How Is Temperature Defined on Safehold?

OK everyone probably knows that Celsius was originally defined as 0° being when water froze and 100° being when it boiled.

To my knowledge there is no similar definition for Fahrenheit, which poses a problem: Longhorn couldn't have provided a written description that would lead to wild variations and he didn't provide a sample so how? In fact I think this question needs to be asked for almost all units of measure on Safehold, length, area and non-liquid volume being exceptions.

SCC wrote:OK everyone probably knows that Celsius was originally defined as 0° being when water froze and 100° being when it boiled.

To my knowledge there is no similar definition for Fahrenheit, which poses a problem: Longhorn couldn't have provided a written description that would lead to wild variations and he didn't provide a sample so how? In fact I think this question needs to be asked for almost all units of measure on Safehold, length, area and non-liquid volume being exceptions.

There certainly is a standard definition for Fahrenheit. Errors were made when originally defining the temperatures and later adjustments were made.

There exist several accounts of how he originally defined his scale. The lower defining point, 0 °F, was established as the temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice and salt. Further limits were established as the melting point of ice (32 °F) and his best estimate of the average human body temperature (96 °F, about 2.6 °F less than the modern value due to a later redefinition of the scale). The scale is now usually defined by two fixed points: the temperature at which water freezes into ice is defined as 32 °F, and the boiling point of water is defined to be 212 °F, a 180 °F separation, as defined at sea level and standard atmospheric pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

SCC raises a valid point about measurement in general. Inches,presumably with feet and yards are universal but not very well defined because they vary from place to place. On the other hand the Writ has injunctions against cheating people so there must be some idea of "an inch is about this much". Presumably the same goes for standards of weight and volume, but the subject in general has just never arisen in the books, except for the many discussions of linear measure.

As discussed elsewhere the archangels probably wanted a degree of variance in standards of measurement to hinder industrialisation.

Keith_w wrote:

SCC wrote:OK everyone probably knows that Celsius was originally defined as 0° being when water froze and 100° being when it boiled.

To my knowledge there is no similar definition for Fahrenheit, which poses a problem: Longhorn couldn't have provided a written description that would lead to wild variations and he didn't provide a sample so how? In fact I think this question needs to be asked for almost all units of measure on Safehold, length, area and non-liquid volume being exceptions.

There certainly is a standard definition for Fahrenheit. Errors were made when originally defining the temperatures and later adjustments were made.

There exist several accounts of how he originally defined his scale. The lower defining point, 0 °F, was established as the temperature of a solution of brine made from equal parts of ice and salt. Further limits were established as the melting point of ice (32 °F) and his best estimate of the average human body temperature (96 °F, about 2.6 °F less than the modern value due to a later redefinition of the scale). The scale is now usually defined by two fixed points: the temperature at which water freezes into ice is defined as 32 °F, and the boiling point of water is defined to be 212 °F, a 180 °F separation, as defined at sea level and standard atmospheric pressure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

Polish-German physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (1686–1736) developed his initial scales in 1724. The actual scale is probably based upon practical instrumentation available at the time. If you have 64°F between Freezing and Body Temp, you can use a caliper to easily bisect 64 into 6 divisions (64 = 2^6) giving 4°F intervals on your device. For the day, that was close measurement.

By the time of the Terran Federation, I would HOPE that the systems would have been standardized and universally accepted. However, as RFC has pointed out, independent worlds like Honorverse's Grayson, could easily retain the casual use of forgotten lore! Still, for Langhorne to have returned to this is simply added effort to prevent logic and science from rearing its ugly head.

SCC wrote:OK everyone probably knows that Celsius was originally defined as 0° being when water froze and 100° being when it boiled.

To my knowledge there is no similar definition for Fahrenheit, which poses a problem: Longhorn couldn't have provided a written description that would lead to wild variations and he didn't provide a sample so how? In fact I think this question needs to be asked for almost all units of measure on Safehold, length, area and non-liquid volume being exceptions.

I saw in a very old book once that the intended fixed points in the Fahrenheit scale were that 0°F was the lowest temperature achievable by mixing ice and salt, and 100°F was the temperature of the blood of a normal healthy human being. Unfortunately, at the time, their instrumentation wasn't quite up to the job, and the top end measurement wasn't accurate enough.
.

This much of a certain liquid, in a glass tube a certain size and shape, with temprratures marked so.

Provide the starting towns with a couple of thermometers, all slightly different.

Same with rulers really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:This much of a certain liquid, in a glass tube a certain size and shape, with temprratures marked so.

Provide the starting towns with a couple of thermometers, all slightly different.

Same with rulers really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

...and don't forget, ALL science and mathematics was introduced on Safehold as ways to limit scientific advancement. Of course a verity of Fahrenheit would be used - since all the numbers in it seem.... arbitrary, and won't lead to further "logical" advancement (versus experimental) when correlating temperature against other observed phenomenon.

Annachie wrote:This much of a certain liquid, in a glass tube a certain size and shape, with temprratures marked so.

Provide the starting towns with a couple of thermometers, all slightly different.

Same with rulers really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

You are assuming temperature measurement was important at all beyond rules of thumb. There is a reason linear measurements predated temperature by millennia. Even pressure measurements predate temperature measurements.
If I wanted to delay technology, leaving temperature measurement out would be obvious (but this may have been over loud objection of the medical fraternity who have a love of inserting thermometers in various orifices).

AirTech wrote:If I wanted to delay technology, leaving temperature measurement out would be obvious (but this may have been over loud objection of the medical fraternity who have a love of inserting thermometers in various orifices).

There's an easy work around for this.

Leave instructions on how to make a working mercury thermometer for oral use.

Use said thermometer on a HEALTHY human being.

Wherever the thermometer mercury winds up at is marked as the "HEALTHY" line. Anything higher or lower and the medical priest will know that's wrong. AFAIK, the exact temperature in degrees doesn't matter too much since what they really care about is if the patient is too hot or too cold.

evilauthor wrote:

AirTech wrote:If I wanted to delay technology, leaving temperature measurement out would be obvious (but this may have been over loud objection of the medical fraternity who have a love of inserting thermometers in various orifices).

There's an easy work around for this.

Leave instructions on how to make a working mercury thermometer for oral use.

Use said thermometer on a HEALTHY human being.

Wherever the thermometer mercury winds up at is marked as the "HEALTHY" line. Anything higher or lower and the medical priest will know that's wrong. AFAIK, the exact temperature in degrees doesn't matter too much since what they really care about is if the patient is too hot or too cold.

The problem with that is someone will notice the mercury being a different levels during day and night/winter and summer. Rather have the archangels make the invention already rather than having it been made afterwards.