What actually more interesting to me is that FM has assigned channel numbers. I don't think I've ever seen a consumer radio that used channels instead of the raw frequency. I never knew they existed until I read that.
Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
21–30 of 56 posts
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another example is the Fahrenheit scale. The eponymous originator calibrated his thermometer by the temperatures where he could obtain brine (0 F) and an inaccurate estimate of human body temperature (100 F). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit
It is still nice because it is human centric, roughly 0 to 100 for temperatures is easily relatable to the human body. 90 is hot, 10 is cold. Celsius starting at the freezing point of water is not as human centric.
No, it's still a piece of crap
"Human centric" is a false advantage. And it's not even human centric, the temperature of 100F is wrong, and what does brine have to do again with the human body?
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is still nice because it is human centric, roughly 0 to 100 for temperatures is easily relatable to the human body. 90 is hot, 10 is cold. Celsius starting at the freezing point of water is not as human centric.
No, it's still a piece of crap "Human centric" is a false advantage. And it's not even human centric, the temperature of 100F is wrong, and what does brine have to do again with the human body?
Yeah, you could argue that if it was an accurate 100F for the human body, but you'd still want the bottom level to be something useful - freezing point of water is as good a zero as anything (well, short of absolute zero).
My bigger question is why Metric stuck with Celcius and Kelvin instead of factoring in the Gas Constant (R) into Kelvin so the math would be completely constant-free.
Of course, then you'd have water freezing at 2271 and boiling at 3102, which wouldn't be fun in conversation.
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is still nice because it is human centric, roughly 0 to 100 for temperatures is easily relatable to the human body. 90 is hot, 10 is cold. Celsius starting at the freezing point of water is not as human centric.
No, it's still a piece of crap "Human centric" is a false advantage. And it's not even human centric, the temperature of 100F is wrong, and what does brine have to do again with the human body?
0 is uncomfortably cold. 100 is uncomfortably hot. The temperatures that non-STEM people (“humans”) deal with on a day-to-day basis can be represented with satisfactory precision using two digits (OK, three in Australia), no negative numbers, no decimals. It’s a great system for casual temperatures.
Whereas “reasonable” temperatures in C run from what, -18ish to 38ish? Where’s the sense in that?
If you want to defend a unit of temperature, defend Kelvin. Don’t pretend that ˚C is significantly more reasonable than ˚F. They’re both bonkers in their own way (mysticism about the vitality of water is not a real justification).
If (more likely) you just want to make fun of Americans for being rubes, use distances or weights or volumes as your example.
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's still a piece of crap "Human centric" is a false advantage. And it's not even human centric, the temperature of 100F is wrong, and what does brine have to do again with the human body?
Yeah, you could argue that if it was an accurate 100F for the human body, but you'd still want the bottom level to be something useful - freezing point of water is as good a zero as anything (well, short of absolute zero). My bigger question is why Metric stuck with Celcius and Kelvin instead of factoring in the Gas Constant (R) into Kelvin so the math would be completely constant-free. Of course, then you'd have wat…
> My bigger question is why Metric stuck with Celcius and Kelvin instead of factoring in the Gas Constant (R) into Kelvin so the math would be completely constant-free
That's a really good question. Another possibility would be to fix the calories/joules mismatch in heating water
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#26PSA: If you 404 turn of httpseverywhere for fcc.gov.
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's still a piece of crap "Human centric" is a false advantage. And it's not even human centric, the temperature of 100F is wrong, and what does brine have to do again with the human body?
0 is uncomfortably cold. 100 is uncomfortably hot. The temperatures that non-STEM people (“humans”) deal with on a day-to-day basis can be represented with satisfactory precision using two digits (OK, three in Australia), no negative numbers, no decimals. It’s a great system for casual temperatures. Whereas “reasonable” temperatures in C run from what, -18ish to 38ish? Where’s the sense in that? If you want to defend…
"Uncomfortably cold" is quite an understatement, when talking about allegedly "human" temperatures.
Sure, at 100, healthy humans can survive as long as their increased water needs are met. (Sun is another matter, but I'm just talking temperature.)
However, at 0F, permanent tissue damage onset is within 30 minutes, with almost any wind speed. (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/windchill/images/windchillchart3....)
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#28They mean "Why do U.S. assigned radio-station FM frequencies end in an odd decimal"...
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's still a piece of crap "Human centric" is a false advantage. And it's not even human centric, the temperature of 100F is wrong, and what does brine have to do again with the human body?
0 is uncomfortably cold. 100 is uncomfortably hot. The temperatures that non-STEM people (“humans”) deal with on a day-to-day basis can be represented with satisfactory precision using two digits (OK, three in Australia), no negative numbers, no decimals. It’s a great system for casual temperatures. Whereas “reasonable” temperatures in C run from what, -18ish to 38ish? Where’s the sense in that? If you want to defend…
I agree that the smaller degrees, and lack of fractions, is more convenient for casual usage.
However, I'd argue that being water-based is hardly mystical: if water is boiling, or frozen, survival is more difficult. It's also a pragmatic system for any nation that regularly drops below freezing. (Eg, could it snow today? Could there be ice to slide on?)
Re: Why Do FM Frequencies End in an Odd Decimal?
#30Did I miss something, or did this not answer the question in it's heading? It basically says it's like this in the US.
It's the typical "write a lot, but don't really answer anything" style that so many politicians utilize, only substituting "talk" for "write". The entire section could have been summed up as: Because each broadcast band is identified by the frequency of the center of the band, the bands begin on an even number, and the bands are two "units" wide, making the center frequency an odd number. Edit: for clarification.
The text was most likely written by a civil service employee. Civil servants are not politicians.