Slaters wheel sizes

Rhinochugger said:
As near as dammit (82.4F)

and then we get to the Kelvin scale which starts at absolute zero - which is -273 Celsius (from memory)
Click to expand...
As near as dammit (-273.15 C) (from Google ;))
 
As an aside to the British reluctance to fully embrace metric with our penchant for mixing imperial and metric, the BBC design department worked (when I was employed by by that corporation) in metric feet (ie 300mm) the studio walls and floor had numbers indicating how far along you were in 300mm units
 
polaroyd said:
As an aside to the British reluctance to fully embrace metric with our penchant for mixing imperial and metric, the BBC design department worked (when I was employed by by that corporation) in metric feet (ie 300mm) the studio walls and floor had numbers indicating how far along you were in 300mm units
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was an idea that came into vogue as Denmark has a unit that is somewhat similar. The construction industry started something similar, as a cavity wall 'zone' could be extended to 300 mm.

That all went out of the window when increased insulation thicknesses were required :oops::oops:
 
Rhinochugger said:
Yep :nod:

The calculation from F to C is to deduct 32, divide by 9 and multiply by 5

The calculation from C to F is to divide by 5, multiply by 9 and add 32

For -40 you only have to do the calculation once ;);)

So let's start with -40C

Divide by 5 = -8

Multiply by 9 = -72

Add 32 = -40F
Click to expand...
And by the time you have gone through that little lot I have forgotten where we started from.
 
While car manufacturers still specify efficiency (?) with a very non-metric Miles Per Gallon there is still hope for us pro-Imperial luddites. Litres Per Kilometre, anyone?

Temperature is the one that amuses me. It is "cold" when the temperature drops below 0degsC but "warm" when it goes above 70degsF. Consistently inconsistent.
 
Rhinochugger said:
Yep :nod:
The calculation from F to C is to deduct 32, divide by 9 and multiply by 5
The calculation from C to F is to divide by 5, multiply by 9 and add 32
For -40 you only have to do the calculation once ;);)
So let's start with -40C
Divide by 5 = -8
Multiply by 9 = -72
Add 32 = -40F
Click to expand...
Code: 
That is why you used  :-
Add  40
    Multiply by 9  Divide by 5        for C to F  (small number to larger)
or  Multiply by 5 Divide by 9         for  F to C  (large number to smaller)
 Subtract 40

no need to remember where the 32 goes.
 
Last edited:
Degauss said:
Code: 
That is why you used  :-
Add  40
    Multiply by 9  Divide by 5        for C to F  (small number to larger)
or  Multiply by 5 Divide by 9         for  F to C  (large number to smaller)
 Subtract 40

no need to remember where the 32 goes.
Click to expand...
Sorry, lost the plot on that one - the 32 is important because degrees F have freezing point at 32. You therefore need it in the calculation and, for ease in remembering, it always goes at the Fahrenheit end of the calc :nod::nod:

In that regard, the -40 degrees (where both scales are the same) can be a bit of a hindrance to remembering the process.
 
Degauss said:
Code: 
That is why you used  :-
Add  40
    Multiply by 9  Divide by 5        for C to F  (small number to larger)
or  Multiply by 5 Divide by 9         for  F to C  (large number to smaller)
 Subtract 40

no need to remember where the 32 goes.
Click to expand...
So could you show me have this would work for both+40C and +40F with should work out at +40C = 104F and +40F = 4.44C

Tried it you way and could not get the correct answer.
 
Love it when someone says they came up with a new way to convert temperature. The rest of the entire scientific community missed this? Not likely.

The fact that there is a temperature where degrees C = Degrees F is of mild interest, but by itself is not a groundbreaking or necessary fact in the conversion of temperature.

That single datapoint tells nothing of the ratio of degrees F to degrees C (9 to 5) or the offset from zero to freezing in F (32). The ratio and offset are needed in the conversion.

Greg
 
Greg Elmassian said:
Love it when someone says they came up with a new way to convert temperature. The rest of the entire scientific community missed this? Not likely.

The fact that there is a temperature where degrees C = Degrees F is of mild interest, but by itself is not a groundbreaking or necessary fact in the conversion of temperature.

That single datapoint tells nothing of the ratio of degrees F to degrees C (9 to 5) or the offset from zero to freezing in F (32). The ratio and offset are needed in the conversion.

Greg
Click to expand...
Greg, agreed, just a mildly interesting point that came to my attention more years ago than I care to remember.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top