Talk:Rankine scale

message: I am surprised to see that this article is labelled a stub. It gave me all the information I needed to write a Conversion Calculator, to be hosted at , involving temperatures.
Is it because it is short? What other information is required?
Fcalculators (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it a stub?

message: The page states in the table in the upper right: "For temperature intervals rather than specific temperatures, 1°R = 1°F = 5⁄9°C = 5⁄9 K". Double check my math, but I believe it should read "1°R = 1°F = 9/5°C = 9/5 K" Tricln (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, fixed --JD79 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsense.  Degrees Rankine, unlike some of the other obsolete degrees mentioned in the other articles, are still used.  Gene Nygaard 10:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist, let me reprashe that: Rankine is antiquated. Really. -- Egil
'A competent scientist should be able to work in any system of units' (A Cavendish Professor of Physics to his flock, in the days when they had cgs, esu, emu, degrees Brix etc.) .
Many chemical engineering, thermodynamics, and heat transfer textbooks, used from Britain to the US to Singapore, use the Rankine scale. It may be antiquated in the same way that any non-metric units are antiquated, but it is still used.
I removed "now rarely used". I use it all the time (to my disappointment)! It is useful in thermodynamics when using US Customary units. — TheKMantalk 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: that's rather arrogant. 'rarely' is not 'never'. perhaps you're the rarity. and by 'perhaps' i mean 'definitely'.-Heterodoxus (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chemical Engineering at Imperial College, we have students and books from Europe, Africa, Asia and America. I have yet to see a single person use this scale and I think most people here would consider such a person to have a bizarre death wish. Rankine may be widely used in the United States, but that's a long way from being widely used full-stop.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.204.157 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Petroleum engineering at University of Stavanger. I've used American textbooks that have included the Rankine scale along with SI units in some courses, including thermodynamics, fluid mechanics and chemical engineering. More importantly, it is used extensively in petroleum engineering, along with other oilfield units like psi, ft etc. I doubt the Rankine is an obsolete unit in the USA if it is sometimes used even in Norway.--152.94.83.208 (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: It should be primary. --JWB 07:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong agree. I find the disambig page highly annoying. Who are all of these other Rankines? -66.41.19.135 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankine cycle is more notable 

message: What is with the conversion table? I don't quite get it! Someone explain how I read that please? Many thanks! VanessaLylithe (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion Table 

message: I've taken the liberty of shuffling the contents of this page around to bring all of the posts about the degree symbol into one location.  Normally I wouldn't get involved in this discussion but the current article statement that "The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications.B.8 Factors for Units Listed Alphabetically from Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 edition, Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor" is clearly incorrect.  If you follow the reference to NIST, the page is titled "The NIST Guide for the use of the International System of Units".  SI units are all metric, Rankine is not.  I read this NIST document to say; NIST documents will use SI units, not anything about the degree symbol and Rankine units. In fact if you read the NIST document through to appendix B.8 (conversion tables) it says "Caution: The units listed in column 1 are in general not to be used in NIST publications, with the exception of those few in italic type."  The few in italic are SI units.  I.e. do not use non-SI units for general use in NIST publications.
https://www.nist.gov/physical-measurement-laboratory/nist-guide-si-appendix-b8
The Wikipedia article originally said
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using degrees Rankine in NIST publications.  (this is almost correct, it really says; use SI units)
This was changed to
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rankine_scale&diff=743831554&oldid=740477030
The justification for this change was an article in Science Notes.
https://sciencenotes.org/why-there-is-no-degree-in-kelvin-temperature/
The Science Notes article does indeed say "NIST advises against using the degree when citing Rankine temperatures", but is completely wrong in this statement.  I have not found anywhere that NIST says "don't use the degree symbol with Rankine (except Wikipedia and the Science Notes article).  NIST does use the degree symbol with Rankine in their table of conversion factors, which kind of points out the error in the statement.
[From the NIST conversion tables appendix A.8]
degree Rankine (°R)	kelvin (K)	T/K = (T/°R)/1.8
The British Standards organization (BSI Standards) also uses the degree symbol with Rankine in the conversion tables in BS350.
https://www.scribd.com/document/359729247/bs-350-part-1-94-conversion-factors-and-tables-pdf
I don't have a dog in this show.  I really don't care whether this Wikipedia article says to use the degree symbol or not.  But it bothers me that it says "NIST recommends against using the degree symbol" when NIST is using the degree symbol with Rankine.
My suggestion would be to change the current statement (20180528)
The US National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications.B.8 Factors for Units Listed Alphabetically from Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 edition, Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor
to something like
The use of the degree symbol with Rankine is somewhat contentious with some citations being clearly against using the degree symbol and others using the degree symbol.  Standards organizations such as NIST and BSI use SI units and avoid the controversy, but when these organizations list Rankine units in conversion tables they use the degree symbolB.8 Factors for Units Listed Alphabetically from Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI), NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 edition, Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor".
I'm not really happy with this phrasing so if you have an alternate phrasing or clarification of this statement please say so. EE JRW (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIST does not "recommends against using the degree symbol when citing Rankine in NIST publications" 

message: i have found evidence that in America Rankine has no degree symbol so this page and others will be excluding this information ( on page 20)
70.41.96.39 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pages 20-21 are not available in that preview, do you have another source or perhaps there is someone who can make the edit that can find that book? —  (t • e • c) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * "...and some textbooks have followed suit..." in a "For dummies" book doesn't inspire confidence that this is what is accepted in the scientific community. I have no issue with someone else making the change if they are comfortable with that, but I am not unless there is a scientific journal or some such that says it.  —  (t • e • c) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2014 

message: it may sound kinda wired but in the engineering for dummies book it says that Rankine is just R ( pg 20) Wes1230 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankine is just R 

message: For some engineering applications in the United States, temperature is measured using the Rankine scale. http://www.physorg.com/tags/temperature/
Cites 
So not an RS.
Removed until some reliable source is found. 
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Engineering use

message: Please anyone tell a answer for this question. I searched many times but I couldn't find answer. 1.22.19.187 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, it appears that the same temperature measuring technologies are used regardless of the scale.  In other words, a "Rankine's thermometer" is just like any other thermometer, just calibrated to the Rankine scale of units.  An ordinary thermometer using mercury as the thermometric liquid, for example, which often has parallel Fahrenheit and Celsius scales together, could just as easily have Rankine and Kelvin scales, as well.Albanaco (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ordinary thermometers generally use alcohol or another hydrocarbon as the fluid, mercury was previously the common type for medical thermometers mostly and even for that use case it has been largely obsoleted. 2600:4040:5205:CC00:24D8:E317:24F2:247C (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Themo metric liquid used in Rankine's thermometer? 

message: "Raskine" now redirects to this article: is this a misspelling, or does it have a different meaning? Jarble (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Raskine"