Talk:Barometer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article related to weather data or instruments is part of the Weather Data and Instrumentation sub-project of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Height of water[edit]

Not sure why User:Glogger has added the "units of pressure based on height of water" discussion to this article... seems better suited for an article on water pressure. It is only peripheral to the discussion of a barometer, a device to measure pressure. I think it should be moved or edited out, but wanted to float it for discussion here first. Bantman 00:25, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have deleted the following:

Units of pressure based on height of water[edit]

Since mercury is not a substance that humans commonly come in contact with, water often provides a more intuitive unit of measure, insofar as (what some regard as obsolete) manometric units go.
One inch of mercury is approximately equal to 1.133 feet of water, in terms of pressure or pressure difference. innitt doe mann
1 atmosphere (14.7 PSI) is approximately 33.90 feet of water (approx. 10.333 meters of water). Thus when dumping water on someone from a height of 10 meters (or, equivalently, when someone enters a pool from a 10-meter platform as is commonly found in olympic swimming baths), the potential energy is approximately one half to one quarter that of typical city water pressure. At this height of water, the person and water collide at slightly more than 50km/hour (slightly more than 30 miles per hour), as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Thus many swimmers wear ear plugs to avoid barotrauma from water pressure in the 10-meter range. In some sense, the human ear responds to pressure (with sometimes adverse effects). Systems such as the ear, microphones, loudspeakers, and the like, can be damaged by excessive barometric pressure increase (excessive head of water, for example).

Bantman 22:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not looked too deeply into the reasons for this edit but differential pressure is often quoted in height of water due to use of water in U-tube manometers. A Manometer is basically a Barometer with one end closed to vacuume and one end in an open cistern.
http://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=chemfacpub
The link above has a lovely writeup on a functioning water cistern manometer and would have used height of water to take readings (converted to height of mercury or other pressure scales for comparison with other readings)
While the height of water in the Barometer article may be periferal it deserves a place there (and in any manometer page) and is just as valid as height of mercury though less often used. It certainly has little to do in a water pressure article as this is related to compressed water (fluids) or pressure in water due to depth in water as opposed to depth of atmosphere)
Idyllic press (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New replacement article[edit]

Several users have found a very complete and wonderfully illustrated article in the French wp. This article has been translated into German.

This page (the talk page) will be used as a scratchpad for this work.

Translations will be interleaved by paragraph for easy review.

Tasks:

  • Post the French article (done)
  • Add the external image references to the image titles
  • Clean up BF translation in place
  • Move the images.
  • Fluent French-English speakers will then complete the translation into English.
  • Any portions of the existing article meriting inclusion will be added.
  • Native English speakers will review for grammar and idiom use.
  • A general review will be solicited from the community
  • As a start, the original French article:

Composite interleaved translation[edit]

NOTE: Owing to unreliability of my internet connection I am preparing this offline. it should be here in a few days. Please contact me via my talk if you have comments. Leonard G. 17:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Barometer history?[edit]

Ahoy! Could somebody who knows a bit about the history of barometers add a subheading about it? Thx. --Smári McCarthy 00:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

Mercury meniscus[edit]

I'd just like to note that the meniscus on the diagram of a mercury barometer is wrong (I believe). The meniscus should be the other way around for mercury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.9.90 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Now corrected. --catslash (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why I deleted the line on invention of barometer.[edit]

Guys, do you know what have I noticed? Since China is becoming a superpower (you know this great event occurred about 50 years ago) there is some trends in history especially in wiki's history articles. Nearly in every article on invention first line is "Chinese invented something many centuries before Europeans". The first shot was made by the greatest commie Chinese scientist which converted Chinese history from a fairytale-like legend to the greatest (and main thing it became greater than the European one) history in the world. You don't now him? NO? RLY? How can you never heard Joseph Needham? He's the biggest communist fraud and liar in science in XX century. And please don't tell me that I'm under narcotics or something else(yes one guy said that I am). I'm not a drug addict. Needham's researches are very contradictory. Many criticized him but when you are financed by Chinese government it doesn't matter. You can check any article on inventions and see that I am right. And of course in wiki the List of Chinese inventions is growing and growing...

You always thought that Newton is father of modern physics? Ha-ha. Chinese discovered his postulates many centuries BC. Newton only had read the Arabian manuscripts (and Arabs borrows and brought it from China to the West). And he assumed the honour of the discoverer of principal physical laws. You don't like this? You don't believe this? But many (if not most) wiki articles on history of science are like this. But… you will say that historians(you mean Needham?) proved the Chinese priority in Ancient science. But this proofs are only extracts from ancient (yes, every Chinese thing is ancient) Chinese manuscripts (which resembling Greek legends of Zeus and Hercules). Do you believe in Merlin's magic? If yes, you can claim that ancient Brits is greater than Greeks and Romans. But exactly this way "Chinese history" works.

That why I've deleted line on barometer history, written by our American friend 67.161.88.16[1] from Issaquah, WA. And I'm very, very disgusted by deleting the line about European's discovery of barometer. Tell me, our Chinese friends, how long will you have inferiority complex? Don't you tired to point out your superiority and destroy(and steal) OUR history? When will you(Chineang[2] and his compatriots) stop shitting and vandalizing wiki's history articles with your commie shit? You DIDN'T have mass production of barometers simply because there was no mass production until at least 18 century. Learn European history first and don't refer to your fables from ancient-like manuscripts. You don't know European languages or don't want learn history of science in Europe? Then don't edit English Wikipedia. You have the Chinese version of it. And you can prove your greatness there any way you like.

And I really fed up with proving of Chinese greatness and superiority in EVERY(E-V-E-R-Y!!!) article on history of science . But what can I do? Commies are 1,5 billion and nobody compete with them. Know that communism has won .

You, commie b****es, can ban me, you can accuse me being crazy or addict or racist. It only will prove that I am right and you are real commies. Eugene V. Packham 13:00 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Barometer (width of tube)[edit]

Will width of tube effect the height of column —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.23.200 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the width will have no effect on the height. --catslash (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Applications[edit]

I have grave doubts about much of this section. The statements that high pressure means fine weather and low means storms are more likely are gross simplifications. Also the reference to high pressure areas being barriers to weather systems and low pressure areas offering a path of least resistance is just plain wrong. If I get time I'll fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.173.28 (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

history section inadequate[edit]

This section is also gossipy. It's all about Italy. There have to be useful sources on developments up to the time of modern barometers showing that some took place outside Italy. You're not done. 4.249.96.164 (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

I think the History section of this article calculated the height of a column of water as 1 atm/(gravitational field strength * water density) without taking into account the vapor pressure of water and assumed that was the height Galileo observed instead of refering to a source that stated what height a column of water was observed, not what height was calculated, which probably would have been lower and that's original research. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)