How Is Temperature Defined on Safehold?

Whitecold wrote: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.

How is that a problem? The people using it would KNOW it's being used to measure temperature. There just wouldn't be any official scale to measure temperature with and the lack of standardization in pre-Merlin Safehold means every thermometer would be slightly different.

And getting standard figures like what temperature water boils/freezes at is going to be difficult if you don't know in advance that things like air pressure and contaminants (salt for example) can change what temperature water boils/freezes at.

Like many measurements systems in Earth history, temperature was also prone to its own quirks. The oldest scale (and the one that makes the most sense for humans) is the Celsius scale, which was proposed by Anders Celsius in a paper published in 1710. His scale set 0 at the point water freezes and 100 at the point water boils. 4 years later, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit not only introduced a new scale, but also the first mercury-in-glass thermometer (which he invented, being a glass blower). His scale attempted to find the lowest temperature one could measure with mercury and set the 0 point with a mixture of ice, water and ammonium chloride, while water freezing was set at 32 degrees and water boiling was set at 212 (180 degrees between the two points). The later Kelvin Scale was built around the Celsius measurements but set 0 as the absolute zero (the point in which all molecular movement ceases).

It would seem that the Fahrenheit pervasiveness was due to the fact that he was the one who was initially making all the thermometers. Yet having 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling point of water, something all living things require on this planet, made more sense to most. As such, the Celsius Scale could make a comeback on Safehold, given that one need only use water as the base substance. And having 100 degrees between freezing and boiling makes psychological sense (as we tend to like nice round numbers in groups of ten - Especially now that the Arab numerals have been reintroduced).

thanatos wrote:Like many measurements systems in Earth history, temperature was also prone to its own quirks. The oldest scale (and the one that makes the most sense for humans) is the Celsius scale, which was proposed by Anders Celsius in a paper published in 1710. His scale set 0 at the point water freezes and 100 at the point water boils. 4 years later, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit not only introduced a new scale, but also the first mercury-in-glass thermometer (which he invented, being a glass blower). His scale attempted to find the lowest temperature one could measure with mercury and set the 0 point with a mixture of ice, water and ammonium chloride, while water freezing was set at 32 degrees and water boiling was set at 212 (180 degrees between the two points). The later Kelvin Scale was built around the Celsius measurements but set 0 as the absolute zero (the point in which all molecular movement ceases).

It would seem that the Fahrenheit pervasiveness was due to the fact that he was the one who was initially making all the thermometers. Yet having 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling point of water, something all living things require on this planet, made more sense to most. As such, the Celsius Scale could make a comeback on Safehold, given that one need only use water as the base substance. And having 100 degrees between freezing and boiling makes psychological sense (as we tend to like nice round numbers in groups of ten - Especially now that the Arab numerals have been reintroduced).

I can see this. Especially if the Archangels didn't introduce ANY kind of temperature scale. In their position, I don't see any need for people locked in a pre-scientific culture to be able to put numbers to temperature EXCEPT for the single instance of knowing if a sick person is too hot or too cold.

And since everyone is supposed to be more or less the same internal temperature, there's still no need for numbers. You just tell the peons how to make a mercury thermometer and how to calibrate it to find the right marker point (aka, use it on a healthy person).

Which means if there's no official Writ mandated temperature scale, then Charis can introduce the Celsius system from the get go and not have to worry about people converting to less than optimal systems like they do with distances and weights.

evilauthor wrote:[snip]

Which means if there's no official Writ mandated temperature scale, then Charis can introduce the Celsius system from the get go and not have to worry about people converting to less than optimal systems like they do with distances and weights.

Optimal, yes, but who for? The decimal systems are great for scientists, since they lend themselves to easy mathematical handling. However the metric length system does not lend itself to everyday measurements as well as some Imperial units, particularly the inch and the foot. Both of these are very convenient units for everyday use. They can be roughly gauged without a ruler by using parts of the body (the foot is obvious, and you will find that if you press your thumb against a ruler, its width will be roughly an inch) and the measurements you get will be units, not tens of units or hundreds of units.

Having said that, I reckon the metric system is the better, simply because it makes the maths easier – the Imperial system tends to be a bit unhandy for more complex uses.

I grew up using both these systems, and I can appreciate at least some of their advantages and drawbacks. It has also led me on occasions to do things like going to the sawmill and asking for 3 metres of 2 by 4 (i.e. inches) timber!
.

Unfortunately, this will deny the citizens of Safehold and especially the future students the dubious pleasures of learning the formulas for conversionamong the different systems.

evilauthor wrote:
I can see this. Especially if the Archangels didn't introduce ANY kind of temperature scale. In their position, I don't see any need for people locked in a pre-scientific culture to be able to put numbers to temperature EXCEPT for the single instance of knowing if a sick person is too hot or too cold.

It may not be 100% necessary, but it is very handy to be able to measure temperatures for baking and confectionery purposes. For all I know it would be very useful for making glues and it would certainly help with distilling whisky and brandy.

Randomiser wrote:It may not be 100% necessary, but it is very handy to be able to measure temperatures for baking and confectionery purposes. For all I know it would be very useful for making glues and it would certainly help with distilling whisky and brandy.

FWIW, I learned to make candy without any temperature measurements. Up until the 1960's or so, the only thermometers in my home were medical thermometers.

As for distilling Whiskey and Brandy, a hygrometer is more useful than a thermometer, and both were produced for centuries without either.

To the average person in any place the temperature scale runs as follows:
much too cold
too cold
rather chilly
a bit chilly
fairly comfortable
comfortable
a bit warm
rather warm
hot
too hot
much too hot.
If you don't believe me, just listen to people commenting about the weather. hardly anyone apart from forecasters and news reporters ever says '78 F today' or 'only 2 C so wear a coat'. Of course, some of us can and do automatically make the conversion to our favoured scale in our heads so don't care which one is used in a report.

Cheers,John

I've been thinking about mentioning the fact that until very recently, temperature probably _hasn't_ been defined on Safehold - that would go far too deeply into things Langhorne, Bedard & Co. desperately wanted untouched.

What the OP was really asking was how is it _measured_. And I'm inclined to agree with everyone who thinks that it was no more precisely than your system - with the note that what the steps on the scale signify varies with circumstances: an iron founder's too hot isn't at all the same as a glass-blowers which is very different from a farmer's. All of which is to the good as far as the Archangels were concerned. Precise measurement of temperature leads to the question of just what it is that you are measuring. And that is an open door into statistical mechanics, and thermodynamics, and all sorts of nasty things.

John Prigent wrote:To the average person in any place the temperature scale runs as follows:
much too cold
too cold
rather chilly
a bit chilly
fairly comfortable
comfortable
a bit warm
rather warm
hot
too hot
much too hot.
If you don't believe me, just listen to people commenting about the weather. hardly anyone apart from forecasters and news reporters ever says '78 F today' or 'only 2 C so wear a coat'. Of course, some of us can and do automatically make the conversion to our favoured scale in our heads so don't care which one is used in a report.

Cheers,John

Truth be told, you probably don't need a thermometer to see if someone is running a fever. Just put a hand to their forehead and see if the patient is usually warm.

And hypothermia and other cold related injuries tend to have other symptoms that make them obvious if you know what to look for, so thermometers aren't necessary there either.