Date:         Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:26:00 -0800
Reply-To:     Randy Bergum <organslave@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Randy Bergum <organslave@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: Metric this, metric that
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Back in the '80's there was a top rated hang glider pilot who could thermal
up like nobody's business.  He was tested in a lab to see why he could find
the thermals so well... His face was sensitive to 1/10 of a degree (F),
hence his brain was able to map the temperature of the core, and he maxed
out the lift at the center.  Whooped us all in competitions.

Randy Bergum
1990 Carat
Fullerton, CA


> [Original Message]
> From: Kim Brennan <kimbrennan@MAC.COM>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Date: 2/1/2006 8:53:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Metric this, metric that
>
> 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.
> >