alt.energy.homepower

David Williams wrote:
> -> The history is bit unclear on that, but if Wikipedia is to be believed
> -> then it seems he most likely based the scale on two measurements: the
> -> coldest thing he could measure (the story varies on what that was), and
> -> his own body temperature. After that, he divided the scale into 12
> -> sections, then further divided each section by 8. Once he labeled the
> -> bottom of the scale 0, that made his body temperature 96.
>
> That doesn't make much sense to me. 0F for the coldest thing, maybe an
> ice/salt mixture, makes sense. But where do the 12 and 8 come from? Why
> not 10 and 10, making his body temperature 100. Or 11 and 9 (99), etc.?

Well, considering that the metric system didn't catch on until 55 years
after Fahrenheit's death, it seems to make about as much sense as the
other systems of weights and measures that were popular at the time
(look up the Romer system that Fahrenheit replaced). Dr. Math speculates
that it was because in pre-calculator days, people were more comfortable
working with fractions than with decimals, which makes sense, but then
why 8 and 12 instead of 8 and 8 or 12 and 12? Wouldn't surprise me if he
just didn't have enough room on his prototype thermometers to scratch
out an additional 12 tick marks per division.

/library/drmath/view/

But then other stories have Fahrenheit fixing 0 at the coldest thing he
could find in Europe and 100 at the hottest thing. (Presumably he was
after naturally occurring things; otherwise, he clearly didn't know any
cooks or blacksmiths.) And then there are still other stories....