← Back to context

Comment by defrost

18 days ago

I chuckled ... and yet remain on side with Celsius.

Fahrenheit has finer granularity without fractions.

IOW each Celsius degree is bigger than each Fahrenheit degree.

Even though the F numbers are so much higher and it seems unbearably hot :)

So for a thermostat that only can be set in 1 degree increments (without a decimal point), you have finer control when using F than using C.

Anybody can memorize the conversion more easily by throwing out the math, using table lookup -- made easier by throwing out most of the table too.

Just remember every 5 C equals a non-fractional F.

And every 5 C equals 9 F.

If all you are interested in is comfort level it's like this:

   C   F
  
   0  32
   5  41
  10  50
  15  59
  20  68
  25  77
  30  86
  35  95
  40 104
  

Least significant digit of F drops by 1 every time without fail.

Looks like it increases by 1 each time in the tens column, but it's only 9 so 50 & 59 are the outliers, which most people have memorized already.

If you are a Celsius native and you think in terms of 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 -- you only need to remember 5 different F numbers, 50, 59, 68, 77 & 86 and that will get you far.

Good luck using these as your lottery numbers ;)

  • Ahhh, I mean that's all very well .. but I'm over 60 and I've literally never used or needed to use Fahrenheit - and I had a long career in geophysical and physical data aquisition, ran several kinds of furnaces and annealing ovens 24/7 for a decade, do a lot of cooking, etc.

    So, I appreciate your rendition of things I have tables for already but any actual need is sadly non existant.

    • The point is Fahrenheit works fine, and is arguably better than Celcius for measuring the temperatures that humans are typically exposed to, so there is no need to replace it with Celsius.