way below that.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Diadem » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:46 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:And in both cases it's not actually true on account of ice being able to exist above "freezing" and liquid water being able to exist below it. It's not as if entire crops die the second there's a bit of frost on them, nor do roads glaze over the second it drops below freezing.

You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. All these effects may not happen at exactly 0, but they certainly happen around zero. You can't deny that zero degrees Celsius is a really important temperature, while zero degrees Fahrenheit has no significance whatsoever. So my point stands.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby yurell » Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:54 am UTC

Diadem wrote:You're being unnecessarily pedantic here. All these effects may not happen at exactly 0, but they certainly happen around zero. You can't deny that zero degrees Celsius is a really important temperature, while zero degrees Fahrenheit has no significance whatsoever. So my point stands.


You can't deny that 32 degrees Fahrenheit is a really important temperature, while 32 degrees Celsius has no significance whatsoever. So what's your point?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Diadem » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:01 am UTC

Right, do I really have to explain the difference between 0 and 32?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby yurell » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:22 am UTC

You have to explain why that distinction is important in this context.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Darryl » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:04 pm UTC

pnyxtr wrote:I used to have to think a little about this stuff whenever someone asked.

But after having made control systems for cryocoolers for a couple of years, Celcius isn't more natural to me than Kelvin, it's obvious that it's just popular because it's a quite convenient scale for people. (The reasons for people to use Fahrenheit elude me, though, it's so incredibly impractical.)

You're missing an important factor of Fahrenheit. It is more granular than Celcius. Every degree Celsius is equal to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Also, 100 = fever is a very handy quick rule of thumb.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:11 pm UTC

yurell wrote:You have to explain why that distinction is important in this context.
I'm putting 3:1 odds that you are trolling. But it could be that you are just confused.

0 is an important point on the number line. It coinciding with an important part on the scale you are measuring is a good thing. It not coinciding with an important point is a bad thing. 32 is not an important point on the number line. 0F being an uninteresting point is a misfeature of that scale. 0C being an interesting point is a good feature of that scale. 0K being an even more interesting point is an even better feature of that scale.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby yurell » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:41 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:0 is an important point on the number line. It coinciding with an important part on the scale you are measuring is a good thing. It not coinciding with an important point is a bad thing.


Why is it a bad thing? Why does every scale have a significant point at 0? The zero-point for Fahrenheit was chosen around the freezing point of a brine solution, which Fahrenheit thought was a good idea because it stabilises very rapidly which in turn allowed for an accurate gauge in temperature at the time. Furthermore, he was attempting to fit a scale to agree with the one invented by another scientist. Why should the freezing point of water at one atmosphere of pressure be any less arbitrary? In fact, it's not even that any more — 0 degrees Celsius isn't defined in relation to water (although it was), it is defined as being 271.15K. To me, 271.15 sounds just as unimportant as 32, but maybe that's just me.
In fact, why don't you set Standard Temperature and Pressure to be the zero-point in your temperature scale? It's just as arbitrary as the freezing point ofwater water.

Even more strongly, I can understand it being preferable to have the zero-point on a scale being some important land mark (which it is in Fahrenheit too, I will point out, for the purposes Fahrenheit was employing), but why is it bad for it to not coincide with an important point? 0K coincides with what is probably the most important temperature in the Universe, so does this make Celsius 'bad', because it's not corresponding to a suitably important point?

Personally, I prefer Celsius, since it's what I've grown up with, what I know and the division between 0 freezes while 100 boils is an intuitive and reasonable one, and I dislike Fahrenheit. What I dislike more, though, is simply asserting that because 0 is the freezing point of water, it is objectively better to use a scale that sits its zero point there than the freezing point of another substance. Even worse, also assert that it is bad to have '0' set with a 'not important point' without any arguments to support that, either.

Yakk wrote:32 is not an important point on the number line. 0F being an uninteresting point is a misfeature of that scale.


Uninteresting to you, maybe. The fact that Fahrenheit and his contemporaries chose it may indicate that it's not as uninteresting as you think, even if it was for purely academic / historical reasons.

Yakk wrote:0C being an interesting point is a good feature of that scale. 0K being an even more interesting point is an even better feature of that scale.


I agree on both these points. However, not having that particular 'good' feature doesn't make it 'bad' by default.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:54 pm UTC

yurell wrote:
Yakk wrote:0 is an important point on the number line. It coinciding with an important part on the scale you are measuring is a good thing. It not coinciding with an important point is a bad thing.
Why is it a bad thing?
Because it throws away a useful signal to the user of the scale. It is wasteful.
Why does every scale have a significant point at 0? The zero-point for Fahrenheit was chosen around the freezing point of a brine solution, which Fahrenheit thought was a good idea because it stabilises very rapidly which in turn allowed for an accurate gauge in temperature at the time. Furthermore, he was attempting to fit a scale to agree with the one invented by another scientist.
Which is utterly unimportant to the user of the scale. Unless their goal is to make thermometers, or there is a high-salt brine port nearby whose freezing is of high concern. Ie, corner cases.
Why should the freezing point of water at one atmosphere of pressure be any less arbitrary? In fact, it's not even that any more — 0 degrees Celsius isn't defined in relation to water (although it was), it is defined as being 271.15K. To me, 271.15 sounds just as unimportant as 32, but maybe that's just me.
Also utterly unimportant to the user of the scale.
In fact, why don't you set Standard Temperature and Pressure to be the zero-point in your temperature scale? It's just as arbitrary as the freezing point ofwater water.
We are water based organisms living on a planet where the biosphere varies around 3 of the phases of water (vapor, less so). These points are sharp discontinuities in how we interact with temperature at these points.
Even more strongly, I can understand it being preferable to have the zero-point on a scale being some important land mark
Yes, preferable. So it is a good thing if it happens, and a bad thing if it doesn't.
but why is it bad for it to not coincide with an important point?
The waste of a good thing is a bad thing.
0K coincides with what is probably the most important temperature in the Universe, so does this make Celsius 'bad', because it's not corresponding to a suitably important point?
I stated that 0K being an important temperature is a good thing. You even quoted me as saying it right below.

As the intended users of the Kelvin and Celsius scale are different, how good the various choices are vary. As absolute zero, and ideal gas equation calculations, and the like are rarely something I use in my daily life, there are many ways in which absolute zero is not important to my non-scientific use of temperature.
Uninteresting to you, maybe. The fact that Fahrenheit and his contemporaries chose it may indicate that it's not as uninteresting as you think, even if it was for purely academic / historical reasons.
No, uninteresting to everyday use of Fahrenheit for temperature reasons.
I agree on both these points. However, not having that particular 'good' feature doesn't make it 'bad' by default.

So, your entire post is about the semantics of bad not being "not good"? Glad we had a productive discussion on the subject, but why make a long argument about semantics in a thread about Kelvin vs Celsius?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4581
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:
pnyxtr wrote:I used to have to think a little about this stuff whenever someone asked.

But after having made control systems for cryocoolers for a couple of years, Celcius isn't more natural to me than Kelvin, it's obvious that it's just popular because it's a quite convenient scale for people. (The reasons for people to use Fahrenheit elude me, though, it's so incredibly impractical.)

You're missing an important factor of Fahrenheit. It is more granular than Celcius. Every degree Celsius is equal to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Also, 100 = fever is a very handy quick rule of thumb.


You can just use decimals in Celsius if you need more precision...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Kelvin vs. Celsius

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm UTC

yurell wrote:0 degrees Celsius isn't defined in relation to water (although it was), it is defined as being 271.15K.
Then again, Kelvin is defined so the triple point of water is exactly 273.16K, and then Celsius is such that the triple point is at 0.01 and absolute zero is -273.15.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sableagle and 13 guests