explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3044: Humidifier Review

2025-01-30T00:15:16Z

172.70.210.130: /* Transcript */ cat

{{comic
| number = 3044
| date = January 29, 2025
| title = Humidifier Review
| image = humidifier_review_2x.png
| imagesize = 285x287px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = They should add a little sticker that certifies that the humidifier supports water conservation, but in the sense of energy conservation or momentum conservation.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a THREE STAR BOT. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic shows a review of a {{w|humidifier}}, which complains that it uses too much water to increase the humidity of the room to 45%. However, it is impossible to reduce the amount of water used to humidify the room, as the law of {{w|conservation of mass}} states that the amount of matter in the universe must stay constant. Therefore, the amount of water gained by the air in the room must be equal to the amount used by the humidifier.

The joke in the title text is based on different senses of the word "conservation". To most people this refers to reducing wasted use of some material, e.g. "water conservation" means avoiding waste of water. But to physicists, it means that some quantity in a system stays the same; for instance, conservation of energy means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. For many years, most appliances have had {{w|Energy Star}} stickers that indicate their impact on the environment; by adopting the physicists' sense, they can trivially say they support water conservation.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Online reviews]]

Talk:3038: Uncanceled Units

2025-01-19T05:11:21Z

172.70.210.130: reply

DUDE I'M STILL IN SCHOOL RN, WHAT?
(also, the joke is that energy is power*time, so kWh is kJ/s... in an hour [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 13:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess not every comic can be a winner. Talking about an appliance using a certain amount of kWH per day is clear and normal. Power gets billed by the kWh, not the Joule. While technically not wrong, wanting "cancel" a sub-part of the commonly-used energy unit kWh and leaving it in deliberately-obscured units most people are less familiar with is the sort of insanity I'd more expect from White Hat than Cueball. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.171|172.70.35.171]] 13:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:Maybe that is a meta-joke? To frame kWh/day as something crazy by giving that line to whitehat --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Even if the consumer is technically more familiar with the watt, for example from lightbulbs, they absolutely have no idea how much a watt costs on their monthly bill, so the salesperson is unquestionably correct to quote the use in kwh/time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
:There's a difference between instantaneous power draw, and the total "volume"(/area, really) of power over time. Though a fridge is "always on", it is still only irregularly at full-draw. But, to the power company (or to the gas company, who will generally give a kWh measure of 'energy taken from the network'), they don't (generally) care whether you used twice as many kW over half the time or half as many over twice the time, within any given total billing period, even if it affects what you think. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.46|172.70.163.46]] 14:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Using joule as if it was an everyday unit of energy would be weird but I don't agree that watt is crazy. It's a normal unit of energy consumption that does mean something to people, e.g. 1000W microwave, 100W (incandescent) light bulb. Don't get me wrong kWh/day is also useful to translate it to your energy bill, but I do feel slightly uncomfortable every time I see that time divided by time :-) [[User:Mtcv|Mtcv]] ([[User talk:Mtcv|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think the complaint is that it's unclear, it's that Cueball/Randall instinctively wants units simplified - as they would be in a science context rather than a useful-for-normal-people's-everyday-needs context. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.183|108.162.238.183]] 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, it is normal, but to people who know what it means it hurts to look at. kWh are a measure of energy that is technically SI-friendly and at a useful scale, but from an scientific perspective there isn't a great reason (to my knowledge) other than convention to not just use megajoules (1 kWh is 3.6 MJ). That on its own bothers me, and probably Randal based on a lot of his other comics. The added complaint here is that by making them per/day it is back to a measure of power (which kW measure) [[User:Stardragon|Stardragon]] ([[User talk:Stardragon|talk]]) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is especially funny with US units. My car needs about 5l/100km, or 0.05mm². Now I am wondering how many ft^(-2) my car does... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: You make a good point about the units (at least in one instance). Shouldn't the reduced units for fuel economy be inverse area? Effectively, it is a measure of the distance the vehicle could travel while consuming a column of fuel with a specific height and specific top (or bottom) surface area. Or, The better the fuel economy, the less the surface area that is necessary to move a specific distance. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::It depends on what the original unit is. In my country (Germany) we measure it in volume/distance, which would reduce to area. North American convention is in distance/volume which would reduce to inverse area. Good thing about distance/volume is that "high number = good". However I think outside of escaping from a nuclear disaster or in a zombie apocalypse it isn't a really helpful thing to know. Because how often do you know "I got x amount of fuel. Wonder how far I can get." But you will likely be in the situation where you quickly want to see "How much fuel do I need to get to place x which is y distance from here". --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::: how often do you know "I got x amount of fuel. Wonder how far I can get." Quite often, because the question I'm really asking is whether I can get where I'm going with some margin built in before I need to refuel my car. When I do refuel or recharge the car, I'll go to 100% of capacity. I just want to know whether I have to do that now or if I can wait and do it later because later would be more convenient. The only time I want the number the other way is when I'm buying a car and want to make it as efficient as possible. Once I have it, the amount of fuel I need isn't going to change.[[User:Yttrium|Yttrium]] ([[User talk:Yttrium|talk]]) 09:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Mhh... probably a question of what one is used to. If I need to go 400 km, and I know my car uses 5l/100km, I just multiply 4*5 to see that I need 20l, and will know if what I have is enough or not. But I guess with mpg you can do a just as easy calc: If my car gets 50mpg (roughly 5l/100km) and I have 5 gallons (roughly 20l), I can go 50*5=250 miles, which is roughly 400km. My nitpick is: My car, and I think all cars I ever drove just shows me a dial from empty to full. Knowing how much "full" is, I can estimate how much gas I have, while my GPS will tell me a pretty exact number of km I need to go. So if I am fuelling up on a monday morning (where gas tends to be more expensive in my area than on other times), or fuel up right before I get my next salary, I might just put in as much as I need right now. But yes, maybe/probably it is mostly a thing about habits and what you are used to. And might be more of an European issue, since fuel is basically free in North America in comparison. So I guess everyone just fuels up fully all the time, but has to be cautious to reach the next gas station when travelling through the more sparely-populated areas...--[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: More usefully imagined as the front (or back) end of a horizontal column (or, twisting as it may, a pipeline) that traverses the journey made by the vehicle. As if (instantaneous variations excepted) you consume precisely the fuel that your vehicle passes 'through/around'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.92|141.101.76.92]] 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Yeah. Maybe we should express fuel consumption in terms of the speed fuel needs to be drawn through a standard fuel line. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

fridge [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.147|172.70.126.147]] 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The late [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay Sir David MacKay] wrote an excellent book, [http://www.withouthotair.com/ Sustainable Energy – without the hot air] (which is available free online).
On [http://www.withouthotair.com/c2/page_24.shtml this page] he talks about the units he uses in the book: kWh for energy ("one unit") and kWh/day for power - becuase it's simple for lay-people to understand - how many units does this appliance use per day.
It's a good book if any of you are interested in sustainable energy (although it was written in 2008, so some bits might be out of date by now) {{unsigned ip|172.70.85.33|14:33, 15 January 2025}}

If anyone's curious, I found an online gallons per square foot calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/construction/gallons-per-square-foot [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.6|172.71.223.6]] 15:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer to Cueball's question is likely NO in the US and YES in the UK, due not just to gallon size but also fridge size (a model like that is a particularly large fridge, when I bought one 10 years ago going for the smallest available I had to modify my cabinet above the fridge as there wasn't one less than 6'8"- the fridge hole was 6' previous).[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 16:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with this comic, and I think the final paragraph in the explanation about Hubble's constant best explains why. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] [[User talk:Beanie|talk]] 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:It doesn't make any sense to 'disagree' with an observation.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 09:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
::"[My] Pet peeve" so the comic is expressing an opinion [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.36|172.68.3.36]] 03:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hubble's constant can be expressed in reciprocal seconds, but it should not be expressed in Hz. Hz are reserved for repeating phenomenon. There is insufficient evidence of a cyclic universe. Using Hz could be an attempt to insert an unwarranted assumption into cosmology. This type of subtle "propaganda through choice of units" happens fairly often. Changing units can give a different perspective. Usually this will be through simplification because there is no algorithmic method to choose useful complex units.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.69|172.71.167.69]] 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically, kWh should be written as kW⋅h or kW h, because it literally means "kilowatts multiplied by one hour", not "kilowatts per hour" as many people assume. However, almost nobody writes it correctly. (kW/h is sometimes also seen, but egregiously incorrect.) Also, particularly now that electric vehicles are becoming more popular, people often get confused between kW and kW h. The car can charge at a peak or average rate expressed in kW, but energy billed by a charging service provider is expressed in kWh. People frequently either add or remove the "h" incorrectly because they don't understand the difference. In some places like India, a kilowatt-hour is simply referred to as a "unit" to avoid confusion. In my opinion, it was an enormous mistake to use kWh when we could be using mJ instead, which I think is probably something close to the point Randall may have been trying to make. Anyway, I wasn't sure if there was a place for any of this random trivia in the article itself, but feel free to use it. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 17:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: No!. TF?. ms is meter times seconds, m/s is meter per second. There is NOTHING wrong with kWh, it literally means kW times hours, and CANNOT mean anything else. kW per hour would be kW/h.. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.34|172.71.160.34]] 12:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Technically, the SI would have you write m s for meter-seconds and ms for milliseconds. Thus, similarly, it should be kW h for kilowatt-hours, not kWh. It is unambiguous either way, but the standard is the standard. But that is a totally bizarre thing to get hung up on. Also, Equites's suggestion to use millijoules instead was maybe not well thought-out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.15.234|172.68.15.234]] 17:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant XKCD… I mean relevant YouTube video: "Cursed units" 1 and 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfIXUjkYqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg7xe8MkJHs [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

: Highly relevant, in fact. The first video referred to the kilowatt-hour as "cursed", which became a highly polarizing issue in the comments, something that was addressed at the beginning of part 2. Assuming these responses weren't cherry-picked, I get the impression that there are a lot of people on both sides of this. It seems like the same kind of thing we're seeing in this very comment section. [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I always wonder why people here prefer liter/m^2 for the amount of rain. Where the same number as mm is way easier to imagine. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.99|172.68.50.99]] 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: At first, I was wondering if you would have rather had it in microliters/mm^2, but you meant the column height of the rain, like inches are used in the US. Along the line of L/m^2, something like mL/cm^2 might be nice considering the density of water, although the value also would be different by a factor. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
: That's the neat thing about the metric system, they are trivially simple to convert. 1l/m² is exactly 1mm. The fact that the meteorology uses the former just stems from the fact that that's how they measure it. The catch the rain on an area of 1m² into a beaker that contains some volume which is measured in liters. What annoys me though, is that noone seems to be talking about how terribly inefficient the fridge in the comic is. Mine only needs a tenth of the one that Whitehat tries to sell, and that's not even particularly good. --21:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:: UK measurements, once it gets to weather reports/forecasts, tend to be in millimetres (or centimetres, where more for the layperson who don't need mm-resulution; or occasionally recast as 'old money' inches, with ''really'' bad rain events summarised in relation to whole feet), which is implicitly the depth to which ''any'' area would be filled (in a case where large catchment + funnelling valley situation is concerned, suffering from the run-off, might be ''reported'' as "equivalent to ''N'' feet of rain", down where the bad effects get concentrated, but this is not a meteorological measure as such).
:: Not sure I've ever seen volume/area as an end-result figure (might be relevent as an intermediate for measurement/calculation, especially when discussing the funelling effects of the given local geography), but of course it's trivially relatable.
:: Density of water would only figure in from replacing litres with kilogrammes (litres are 1/1000th of metres³ and any m² is 10,000 times the cm² (or millilitre), so a factor of 10 between L/m² and mL/cm²; divide L to mL by 1000, times m² to cm² by 10,000, => 10x) but I always find it useful to know that three 2L bottles of pop are (very close to, going by the nominal water content alone) 6kg... makes me feel better about lugging the weekly shopping home, where these might be the single most significant part of the weight. More usefully than cross-converting into length-cubed measure. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.69|141.101.98.69]] 21:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the point that KwH/day can be simplified to Watts (an average perhaps, but still) {{unsigned ip|162.158.41.72|21:24, 15 January 2025}}
: Yes, the joke seems pretty clearly about watts or kilowatts, not megajoules. Using megajoules doesn't result in any units being canceled; the denominator remains "/day". [[User:BatmanAoD|BatmanAoD]] ([[User talk:BatmanAoD|talk]]) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If the argument for kWh/day is that it's easy for the consumer to understand how it will affect their electricity bill – then kWh/month would be the right choice, because I doubt anyone receives an electricity bill every day. But the salesman prefers 3 kWh/day because it sounds like a smaller number than 90 kWh/month. And of course, if electricity bills were written in joules instead of illogical watt-hours, then MJ/month would be the easiest for the consumer. {{unsigned ip|162.158.134.90|22:31, 15 January 2025}}
:Per-month is tricky. You seem to assume month=30 days, when it can be 28-31 and is only 30 days a third of the time. Per quarter(-year) is a bit more consistent, less fractionally variant ''and'' closer to most utility bill frequencies as well, if you're looking for something not as eye-wateringly frightening as an annual estimate (which 'only' varies every 4.1237... years, on average). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.47|172.70.163.47]] 00:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: "''Per-month is tricky. You seem to assume month=30 days, when it can be 28-31...''" My electric bill for December 2024 is 33 days. The company closes the book when it is convenient, not per some calendar. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 05:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Which is why electric consumption per month is even more tricky. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's still per some calendar. Just a calendar
of the electric company, that you're not privy to.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 09:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: facepalm and yes you are right, if you include that the meter reader may be a week late because of healing from pet related off work time from reading an electric meter in a back yard. And usually the person who turns the reading into a bill isn't sick. ... Pretty sure my electric company really loves the "phones home every 83 seconds" new meter they installed a few yag. The old and new meters are pretty much a wall wart with a screw on shield. I was surprised by no dead spiders in the socket on the replace.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.72|172.70.34.72]] 00:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::It's an average. We're not talking specifically about February. You could multiply by 365.24/12 and get 91.31 kWh/month on average – but there's only one significant figure in 3 kWh/day. White Hat doesn't say 3.000 kWh/day. You have to round 91.31 to 90 to avoid false precision.
::The stated average is an estimate based on assumptions about how much you'll fill the fridge, how often you'll open the door, how long you'll leave the door open, the room temperature in your kitchen, how much surrounding cabinets will restrict air flow across the condenser, et cetera. The combined uncertainties make it meaningless to state a highly precise power consumption. The length of the month is just one of many sources of variation. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.90|162.158.134.90]] 10:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ahem... "multiply by 365.24'''25'''/12". As anyone with a fridge at least 125-years-old would appreciate... ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.178|141.101.98.178]] 12:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I suspect this comic is inspired by the much more common pet peeve of incorrect/nonsensical units, frequently encountered in similar contexts. I'm so used to hearing kWh mistakenly written simply as kW, that I initially misread and assumed that's what the comic is about. That's a particularly common example, where you'll hear battery capacities listed in kW, or instantaneous power described in watt-hours. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 09:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{w|Calorie#Chemistry and physics|Calories}} vs. {{w|Calorie#Nutrition|calories}}, also... ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.178|141.101.98.178]] 12:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: Yeah, get it straight people! Instantaneous battery discharge rate should be in some scale of watt-hours per second :P All this hassle because apparently nobody likes Joules or Coulombs as a unit. Besides the obvious unit cancelation thing, why would kilowatt-hours be more of a thing than watt-seconds anyway, since they are the same general order of magnitude? SammyChips 16:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be worse.. I keep seeing TVs marked in kWh per 1000 hours... That is just insanity pure and simple.. It is in fact Watts!!![[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.34|172.71.160.34]] 12:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:This is even some kind of a "standard", officially. See first image in here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4484
:Also, world power consumption is almost exclusively represented in TWh per year, because TW is obviously not a thing. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.6|172.68.50.6]] 13:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:That whole kerfluffle is mentioned in the "Cursed Units 2" video linked above. [[User:AdmiralMemo|Admiral Memo]] ([[User talk:AdmiralMemo|talk]]) 01:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I be the obnoxious arse that points out that a 125W fridge will NOT be pulling 3kWh (or 3 units?) per day? Fridges run a compressor which makes the cold happen (via science and magic) and when there's enough cold in the box, it'll click off until cold is lacking. The durations will depend on ambient temperature, however observing my (oldish) fridge, it seems to run for about fifty seconds every four or five minutes.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.92|141.101.69.92]] 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:Fridge is actually heating device: it heats up your kitchen by pumping the heat from inside to outside. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: It's actually a heat pump, moving heat from one location to another. Whether a heat pump is a heating device or a cooling device depends entirely on your perspective. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.148|172.69.246.148]] 23:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is actually a good reason to differentiate between Wh/h (energy over time) and W (power): Non-constant consumption. If the fridge consumes 3kWh/d, its compressor will be rated in the 300-400W nominal range (the thermostatic controller will cycle the compressor on and off; for a modern fridge-freezer combination, a typical duty cycle would be in the 25-30% range). The unit nameplate will say "400W" because that's the rated power the electrical installation will have to be designed for (how many of these fridges can you put on a 20A breaker etc.). This is only determined by the physical properties of the compressor motor. The energy consumption additionally depends on insulation, internal space of the cabinet etc. etc. and only makes sense as a time average (due to the intermittent operation of the compressor). Not sure about US rules, but here in Europe, there's a standard energy class label for fridges which specifies kWh/a as a primary means of comparison. (Averaging over a year has the advantage that you can test against a standardized profile of ambient temperature change between summer and winter).
[[User:Ogehrke|Ogehrke]] ([[User talk:Ogehrke|talk]]) 21:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
: Instead of overcomplexificationing the units, all you need to do is write "average power consumption" on the label. Also, none of that is an argument against using joules per year instead of joules per second times hour per year.

The explanation incorrectly states that fuel efficiency in the metric system is measured in km/l. It's not. It's measured in l/km, so it reduces to area, not 1/area.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.77|172.71.182.77]] 22:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:I recall seeing a book in my youth about "understanding units" that included great things like viscosity and explanations for why E=mc² cancels units properly. But they got to gasoline consumption, and used the analogy that the "area" represented here is the equivalent of the area of an adjacent trough of gas that would have to be scooped up by your car to keep it running. Very interesting way of illustrating unit cancellation. [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 23:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Am I the only one bothered by the low ceiling? I hate rooms where I can't stretch without bumping. I had to come here to make sure I hadn't miscalculated the ceiling height. [[User:DougM|DougM]] ([[User talk:DougM|talk]]) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just assume that Cueball is using british gallons to further mess with the units. As the explanation that makes the room 2.44m which is a pretty standard - although still not very high - room height. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't there a joke about the salesman as well? Maybe I'm thinking too european, but kWh x 365 days = 1095 kWh/year seems ridiculously high to me. {{unsigned ip|172.70.247.41|12:10, 17 January 2025}}

German weather forecasts report rain as liters per square meter instead of millimeters. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.87|172.69.109.87]] 12:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

re "there are cases where uncancelled units can be helpful to understanding the concept", something about mixing ratios could be added. E.g. 10g/kg and 10mL/L are both 1% ratios, but expressing them as uncancelled makes it clear that one is a ratio by mass and one is a ratio by volume. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.208.76|172.70.208.76]] 21:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:also dosages for medicine. At least for pets it is often mg/kg. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I used to tell people I work 7.5 hours per day, but after reading this comic I'm going to switch to saying I work 0.3125 with no units. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.36|172.70.162.36]] 22:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Go the other way and ''add'' combinable units... 0.3125 Hertz-seconds. Or go ''really'' wild with the ratio. I'm sure you could work out how many "lumen per hectare-luxes" it would be (3125?)... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 23:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

3026: Linear Sort

2024-12-23T20:31:05Z

172.70.210.130: /* Explanation */ redundant

{{comic
| number = 3026
| date = December 18, 2024
| title = Linear Sort
| image = linear_sort_2x.png
| imagesize = 385x181px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The best case is O(n), and the worst case is that someone checks why.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Sorting algorithm}}s are a fundamental part of computer science, with various methods differing in efficiency, ease of implementation, and resource usage. Efficiency is often described using {{w|Big O notation}}, which expresses how the runtime of an algorithm scales with the size of the input. For example, "O(''n'')" ("linear time") means the runtime grows proportionally to the size of the input, while "O(''n'' log ''n'')" means it grows slightly faster than linear. Faster algorithms, like O(''n''), are generally preferred for large datasets.

The comic presents a humorous "linear time" sorting algorithm that first uses {{w|merge sort}}, a well-known O(''n'' log ''n'') algorithm, to sort the list. It then "sleeps" for an additional amount of time to artificially make the runtime scale linearly with the size of the input. Specifically, it pauses for <code>(1 million) * length(list) - (time spent sorting)</code> seconds, ensuring the overall runtime appears to grow linearly. This is a joke because the actual sorting is still O(''n'' log ''n''); the additional sleep time is simply wasted to give the illusion of linear time. It's also a joke because it makes the sort so slow that it's useless, with a "sort" of one item taking upwards of 11 ''days'', two items taking 23 days, three taking 34 days, and so on.

The humor lies in the absurdity of intentionally slowing down a sorting algorithm to match a desired runtime profile. This defeats the purpose of optimization, as the goal of sorting algorithms is typically to minimize time spent, not to pad it with unnecessary delays. If the artificial sleep were removed, the algorithm would revert to its true O(''n'' log ''n'') efficiency, making the "linear sort" label both deceptive and unnecessary.

The title text extends the joke by referencing "best" and "worst" cases, concepts in {{w|algorithm analysis}} that describe how the runtime varies with different inputs. For the "linear sort," the best and worst cases are identical because the sleep function forces the runtime to always be O(''n''), regardless of the input. The "worst case for the author," however, is when someone examines the code, exposes the fraud, and damages their reputation—a humorous twist on the idea of worst-case scenarios.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The panel shows five lines of code:]
:function LinearSort(list):
::StartTime=Time()
::MergeSort(list)
::Sleep(1e6*length(list)-(Time()-StartTime))
::return

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to sort a list in linear time

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Programming]]

Talk:1122: Electoral Precedent

2024-12-01T17:07:46Z

172.70.210.130:

This illustrates how the future is unlike the past in countless ways. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.59}}

----
I don't understand what he means by Alternative Tickets in the last frame.
:It does not say 'Alternative', it says {{w|Alliterative}}, meaning that both names starts with the same sound/letter. '''R'''omney/'''R'''yan --[[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
----
My research tells me that Jefferson won 1800. Error on Randall's part? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 08:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by 1792 vs. 1804: The latter is "No incumbent has beaten a challenger", but didn't Washington face any challenger when he was re-elected in 1792? [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
: {{w|United_States_presidential_election,_1792|He ran unopposed}} --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:: As far as I understand it, he had four opponents, but got all the votes. Then, the electoral college voted on whom to be the vice president among the remaining candidates. But it seems unlikely to get 100% of the popular votes, do I misinterpret the wiki page? [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, back then, the electoral college didn't take their votes from the people. They just decided, so they decided to give Washington the presidency. [[Special:Contributions/140.247.0.79|140.247.0.79]] 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

----
"1904: No one under 45 has become president. ... Roosevelt did."

Sort of. {{w|Theodore Roosevelt}} (Oct 1858–1919) was under 45 when he ''became'' president, in 1901. But by the time of the ''1904'' election he was 46.
 [[Special:Contributions/75.36.234.236|75.36.234.236]] 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:Correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest President to date, but Kennedy was the youngest yet ''elected''. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The image needs to be updated. I'm not sure how to do that myself. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 23:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded corrected image, changed tense on comments. Reload/refresh to check the 1800 frame should now show Jefferson... --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And how can people be from Virginia AND Massachusett? I think he meant OR.[[Special:Contributions/77.245.46.86|77.245.46.86]] 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I take it the entire comic will not go up under "Transcripts"? [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

:It will, but no one's been bothered the transcribe it all yet.[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 23:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

----
Although Buchanan/Breckinridge won in 1856, Stevenson/Sparkman were defeated by Eisenhower/Nixon in 1952.

He's wrong about the other 'precedent' for 2012 as well. Other first name with a K losers:
*1924, Frank T. Johns (Socialist Labor)
*1932, Frank S. Regan (Prohibition)
*1936, Frank Knox (Republican)
*1948, Tucker P. Smith (Socialist)
*1980, Patrick J. Lucey (Independent)
*1996, Patrick Choate (Reform)
*2004, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
*2008, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
--[[Special:Contributions/76.20.209.221|76.20.209.221]] 10:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
----

Good point about small party candidates, but Tucker P. Smith was the Socialist vice presidential candidate in 1948; the presidential candidate was Norman Thomas.
--[[Special:Contributions/174.59.119.154|174.59.119.154]] 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
----
You're technically wrong about Chuck Baldwin. He was born as Charles Baldwin. He only ran for vice president in '04 and president in '08. I'm too lazy to find the rest.[[User:Randomperson4000|Randomperson4000]] ([[User talk:Randomperson4000|talk]]) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
----

;Errors
Should the errors be included in the article explanation, or should they just be discussed here in the chat box? I'm of the opinion that anything that doesn't go towards explaining the comic should go here in the discussion. I would lean towards keeping error nitpicking confined to the discussion page. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 13:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think errors should be put down in a trivia/errors section. Or, if a flame war is starting, move it onto the talk page. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I put back my original comment on the 2012 streaks; some anonymous person had previously written 'whether he thinks "st" and "sp" sounds are different enough to count as alliteration', but first of all, an alliteration requires the (first) sound(s)/letter(s) of two words to be the same (not different), and second, if Randall would consider Stevenson/Sparkman not to be alliterative (as their second letters differ), he would undoubtedly think the same about Romney/Ryan.--[[User:Jay|Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay|talk]]) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed that edit, but thought there was a "not" in there, which would have made it make sense. Ah well. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Not quite true, Jay - St/Sp is two different consonant ''blends'', which are much more intertwined than a consonant and its following vowel, as in Ro/Ry. The question is do they sound alike, not the literal letters used. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1996 - surely 'William' (12 pts not including 50 pts for using all seven letters) beats 'Robert' - (8 pts)? {{unsigned|163.1.166.255}}

----

2012: Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.

Isn't Obama 6'1" and Romney is 6'2"? Certainly Obama won there. [[Special:Contributions/24.6.170.96|24.6.170.96]] 01:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

:The comic was written before the presidential election. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.223}}

;Transcript
Just finished the transcript. I didn't check for typos, since there was a lot of typing. It would be great if someone else would look over it. {{unsigned|207.242.93.10}}

:Looks great! I've removed a lot of the whitespace which (I think) makes it easier to read, and doesn't require quite as much scrolling. I haven't gone through and spell checked everything either, but if someone finds anything they can fix it. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

----

2012: No Republican has lost a November 6 presidential election...
2012: No one ever wins re-election after the previous two presidents - from different parties - won re-election...
2012: No Democrat was re-elected with very high unemployment and a Republican-controlled House...

...until Obama. [[Special:Contributions/50.74.2.12|50.74.2.12]] 02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

----

Is it me or does the 1972 panel now say „Quakers can’t win twice“? What happened to „No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts“?
1956–1964 seem to be wrong, too. Or am I missing something?
[[User:Quoti|Quoti]] ([[User talk:Quoti|talk]]) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

----

2016: No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win... Until Trump did. [[User:Redninjakoopa|Redninjakoopa]] ([[User talk:Redninjakoopa|talk]]) 04:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

----

Funny how the alt text is now also false, considering Trump is now president-elect. ill change the comment on Jan. 20th {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.39}}
:It's really funny because Trump is basically the king of Twitter politics/mud-slinging, I'm presuming that Randall didn't go back and change that alt-tag, because it was a safe bet that anyone coming after Obama would be another white guy, and anyone elected would be mentioned on twitter, but because Trump is so prolific on Twitter it makes the alt-text seem almost prophetic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.251|172.68.58.251]] 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Sam

----

1848
Democrats do not lose when they carry Pennsylvania.
But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_United_States_presidential_election
Shows Taylor the Whig carrying Pennsylvania and winning.
I am confused.

----

Trump isn't white, he's orange. The first white guy to be mentioned on Twitter and then get elected president is Joe Biden.
:Ahh, I love this comment. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
:Quite :) [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 20:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The letter K thing feels ominous right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.2|172.69.90.2]] 21:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

----

The K streak is broken now, now that Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump in the 2024 election. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 17:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T13:54:34Z

172.70.210.130: "fun" fu

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an TOTALLY CONFORMING TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses the 1742 {{w|Celsius}} scale for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}} (or the related {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}}), which uses the 1724 {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale. The other widely used temperature scale is the 1848 {{w|Kelvin}} scale, which uses the same degrees as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius (which, along with degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually made in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also known as "centigrade", was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of kelvin. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.)
<center>Celsius = kelvin - 273.15</center>
<center>kelvin = Celsius + 273.15</center>
While kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive to laypersons.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead originally setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution.
<center>Celsius = (Fahrenheit - 32) × 5/9</center>
<center>Fahrenheit = Celsius × 9/5 + 32</center>
Although those reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity in Anglophone countries, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making.
<center>Celsius = Réaumur / 0.8</center>
<center>Réaumur = Celsius × 0.8</center>
The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it originally used the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<center>Celsius = (Rømer - 7.5) × 40/21</center>
<center>Rømer = Celsius × 21/40 + 7.5</center>
The Rømer scale is considered the predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, because Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°Ra] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point.
<center>Celsius = (Rankine - 491.67) × 5/9</center>
<center>Rankine = (Celsius + 273.15) × 9/5</center>
Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. So, as a linear appproximation:
<center>Celsius = Newton × 100/33</center>
<center>Newton = Celsius × 33/100</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{Actual citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inconsistent.
<center>Celsius = (Wedgwood + 8) × 100/1.3</center>
<center>Wedgwood = (Celsius × 1.3/100) - 8</center>
The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold.
<center>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</center>
This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying -100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness (or cursedness itself) would be Randall's invention. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
<center>Celsius = 100 - real_Celsius</center>
<center>real_Celsius = 100 - Celsius</center>
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a {{w|Millimetre of mercury|column of mercury}} at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was changed, to more or less the form already described above, after his death in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15 )</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [''sic''] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
<center>Celsius = (°X - 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50.0; or (°X - 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.0</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8</center>

Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

==Trivia==

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature}} (range midpoint)
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|hot coffee}} temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22 °C || 0 °C || 100 °C || 37 °C || 2.5 °C || -18 °C || 39 °C || 77 °C
|-
| Kelvin || 295 K || 273 K || 373 K || 310 K || 276 K || 255 K || 312 K || 350 K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72 °F || 32 °F || 212 °F || 98.6 °F || 36.5 °F || 0 °F || 102 °F || 171 °F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6 °Ré || 0 °Ré || 80 °Ré || 29.6 °Ré || 2 °Ré || -14.4 °Ré || 31.2 °Ré || 61.6 °Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1 °Rø || 7.5 °Rø || 60 °Rø || 26.9 °Rø || 8.8 °Rø || -2 °Rø || 28 °Rø || 47.9 °Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531 °Ra || 492 °Ra || 672 °Ra || 558 °Ra || 496 °Ra || 459 °Ra || 562 °Ra || 630 °Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3 °N || 0 °N || 33 °N || 12.2 °N || 0.8 °N || -5.9 °N || 12.9 °N || 25.4 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7.71 °W || -8.00 °W || -6.70 °W || -7.52 °W || -7.97 °W || -8.23 °W || -7.49 °W || -7.00 °W
|-
| Galen || 0.00 || -1.76 || 6.24 || 1.20 || -1.56 || -3.20 || 1.36 || 4.40
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || -21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|}

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-25T00:12:18Z

172.70.210.130: /* Explanation */ preposition

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades (both being established in the early 1700s). The other widely used temperature scale is the {{w|kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from °Celsius (which, along with °Fahrenheit, is now officially defined relative to kelvin.) The kelvin has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually done in degrees Celsius or kelvin.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also called {{w|centigrade}}, was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of the kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales, but still considered cursed.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' in its full name; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other temperature units) is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.) While the kelvin is very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, and engineers/scientists like Randall (who rates it here as minimally cursed) will probably use one or both of kelvin and Celsius, it can be unintuitive to lay-persons unfamiliar with its use.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars (and the original brine solution freezes at a value other than zero in more recent versions), the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because a swathe of everyday weather conditions across the anglophonic world fall (mostly) within the range of 0–100°F, with those who already frequently use it for such purposes considering it more intuitive. Additionally, 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|conveniently close to}} normal human body temperature, as a related coincidence, even though initial estimates had set it to 90°F. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau. This does not prevent Randall specifying it as marginally more cursed than the more global standards.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5.
The Rømer scale is also considered the common predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales. Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point. Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.<ref>https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43</ref>
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,<ref>https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml</ref> when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying -100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness (or cursedness itself) would be Randall's invention. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (possibly to the equivalent of 1.42x1032K, considered [https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198 the maximum attainable physical temperature]) will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only changed, after his death, in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15)</center>
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., the cursedness could be understood as 50/50, or entirely cursed, but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature</ref> The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)<ref>https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature</ref> The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature</ref>

"Surface" temperatures are measured at 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent the temperature of the air, because temperatures closer to the ground are often quite different due to the heating effects of sunlight (or a lack therof, e.g., at night or under clouds), and the thermal capacity of soil.

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Due to high temperature records now being increased almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}}, and average temperatures (trending upwards) subject to their own annual fluctuations, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift more significantly over time, everyday temperatures will vary less.
|}

==Trivia==

Here are the {{w|room temperature}}, water freezing and boiling, {{w|body temperature}}, recommended refridgerator and freezer, warm bath, and hot coffee temperature values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Room temperature
! Water freezing
! Water boiling
! Body temperature
! Recommended refrigerator
! Recommended freezer
! Warm bath
! Hot coffee
|-
| Celsius || 22°C || 0°C || 100°C || 37°C || 2.5°C || -18°C || 39°C || 77°C
|-
| Kelvin || 295K || 273K || 373K || 310K || 276K || 255K || 312K || 350K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72°F || 32°F || 212°F || 98.6°F || 36.5°F || -0.4°F || 102°F || 171°F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6°Ré || 0°Ré || 80°Ré || 29.6°Ré || 2°Ré || -14.4°Ré || 31.2°Ré || 61.6°Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1°Rø || 7.5°Rø || 60°Rø || 26.9°Rø || 8.8°Rø || -2°Rø || 28°Rø || 47.9°Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531°Ra || 492°Ra || 672°Ra || 558°Ra || 496°Ra || 459°Ra || 562°Ra || 630°Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3°N || 0°N || 33°N || 12.2°N || 0.8°N || -5.9°N || 12.9°N || 25.4°N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7.7°W || -8°W || -6.7°W || -7.5°W || -8°W || -8.2°W || -7.5°W || -7°W
|-
| Galen || -2.2 || -4 || 4 || -1 || -3.8 || -5.4 || -0.9 || 2.2
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || -21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59°X || 43°X || 151°X || 76.4°X || 44.1°X || 34.3°X || 78.8°X || 124°X
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T14:02:59Z

172.70.210.130: /* Trivia */ fix Dalton

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, which uses the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from °Celsius (which, along with °Fahrenheit, is now officially defined relative to kelvins.) Kelvins have been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version a year after his death, in 1745. 0°C represents the freezing point of water, and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) and its territories, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5.
The Rømer scale is also considered the common predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales. Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur, and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to avoid the need for decimals.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more practical zero point. Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined; see [[2295: Garbage Math]].
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., the cursedness could be understood as 50/50, or entirely cursed, but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || ''not provided'' || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "Surface" temperatures are measured at 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent the temperature of the air, because temperatures closer to the ground or exposed to sunlight are often much different.

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Due to high and average temperature records now being broken nearly every year as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift more significantly over time, everyday temperatures will vary less.
|}

=== Trivia ===

Here are the {{w|room temperature}}, water freezing and boiling, {{w|body temperature}}, recommended refridgerator and freezer, warm bath, and hot coffee temperature values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Scale
! Room temperature
! Water freezing
! Water boiling
! Body temperature
! Recommended refrigerator
! Recommended freezer
! Warm bath
! Hot coffee
|-
| Celsius || 22°C || 0°C || 100°C || 37°C || 2.5°C || -18°C || 39°C || 77°C
|-
| Kelvin || 295K || 273K || 373K || 310K || 276K || 255K || 312K || 350K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72°F || 32°F || 212°F || 98.6°F || 36.5°F || -0.4°F || 102°F || 171°F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6°Ré || 0°Ré || 80°Ré || 29.6°Ré || 2°Ré || -14.4°Ré || 31.2°Ré || 61.6°Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1°Rø || 7.5°Rø || 60°Rø || 26.9°Rø || 8.8°Rø || -2°Rø || 28°Rø || 47.9°Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531°Ra || 492°Ra || 672°Ra || 558°Ra || 496°Ra || 459°Ra || 562°Ra || 630°Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3°N || 0°N || 33°N || 12.2°N || 0.8°N || -5.9°N || 12.9°N || 25.4°N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7.7°W || -8°W || -6.7°W || -7.5°W || -8°W || -8.2°W || -7.5°W || -7°W
|-
| Galen || -2.2 || -4 || 4 || -1.0 || -3.8 || -5.4 || -0.9 || 2.2
|-
| Real Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0.0 || 100.0 || 40.7 || 2.9 || -21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59°X || 43°X || 151°X || 76.4°X || 44.1°X || 34.3°X || 78.8°X || 124°X
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-23T21:09:19Z

172.70.210.130: reply

Shouldn't Rankine say "0ºR is set to absolute zero"? {{unsigned ip|172.70.230.29|22:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:Yep. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

yo,i thought comic 3000 was anticlimactic so randall would make this one COOL but sadly not
Same. Hope he does something cool for 3072.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.225|172.69.134.225]] 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

really he didn't do anything special for this either? come ON randall if you don't do something cool for comic 3072 i will come to your house personally and yell at you [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 23:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

 
What's random about Fahrenheit? (Answer: nothing.) 0F is the freezing point of brine, 100F (or 98.7) is the human body temperature. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.65|172.68.54.65]] 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:What concentration of brine? (And which specific salt... No, not NaCl, as you might presume but NH4Cl!)
:And body temperature varies a lot ('typically' 36.5–37.5°C or 97.7–99.5°F, though even this range is thought to be too small), across genders, individuals, time of day ''and'' which orifices/surfaces you try to measure it from. (Originally, it was set so that '''90°F''' was to be the 'best guess' of human body temperature. It gradually changed, including via various {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|compounded misunderstandings}} so that the best you can say is that 100°F is arbitrarily ''slightly above'' most afebrile human body temperature measurements.)
:Celsius might be a bit off (arguments about triple-point or STP freezing, etc), but it still has far more physical logic to it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Randall, for my comfort, Fahrenheit is the least cursed. It's the best scale to use for my personal use, especially when hearing the weather report and deciding what to wear outdoors: temp in the 80's - no jacket. temp in 70's - maybe a windbreaker if it's breezy. 60's - sweater weather. 50's - medium weight coat. 40's - winter coat. 30'3 - winter coat with scarf and gloves. 20's - multiple layers. teens - stay indoors. None of the other scales provide such convenient distinctions for my daily life. Kelvin is great for astro physics or super conductivity, but useless for any common uses. Celsius is great for hanging out with the Euro crowd but still not so useful to scale my home thermostat. I judge Fahrenheit as 1.0 for cursedness. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I conveniently use Celsius in tens, also. Negative °C: Cold; 0-10°C: Nippy; 10-20°C: Generally pleasant; 20-30°C: Too warm to exert oneself; 30°C+: ''Definitely'' too warm. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.205|172.70.86.205]] 15:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm most disappointed that {{w|Delisle scale}} was not represented... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.188|172.70.160.188]] 01:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: I was so hoping for a {{w|Planck temperature}} quip. Like: "Water freezing point: 0; Water boiling point: 0; Notes: 1 = highest possible temperature (1.4E32K) where thermal radiation creates black holes; Cursedness: 0/0" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.184|162.158.164.184]] 01:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Same here. Freezing is 0.000000000000000000000000000001928 and boiling is 0.0000000000000000000000000000026338. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] ([[User talk:DanielLC|talk]]) 03:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Wow, those are even smaller than the IEEE floating point representations of 1-1.0/3*3! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.109|162.158.90.109]] 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: The Planck temperature quip is definitely well deserved. Good catch! [[User:Mumingpo|Mumingpo]] ([[User talk:Mumingpo|talk]]) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I was wrong in my comment on the last comic. sigh. -[[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 01:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually spelled {{w|Wedgwood scale}}, not Wedgewood. [[User:Wilh3lm|Wilh3lm]] ([[User talk:Wilh3lm|talk]]) 01:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I still call the modern version of the "Celsius" scale "centigrade", but if people start nitpicking, I'm happy to switch to "Carolus" to avoid ambiguity. For some reason that tends to annoy people more though. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 01:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Every temperature scale is equally "random" as every other scale. People always say that Celsius is so much better because it's defined by the phase changes of water. Okay, cool...why should THAT of all things be what we use as the base for a system of temperature measurement? And, who cares? I'm a ''Homo sapiens'', not a water molecule. If anything we should use the freezing and melting points of humans as our two reference points for temperature (which, I must say, Fahrenheit approximates better than Celsius, assuming 0 and 100 are your points "A" and "B"). [[User:Pie Guy|Pie Guy]] ([[User talk:Pie Guy|talk]]) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
: Every temperature scale is arbitrary, but since boiling and freezing water is a thing humans have a lot of experience with it makes sense to use that as the reference point. At least it makes more sense than whatever the coldest recorded temperature in Fahrenheit's home town was, because he didn't like negative numbers [[Special:Contributions/172.70.250.23|172.70.250.23]] 03:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Planck temperature (as above) is probably the least arbitrary, and some would say it is to some extent free from arbitrariness. However, it's completely impractical for everyday use (as above.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.138|172.69.34.138]] 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Do the physics of black holes or neutron stars involve Planck temperatures greater than 0.0000001? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chat Gippity told me:

:::::Black holes and neutron stars do not typically involve temperatures reaching the Planck scale. While both objects exhibit extreme physical conditions, their temperatures are far below the Planck temperature, even though they can be incredibly high compared to everyday phenomena.

::::: - **Neutron stars** have surface temperatures in the range of millions of Kelvin, and the core can reach even higher, possibly up to a few billion Kelvin. These temperatures are still vastly lower than the Planck temperature.

::::: - **Black holes**, especially the smaller ones, can emit Hawking radiation, with temperatures inversely proportional to their mass. However, the temperature of even a very small black hole is still far below the Planck temperature. Hawking radiation is not expected to reach temperatures close to the Planck scale under normal circumstances.

::::: The Planck temperature (TP=1) represents an energy scale so extreme that no known physical models, including those describing black holes and neutron stars, operate near or above this threshold. Temperatures reaching **0.0000001 TP** (or 1.416 × 10^26 K) would still be beyond current observational and theoretical frameworks related to these cosmic objects. A quantum theory of gravity would be required to describe physics at or near the Planck temperature, which remains speculative and is far beyond the conditions found in black holes or neutron stars.

::::[[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If the °X scale is based on the temperatures of Earth from all time (for some definition of "Earth"), then the scale is very hard to define and highly impractical. The earth appears to have gotten to more than 2,300 Kelvin (hot enough to melt steel and platinum and to boil lead) and while I can't find any sources for the lowest temperature, I imagine it is lower than -100°C. The recorded minimum, maximum and average temperatures appear to be around -89.2 °C, 56.7 °C and 15 °C respectively. This would make the scale somewhat useful, but this would make typical values between 41 °X (cold winter's day) and 68 °X (hot summers day) which I think is pretty cursed. I recommend the clearly superior °Y, based around average temp at 0 °Y, low at -100 °Y and high at 100 °Y. These would be measured by the yearly high, low and mean temperatures averaged per person. Then saying "It's 2 times colder than yesterday" would have some reasonable meaning. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.147|198.41.236.147]] 04:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''Record'' ... surface temperature" implies it was recorded. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.9|172.68.22.9]] 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you all feel about adding an additional column for room temperature 22C/72F?
{| class=wikitable style="text-align:right;"
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22
|-
| Kelvin || 295
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72
|-
| Réaumur || 18
|-
| Rømer || 18
|-
| Rankine || 531
|-
| Newton || 7
|-
| Wedgwood || -7
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| °X || 58
|}

Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000208 °Planck, lol. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.211|108.162.245.211]] 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like decigalens would be the most practical unit. Who's with me? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 06:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's interesting; calculating the equilibrium temperature (with 2.05 and 4.24 being used for the heat capacities of ice and boiling water) gives 67... If I use water that's about to freeze and steam, I get 31. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 07:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Would you please explain in more detail? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: The equilibrium temperature of a mixture (?) of equal quantities of ice at 0 C and water at 100 C (with the heat capacities 2.05 and 4.24) is 67 C; if I use the data for water at 0 C and steam, I get 31 C. Additionally, if I use equal volumes, I get 68 (which isn't much different.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.178|172.69.0.178]] 17:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: One can obtain 0 = 22 C by setting the heat capacity of ice to be 39 and that of water to be 11. For any particular "normal temperature" ''R'' °C (that is, the temperature at 0 is ''R'',), I find that ''x'' °C = 50''R''(''x''+4)/(''x''(''R''-50)+200). In particular, for ''R'' = 22, we get (1100+275''x'')/(50-7''x''). [[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.163|198.41.236.163]] 05:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding the X scale - when it‘s defined by *three* (somewhat, implying average is real and not just calculated by (max-min)/2)) independent points, how will linearity be achieved? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.76|162.158.155.76]] 05:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
[[File:Explanation length.png|right|thumb|Or click "[Expand]" in the bottom right table cell Derivation.]]
:Please see [[2701: Change in Slope]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.179|172.70.206.179]] 05:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, "a linear scale between each point":
[[File:XvsC.png|thumb|left|Here you go. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)]]
{{clear}}

The reference for the average surface temperature, https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html, suggests it has increased above 15°C. What value should we use in late 2024? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The [https://wmo.int/media/news/earth-experiences-warmest-day-recent-history World Meteorological Organization], [https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-now-very-likely-to-be-warmest-year-on-record/ Carbon Brief], and [https://climate.copernicus.eu/new-record-daily-global-average-temperature-reached-july-2024 Copernicus Climate Change Service] suggest 17.16°C. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Updated water temperatures, Derivation, and graph. So we've already had more than the +2°C warming we were trying to avoid in 2019? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 08:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::: The +2°C (or +1.5°C that we were originally supposed to be avoiding) is over some (undefined) number of years, though, which allows us to ignore the fact that we're cooking ourselves by repeatedly saying 'Oh, but it doesn't count ''yet''.' [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 11:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3001%3A_Temperature_Scales&type=revision&diff=353635&oldid=353632], are the average surface temperatures from the sources supposed to be yearly or overall averages? [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 09:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:According to https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature the global average near-surface temperature is 14.4 + 0.4 = 14.8°C. (see Figure 1 and click "Increase above: [1991–2020 reference period].") [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.8|172.68.22.8]] 21:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

where is the interactive epic 3000 comic we should've gotten? This one's cool but 1000 seemed to have more effort in it and 2000 was at least tangetially related. Does Randall just not like making these anymore and is only making more comics as a business? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.185|108.162.238.185]] 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:The comic is free on the website and it doesn't have ads; although the comic is part of his "brand" there are many more profitable things he could be doing with his time, and yet he continues to update it every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I just don't like the idea of claiming that a creative person "should" produce any particular thing to satisfy their fans. He's a busy guy! Maybe he's working on a book, or a Scientific American article, or a TV show. He's under no obligation to give us anything, and maybe one day he'll stop making xkcd altogether; that's his choice. Sorry to single you out; I know a lot of people feel the same way as you do, but to me it doesn't make sense. He's not a content machine--he's a guy who started posting sketches on the internet. [[User:Dextrous Fred|Dextrous Fred]] ([[User talk:Dextrous Fred|talk]]) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry if I sounded overly brash, I wasn't trying to imply "wahhh no special entry wahhh", I was just wondering if Randall still likes to make these or if he doesn't, mainly because he just didn't do anything special, which feels like he just didn't care. I wasn't trying to imply Randall should just do it for the fans[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.80|108.162.238.80]] 17:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It ''could'' be that 3000 (or even 3001) ''was'' going to be special but, as fairly frequently with April Fool 'specials', it just wasn't doable on time. (If it's still considered fixablez it might pop up sometime before 3020 or so. Or, if transferable to another occasion (rebranding the obvious "3000!"ness), held over until Haloween, Christmas, April or 4000, perhaps with additional perfections.)
:::Hard to know, unless Randall (or his technical collaborators) say anything. And it's probably not worth doing so right now. Maybe "Hey guys, this ''was'' going to be #3000!" might accompany its eventual emergence, but also maybe not. Does it really matter? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.139|172.70.85.139]] 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the first list-style comic where every single entry is real? (Usually he has several joke entries.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.182|172.70.114.182]] 14:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where would [[1923: Felsius|Felsius]] go on this list?

One can find a smooth function for °X, namely, (477879''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''+197700), which takes °X and returns °C. The inverse is (-197700''x''-17634840)/(3341''x''-477879). Should this be included in the wiki article? Or maybe another way of fitting it (like exponential) should be used. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.165|172.69.0.165]] 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:It says "a linear scale between each point". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 21:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that in the first _What If?_ book, there's a reference to units and how much Randall loathes rankine? Someone can go take the book and cite it; it's in one of the early pages [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.10|172.64.236.10]] 08:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I remember it being drummed into us in school physics (admittedly over 50 years ago) that 0 Celsius is defined as the melting point of ice, not the freezing point of water (presumably because of supercooling). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.189|172.70.160.189]] 08:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems he wrote "Earths'" (plural possessive) instead of "Earth's". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

What? No gas mark? It's linear for temperatures over 275°F but inverse powers of 2 below That's pretty cursed, but I still put it in my unit conversion app. It's only used in gas stoves in a few countries, so it doesn't come up very often. By the way, boiling is 1/5.7358 and freezing/melting is 1/843.3572. Interestingly, France has it's own stove temperature scale that seems to be based on °F.

Also, my understanding is that 7.5 and 32 aren't random. Both Romer and Fahrenheit put numbers on things so that freezing/melting of water and "Normal human body temperature", which was thought to be standard at the time, would be some number X (15 for Romer and 64 for Fahrenheit) and the water thing would be to be X/2 and NHBT would be X/2+X. Pretty nerdy. Sadly, the calibration was off and 212 degrees for boiling was found to be less cursed. But I could be wrong.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.138|172.68.54.138]] 20:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2994: Númenor Margaritaville

2024-10-22T18:18:50Z

172.70.210.130: It's always time for LOTR memes

Looks like the king of island life is Ar-Pharazôn https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Ar-Pharazôn [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.59|172.71.146.59]]

Awww this is great. I have just watched the trilogi with my kids (their first time) over the last three weekends, watching the Return of the King over two days finishing just a few hours ago. And then first now I look on yesterdays comic, and in the explanation there is so many references to the things I have just seen right now. Specifically the line "the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise." where silver glass is in the song "into the west" at the end (which I very much like) and the swift sunrise part is said by Gandalf to Pippin during the battle in Gondor. Love this coincidence. Because I'm a big fan of LoTR and of xkcd. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But there's this one particular harbour / So far but yet so near / Where I see the days as they fade away / And finally disappear. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 00:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Eagles are coming! [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
: Ar-Pharazôn: [https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/pgy6i9/fly_you_fools/] --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Seemingly xkcd has actually done a rare (silent) comic correction; in the new version, Númenor is indeed written with an accent, and Tar-Pharazôn has become Ar-Pharazôn. So part of the explanation needs to be updated. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.93|172.71.160.93]] 13:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
: Well, whaddayaknow? One does not simply mess with the Tolkien canon, I guess. A fix has been attempted. The text associated with the edits maybe should be under a "Trivia" header? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.191|172.68.22.191]] 14:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Some people say that there's a woman to blame for the elves leaving the world of men, but we know that it is Cueball's damn fault. [[User:Stone of Light|Stone of Light]] ([[User talk:Stone of Light|talk]]) 01:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

And I always thought Westerland,Germany, was Numenor. Ask Die Ärzte. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceW3Tfh6iUI 3:15-4:50) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.114|172.71.160.114]] 11:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

2964: Olympic Sports

2024-07-27T19:51:21Z

172.70.210.130: /* Explanation */ rowspans

{{comic
| number = 2964
| date = July 26, 2024
| title = Olympic Sports
| image = olympic_sports_2x.png
| imagesize = 553x328px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Thankfully for everyone involved, the Winter Olympics officials spotted me and managed to stop me before I got to the ski jump.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A VERY CONCERNED OLYMPIC OFFICIAL - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Randall]], who has no athletic training, imagines himself participating in various events at the {{w|2024 Summer Olympics|2024 Paris (Summer) Olympics}}, with his degrees of failure measured in terms of their humor potential.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Olympic Sports Ranked by How Funny It Would Be If a Regular Person Competed
! Sport !! Level of Fun !! Reason
|-
| {{w|Rowing}}
|rowspan=5| Not that funny || The person would simply struggle to row effectively.
|-
| {{w|Fencing}} || They might fail to land any hits, but it wouldn't be overly humorous.
|-
| {{w|Weightlifting}} || They might just fail to lift the weights.
|-
| {{w|Golf}} || They would likely miss the ball or hit poorly.
|-
| {{w|Archery}} || Arrows might miss the target, but it's not particularly amusing.
|-
| {{w|Swimming}}
|rowspan=5| Pretty funny || They might struggle to stay afloat or swim awkwardly.
|-
| {{w|Long jump}} || They would likely make a very short jump.
|-
| {{w|Pole vault}} || They might struggle to even get over the bar.
|-
| {{w|Diving}} || Awkward or painful-looking dives could ensue.
|-
| {{w|Hurdles}} || They might trip and fall over the hurdles.
|-
| {{w|Figure skating}}
|rowspan=5| Incredibly funny || They might slip and fall continuously on the ice.
|-
| {{w|Horizontal bar}} || They might fail to perform any flips or fall off the bar.
|-
| {{w|Equestrian sports}} || They might struggle to control the horse or fall off.
|-
| {{w|Freestyle BMX}} || They might crash or fail to perform tricks.
|-
| {{w|Pommel horse}} || They might awkwardly flop around or fall off.
|}

The title text may be a reference to ski jumper {{w|Vinko Bogataj}}, whose spectacular crash at a (non-Olympic) ski flying event in 1970 in Oberstdorf, (then) West Germany became emblematic of the expression "the agony of defeat" in the opening narration of the popular US television program "{{w|Wide World of Sports (American TV program)|Wide World of Sports}}".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Olympic Sports ranked by how funny it would be if I, a regular person without athletic training, snuck onto the team to compete:
:[Three panels are shown with a header, a bullet list with five listed sports in each, and one or two depictions of sports.]
:Not that funny
:Rowing
:Fencing
:Weightlifting
:Golf
:Archery
:[Cueball putts a ball with a golf club and misses the hole.]
:[Cueball is aiming with a bow. Three arrows are on the ground at various distances from the target.]
:Pretty funny
:Swimming
:Long jump
:Pole vault
:Diving
:Hurdles
:[Cueball runs stomach-first into a hurdle, while holding a hand on his head. Another hurdle behind him has fallen down.]
:Cueball: [Bonk] Ow! [Bonk] Ow!
:Incredibly funny
:Figure skating
:Horizontal bar
:Equestrian
:BMX freestyle
:Pommel horse
:[Cueball tries to balance himself on a bench. His both hands and one leg are down, while the other leg is slightly raised.]
:Cueball: Look! Look!
:[A horse rider wearing a black helmet is struggling to maintain balance on the running horse, with both hands and one leg raised.]
:Horse rider with black helmet: AAAAA!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Sport]]