3 ms·

OK, so: -30C to +38C is -22.0F to +100.4F exactly. Celsius can only represent 56% of your "habitable scale" without a negative sign. Fahrenheit can express 83

OK, so: -30C to +38C is -22.0F to +100.4F exactly. Celsius can only represent 56% of your "habitable scale" without a negative sign. Fahrenheit can express 83% of the same scale without a negative sign. 1 degree C is equal to 1.47% of your "habitable scale'. 1 degree F is 0.82% of the same scale. Nearly twice as much precision (1.8X to be exact). Yes, you can add a decimal point and negative sign, but that takes more space and costs extra money. So most appliances I've seen in Korea forego the extra decimal point, resulting in less control/precision of your appliances. Plus if you do add an extra decimal, you get even more precision in F. I would actually argue the extra decimal would add more precision than you want, anyways. (Imagine LED digits like on a calculator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display) Even if you use 2C = 2*Celcius, F still has a slightly more efficient range. Another way to look at is your hardware can display 39C to 99C, but that range is "wasted" because humans cannot survive in those air temperatures.

Gravityloss 5y ago
This argument doesn't work. For example you need more digits for Fahrenheit if you include the over 100 F range. An outside thermometer typically does not go to 100 C. IIRC my car thermostat goes from 18 C (below that is "max cooling") to probably 30 C in half C increments. There you could save a digit if you used Fahrenheit. Big deal? There's not much of a difference either way.
- Leftium 5y ago
  In the cases where you need to go over 99F, Fahrenheit does not need a full digit. You only need two thin segments for the "1." Or you can double it up with the negative sign. It's big enough of a deal that most appliances don't include the extra digit. Whether it be for design aesthetics or additional manufacturing cost. It's big enough of a deal that the article's author complained about not being able to set their thermostat to a comfortable level. > I started writing this because of a thermostat in Australia that didn’t use decimal points in Celsius. It was never a comfortable temperature inside. And 0.5C may not seem like a big difference, but if people could comfortably set their appliances 0.5C degrees lower it could save a lot of energy.

Gravityloss 5y ago

This argument doesn't work. For example you need more digits for Fahrenheit if you include the over 100 F range. An outside thermometer typically does not go to 100 C. IIRC my car thermostat goes from 18 C (below that is "max cooling") to probably 30 C in half C increments. There you could save a digit if you used Fahrenheit. Big deal? There's not much of a difference either way.

Leftium 5y ago
In the cases where you need to go over 99F, Fahrenheit does not need a full digit. You only need two thin segments for the "1." Or you can double it up with the negative sign. It's big enough of a deal that most appliances don't include the extra digit. Whether it be for design aesthetics or additional manufacturing cost. It's big enough of a deal that the article's author complained about not being able to set their thermostat to a comfortable level. > I started writing this because of a thermostat in Australia that didn’t use decimal points in Celsius. It was never a comfortable temperature inside. And 0.5C may not seem like a big difference, but if people could comfortably set their appliances 0.5C degrees lower it could save a lot of energy.