This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rankine scale article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am surprised to see that this article is labelled a stub. It gave me all the information I needed to write a Conversion Calculator, to be hosted at [1], involving temperatures.
Is it because it is short? What other information is required?
Fcalculators ( talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I had just finished reading the Page for “Rankine Scale,” and came across a question in the Talk section, posted by User: Fcalculators in 2010, which looks like the question went unanswered. I pose this question, also wondering why this Article was given a Stub rating.
Upon reading the criteria for the Article Grading system, I am interested in understanding just how a determination is made in the Grading of an article, for instance, from FA (Featured Article) and GA (Good Article), to a Stub and a Start article. I am quite clear I’m understanding understand the Objective criteria which must be met in order to achieve an FA, GA, B or C-Class Article, however I must ask how it is determined whether an article receives a Stub and/or a Start rating?
Also, I would surmise that there is Subjectivity in the rating of an article from a C-Class to a B-Class, or that of a Good Article (GA). Apart from the Wikipedia Help Page, which clearly describes the rationale for Grading an article accordingly, including both the Quality and Comprehensiveness of a particular Article, how is the final decision made and who makes that decision? Is the Grading decision made by an Individual, or by a Group of Editors, after an initial review from one Editor? It would be nice to understand the Process that takes place upon Grading an Article, so that one could approach reading a lower Graded article, say as perhaps suspicious in the overall Integrity of its Content.
I would appreciate any additional information which could be provided, apart from what was already well described and furnished in the article on Article Class Ratings.
Mark Halsey 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Regards, Mark Halsey Mark Halsey 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhalsey ( talk • contribs)
The page states in the table in the upper right: "For temperature intervals rather than specific temperatures, 1°R = 1°F = 5⁄9°C = 5⁄9 K". Double check my math, but I believe it should read "1°R = 1°F = 9/5°C = 9/5 K" Tricln ( talk) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This page states "A temperature of 459.67 °F is precisely equal to 0 °R" ... Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Agreed. now it said "A temperature of negative -459.67 °F is precisely equal to 0 °R." - now having the term 'negative' and the sign '-' in their is double negation and would result in the same thing as the above quote. I therefore removed the word negative. Regards, Dola chi-Trei, Trimbir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.249.201 ( talk) 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this scale really disused? I know it's antiquated, but I had a fluids class that encouraged being "bilingual" and so Rankine was used extensively.
I tend to agree - edited accordingly and added link to Rankine cycle - which is important.
Linuxlad 23:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was told by my college Chemistry professor that Rankine was at one time widely used in US industry. --anonymous
The key is at one time. This unit is now obsolete, and mentioned here for completeness. -- Egil 09:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'A competent scientist should be able to work in any system of units' (A Cavendish Professor of Physics to his flock, in the days when they had cgs, esu, emu, degrees Brix etc.) .
Many chemical engineering, thermodynamics, and heat transfer textbooks, used from Britain to the US to Singapore, use the Rankine scale. It may be antiquated in the same way that any non-metric units are antiquated, but it is still used.
I removed "now rarely used". I use it all the time (to my disappointment)! It is useful in thermodynamics when using US Customary units. — TheKMan talk 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Rankine degrees are still usefull in designing for those living in a Fahrenheit world.
It may be antiqudated to acedemics in ivory towers but I use it along with the Stepahan Boltman Equation here in real life in my welding shop on heater designs. The heater ouputs are measured in antiqudated Fahrenheit/Rankine degree units. Most people around here relate to temperature in Fahrenheit degrees. Guess we're all antiqudated but any competent engineer should be able to work in units that the customer relates to.
--
JTH01
08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Conversion expression for Celsius to Rankine is incorrect in box in top right corner of page. The expression should read [R] = (9/5 * [C]) + 491.67 and not [R] = ([C] + 491.67) * 9/5. The latter is not the inverse function of the Celsius to Rankine expression quoted and will not produce 491.67 Deg Rankine when converting a temperature of 0 Deg Celsius. --
Orinocobj (
talk)
17:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be primary. -- JWB 07:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What is with the conversion table? I don't quite get it! Someone explain how I read that please? Many thanks! VanessaLylithe ( talk) 05:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Note: To specify what I don't get, it's the red lines... Were some of them missing (or something)? VanessaLylithe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The article cites phys.org which cites wikipedia.org
That will not do. phys.org is authoritative on nothing and should not be referenced anywhere on wikipedia.
Wikipedia itself states of phys.org "PhysOrg is a ... news website..."
As far as which scale is used in which field, that is a large subject right through to malpractices, changes over time and so on. I suspect his ought to be reduced to pointing out things are a mess and pointing at some past paper(s) saying as much, preferably from Standards bodies, this after all is a metrology matter. (is the supposed link to meteorology a mistake?) Tchannon ( talk) 00:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone produce verifiable sources that dictate the importance of the Rankine scale? Who actually uses this on a regular basis? The only people I could think of would be American meteorologists, and even that, I am not so sure about. While it works just the same as Kelvin, so long as you don't mind using Fahrenheit, I can't see it being a very useful unit in terms of scientific research. Certainly the page is necessary, as a historical footnote, but if you needed a measurement that required a real temperature unit rather than degrees, you would mostly likely do the calculations in Kelvin, convert to Celsius, and then convert to Fahrenheit if you really needed the numbers. The only way I could see it being used would be if you only were given data in imperial units, and thus it is easier to convert them to Rankine directly and back again. And like the editor above me has stated, Physorg.com is not a valid source for this type of information. Please let me hear your thoughts on this. Spirit469 ( talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of shuffling the contents of this page around to bring all of the posts about the degree symbol into one location. Normally I wouldn't get involved in this discussion but the current article statement that "The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications. [1]" is clearly incorrect. If you follow the reference to NIST, the page is titled "The NIST Guide for the use of the International System of Units". SI units are all metric, Rankine is not. I read this NIST document to say; NIST documents will use SI units, not anything about the degree symbol and Rankine units. In fact if you read the NIST document through to appendix B.8 (conversion tables) it says "Caution: The units listed in column 1 are in general not to be used in NIST publications, with the exception of those few in italic type." The few in italic are SI units. I.e. do not use non-SI units for general use in NIST publications.
https://www.nist.gov/physical-measurement-laboratory/nist-guide-si-appendix-b8
The Wikipedia article originally said The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using degrees Rankine in NIST publications. (this is almost correct, it really says; use SI units)
This was changed to The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rankine_scale&diff=743831554&oldid=740477030
The justification for this change was an article in Science Notes.
https://sciencenotes.org/why-there-is-no-degree-in-kelvin-temperature/
The Science Notes article does indeed say "NIST advises against using the degree when citing Rankine temperatures", but is completely wrong in this statement. I have not found anywhere that NIST says "don't use the degree symbol with Rankine (except Wikipedia and the Science Notes article). NIST does use the degree symbol with Rankine in their table of conversion factors, which kind of points out the error in the statement.
[From the NIST conversion tables appendix A.8] degree Rankine (°R) kelvin (K) T/K = (T/°R)/1.8
The British Standards organization (BSI Standards) also uses the degree symbol with Rankine in the conversion tables in BS350.
https://www.scribd.com/document/359729247/bs-350-part-1-94-conversion-factors-and-tables-pdf
I don't have a dog in this show. I really don't care whether this Wikipedia article says to use the degree symbol or not. But it bothers me that it says "NIST recommends against using the degree symbol" when NIST is using the degree symbol with Rankine.
My suggestion would be to change the current statement (20180528)
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications. [1]
to something like
The use of the degree symbol with Rankine is somewhat contentious with some citations being clearly against using the degree symbol and others using the degree symbol. Standards organizations such as NIST and BSI use SI units and avoid the controversy, but when these organizations list Rankine units in conversion tables they use the degree symbol [1]".
I'm not really happy with this phrasing so if you have an alternate phrasing or clarification of this statement please say so. EE JRW ( talk) 03:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In the text and in one table, the symbol is R. In the other table it is °R. Which one is right? Rankine are degrees like Celsius or are like kelvin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.206.97 ( talk) 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to know in what way the Rankine temperature scale is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.242.76 ( talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i have found evidence that in America Rankine has no degree symbol so this page and others will be excluding this information ( [2] on page 20) 70.41.96.39 ( talk) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
it may sound kinda wired but in the engineering for dummies book it says that Rankine is just R ( [3] pg 20) Wes1230 ( talk) 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)wes1230
i have a text book that shows Rankine as just R sorry to strain this but I fell if Kelvin can be units of CELSIUS (not centigrade you Englishmen :D) then Rankine can be too: "Modern Engineering Thermodynamics - Textbook with Tables Booklet" read it in google books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes1230 ( talk • contribs)
References
For some engineering applications which? in the United States, temperature is measured using the Rankine scale. http://www.physorg.com/tags/temperature/
Cites
Other engineering fields in the U.S. also rely upon the Rankine scale (a shifted Fahrenheit scale) when working in thermodynamic-related disciplines such as combustion.
This text uses material from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA
So not an RS.
Removed until some reliable source is found.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC).
Please anyone tell a answer for this question. I searched many times but I couldn't find answer. 1.22.19.187 ( talk) 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Loew Galitz: " Raskine" now redirects to this article: is this a misspelling, or does it have a different meaning? Jarble ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rankine scale article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am surprised to see that this article is labelled a stub. It gave me all the information I needed to write a Conversion Calculator, to be hosted at [1], involving temperatures.
Is it because it is short? What other information is required?
Fcalculators ( talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I had just finished reading the Page for “Rankine Scale,” and came across a question in the Talk section, posted by User: Fcalculators in 2010, which looks like the question went unanswered. I pose this question, also wondering why this Article was given a Stub rating.
Upon reading the criteria for the Article Grading system, I am interested in understanding just how a determination is made in the Grading of an article, for instance, from FA (Featured Article) and GA (Good Article), to a Stub and a Start article. I am quite clear I’m understanding understand the Objective criteria which must be met in order to achieve an FA, GA, B or C-Class Article, however I must ask how it is determined whether an article receives a Stub and/or a Start rating?
Also, I would surmise that there is Subjectivity in the rating of an article from a C-Class to a B-Class, or that of a Good Article (GA). Apart from the Wikipedia Help Page, which clearly describes the rationale for Grading an article accordingly, including both the Quality and Comprehensiveness of a particular Article, how is the final decision made and who makes that decision? Is the Grading decision made by an Individual, or by a Group of Editors, after an initial review from one Editor? It would be nice to understand the Process that takes place upon Grading an Article, so that one could approach reading a lower Graded article, say as perhaps suspicious in the overall Integrity of its Content.
I would appreciate any additional information which could be provided, apart from what was already well described and furnished in the article on Article Class Ratings.
Mark Halsey 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Regards, Mark Halsey Mark Halsey 17:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markhalsey ( talk • contribs)
The page states in the table in the upper right: "For temperature intervals rather than specific temperatures, 1°R = 1°F = 5⁄9°C = 5⁄9 K". Double check my math, but I believe it should read "1°R = 1°F = 9/5°C = 9/5 K" Tricln ( talk) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This page states "A temperature of 459.67 °F is precisely equal to 0 °R" ... Shouldn't that be the other way around?
Agreed. now it said "A temperature of negative -459.67 °F is precisely equal to 0 °R." - now having the term 'negative' and the sign '-' in their is double negation and would result in the same thing as the above quote. I therefore removed the word negative. Regards, Dola chi-Trei, Trimbir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.140.249.201 ( talk) 20:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this scale really disused? I know it's antiquated, but I had a fluids class that encouraged being "bilingual" and so Rankine was used extensively.
I tend to agree - edited accordingly and added link to Rankine cycle - which is important.
Linuxlad 23:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was told by my college Chemistry professor that Rankine was at one time widely used in US industry. --anonymous
The key is at one time. This unit is now obsolete, and mentioned here for completeness. -- Egil 09:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
'A competent scientist should be able to work in any system of units' (A Cavendish Professor of Physics to his flock, in the days when they had cgs, esu, emu, degrees Brix etc.) .
Many chemical engineering, thermodynamics, and heat transfer textbooks, used from Britain to the US to Singapore, use the Rankine scale. It may be antiquated in the same way that any non-metric units are antiquated, but it is still used.
I removed "now rarely used". I use it all the time (to my disappointment)! It is useful in thermodynamics when using US Customary units. — TheKMan talk 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Rankine degrees are still usefull in designing for those living in a Fahrenheit world.
It may be antiqudated to acedemics in ivory towers but I use it along with the Stepahan Boltman Equation here in real life in my welding shop on heater designs. The heater ouputs are measured in antiqudated Fahrenheit/Rankine degree units. Most people around here relate to temperature in Fahrenheit degrees. Guess we're all antiqudated but any competent engineer should be able to work in units that the customer relates to.
--
JTH01
08:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Conversion expression for Celsius to Rankine is incorrect in box in top right corner of page. The expression should read [R] = (9/5 * [C]) + 491.67 and not [R] = ([C] + 491.67) * 9/5. The latter is not the inverse function of the Celsius to Rankine expression quoted and will not produce 491.67 Deg Rankine when converting a temperature of 0 Deg Celsius. --
Orinocobj (
talk)
17:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be primary. -- JWB 07:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
What is with the conversion table? I don't quite get it! Someone explain how I read that please? Many thanks! VanessaLylithe ( talk) 05:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Note: To specify what I don't get, it's the red lines... Were some of them missing (or something)? VanessaLylithe ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The article cites phys.org which cites wikipedia.org
That will not do. phys.org is authoritative on nothing and should not be referenced anywhere on wikipedia.
Wikipedia itself states of phys.org "PhysOrg is a ... news website..."
As far as which scale is used in which field, that is a large subject right through to malpractices, changes over time and so on. I suspect his ought to be reduced to pointing out things are a mess and pointing at some past paper(s) saying as much, preferably from Standards bodies, this after all is a metrology matter. (is the supposed link to meteorology a mistake?) Tchannon ( talk) 00:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone produce verifiable sources that dictate the importance of the Rankine scale? Who actually uses this on a regular basis? The only people I could think of would be American meteorologists, and even that, I am not so sure about. While it works just the same as Kelvin, so long as you don't mind using Fahrenheit, I can't see it being a very useful unit in terms of scientific research. Certainly the page is necessary, as a historical footnote, but if you needed a measurement that required a real temperature unit rather than degrees, you would mostly likely do the calculations in Kelvin, convert to Celsius, and then convert to Fahrenheit if you really needed the numbers. The only way I could see it being used would be if you only were given data in imperial units, and thus it is easier to convert them to Rankine directly and back again. And like the editor above me has stated, Physorg.com is not a valid source for this type of information. Please let me hear your thoughts on this. Spirit469 ( talk) 07:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of shuffling the contents of this page around to bring all of the posts about the degree symbol into one location. Normally I wouldn't get involved in this discussion but the current article statement that "The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications. [1]" is clearly incorrect. If you follow the reference to NIST, the page is titled "The NIST Guide for the use of the International System of Units". SI units are all metric, Rankine is not. I read this NIST document to say; NIST documents will use SI units, not anything about the degree symbol and Rankine units. In fact if you read the NIST document through to appendix B.8 (conversion tables) it says "Caution: The units listed in column 1 are in general not to be used in NIST publications, with the exception of those few in italic type." The few in italic are SI units. I.e. do not use non-SI units for general use in NIST publications.
https://www.nist.gov/physical-measurement-laboratory/nist-guide-si-appendix-b8
The Wikipedia article originally said The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using degrees Rankine in NIST publications. (this is almost correct, it really says; use SI units)
This was changed to The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rankine_scale&diff=743831554&oldid=740477030
The justification for this change was an article in Science Notes.
https://sciencenotes.org/why-there-is-no-degree-in-kelvin-temperature/
The Science Notes article does indeed say "NIST advises against using the degree when citing Rankine temperatures", but is completely wrong in this statement. I have not found anywhere that NIST says "don't use the degree symbol with Rankine (except Wikipedia and the Science Notes article). NIST does use the degree symbol with Rankine in their table of conversion factors, which kind of points out the error in the statement.
[From the NIST conversion tables appendix A.8] degree Rankine (°R) kelvin (K) T/K = (T/°R)/1.8
The British Standards organization (BSI Standards) also uses the degree symbol with Rankine in the conversion tables in BS350.
https://www.scribd.com/document/359729247/bs-350-part-1-94-conversion-factors-and-tables-pdf
I don't have a dog in this show. I really don't care whether this Wikipedia article says to use the degree symbol or not. But it bothers me that it says "NIST recommends against using the degree symbol" when NIST is using the degree symbol with Rankine.
My suggestion would be to change the current statement (20180528)
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications. [1]
to something like
The use of the degree symbol with Rankine is somewhat contentious with some citations being clearly against using the degree symbol and others using the degree symbol. Standards organizations such as NIST and BSI use SI units and avoid the controversy, but when these organizations list Rankine units in conversion tables they use the degree symbol [1]".
I'm not really happy with this phrasing so if you have an alternate phrasing or clarification of this statement please say so. EE JRW ( talk) 03:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In the text and in one table, the symbol is R. In the other table it is °R. Which one is right? Rankine are degrees like Celsius or are like kelvin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.206.97 ( talk) 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to know in what way the Rankine temperature scale is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.242.76 ( talk) 02:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i have found evidence that in America Rankine has no degree symbol so this page and others will be excluding this information ( [2] on page 20) 70.41.96.39 ( talk) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
it may sound kinda wired but in the engineering for dummies book it says that Rankine is just R ( [3] pg 20) Wes1230 ( talk) 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)wes1230
i have a text book that shows Rankine as just R sorry to strain this but I fell if Kelvin can be units of CELSIUS (not centigrade you Englishmen :D) then Rankine can be too: "Modern Engineering Thermodynamics - Textbook with Tables Booklet" read it in google books — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes1230 ( talk • contribs)
References
For some engineering applications which? in the United States, temperature is measured using the Rankine scale. http://www.physorg.com/tags/temperature/
Cites
Other engineering fields in the U.S. also rely upon the Rankine scale (a shifted Fahrenheit scale) when working in thermodynamic-related disciplines such as combustion.
This text uses material from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA
So not an RS.
Removed until some reliable source is found.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC).
Please anyone tell a answer for this question. I searched many times but I couldn't find answer. 1.22.19.187 ( talk) 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@ Loew Galitz: " Raskine" now redirects to this article: is this a misspelling, or does it have a different meaning? Jarble ( talk) 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)