I think it's easier to use the neutral engineering formula, reverse and forward
are too complicated for me :)

L. A. Barnes

Jeff Woods wrote:

> At 01:25 PM 9/16/99 , Stan Sieler wrote:
> >Wirt writes:
> > >          C = 5/9 * (F-32)
> > >          F = 9/5 * C + 32
> >
> >There's the difference between Wirt and me:
> >
> >    Wirt remembers the formulae (and can spell formulae)
> >
> >    I have to reverse engineer the formula when I need it ...
> >    luckily, I remember 0 C = 32 F, and 100 C = 212 F.
>
> The data points and the formulae for the line mapping Celsius and
> Fahrenheit are simply two ways of perceiving the same thing.  Since the
> Celsius scale changes 100 units over the same range as Fahrenheit changes
> 180 units, the ratio of their slope is 100/180 which reduces to 5/9 and the
> "0 C = 32 F" makes it obvious that the Y-intercept of the conversion
> function is at 32 F.  It's as simple as thinking of electromagnetic
> radiation as a dual nature, both waves and particles at the same time, only
> the observation method makes it appear to be different.  :)
>
> At 09:05:38 -0700 Thu, 16 Sep 1999 , Art Bahrs wrote:
> >        Fahrenheit temp approximately equals  (2 * Celsius Temp) + 30 degrees
> >
> >This works well for me :)   Tho it gets off when you test it against the one
> >poinnt at which the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales are equal :)  Anyone
> >remember
> >that one ?
>
> The hack "F = 2 * C + 30" is an approximation that gives a "good enough"
> number for most folks at typical ambient air temperatures, but note that
> it's only precise at the point 10 C = 50 F and as the temperature varies
> (up or down) from that point the error grows steadily.  At 77 F = 25 C the
> "hack" is off by 3 F.
>
> And, -40 C = -40 F
> --
> Jeff Woods
> [log in to unmask]  [PGP key available here via finger]