I'm sorry, but I have a hard time judging a difference between 68 F and 69 F. Or 89 F and 90F. 16 and 17C, yep, I notice a difference there.
On Feb 1, 2006, at 12:43 AM, John Bange wrote: > On 1/31/06, Jeff Palmer <icecoldvw@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> How is 70 degrees Fahrenheit more user friendly or more 'appropriate' >> than >> 20 degrees Celsius? > > > It's not that "70" is better than "20", it's that the difference > between 20C > and 21C is generally too coarse a gradiation in comparison to human > ability > to sense temperature. Fahrenheit, more by luck than anything else, > pretty > much exactly hits that sweet spot. Fairly mundane claim to fame, but > hey, > most people leave mundane lives. > |
Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of
Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection
will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!
Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com
The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.
Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.