Talk:Orders of magnitude/new chains

Suggestions for new chains

• power, see Orders of magnitude/template/Power
• dimensionless numbers (eg number of stars in galaxy, populations of china, hairs on human head, etc)
• speeds

---

What about orders of magnitude for temeratures? In kelvin, obvisouly, with Celsius (and god forbid, Fahrenheit) equivalents in each decade article. Should not be as limited as one might imagine. Quite interesting things happen when approaching absolute zero, I understand. Tempertures required for nuclear fusion would make an interesting span (and I'm sure there are some Big Bang exotica that could make this even more interesting. -- Egil 17:17 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

good idea. but let's move this bit to Talk:Orders of magnitude (new chains) -- page getting too long -- Tarquin 17:24 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

OK. There is now a demo chain at 1 E2 K, extending in both directions. It has not been linked anywhere.

I think the concept is OK, but I'm not perfectly happy with the layout. The Celsius equivalents mess things up. I tried a table layout, but it was so-and-so too (see below). Perhaps there is some aligment that can make it better? -- Egil 18:57 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

Alternative style:

<100 K
100 K	-173.15 °C
125 K	-148 °C	Superconductivity point of Tl-Ba-Cu-oxide
234.32 K	-38.83 °C	Melting point of Mercury
273.15 K	0 °C	Melting point of water
293 K	20 °C	Room temperature
310 K	37 °C	Human body temperature
373.15 K	100 °C	Boiling point of water
600.65 K	327.50 °C	Melting point of lead
1000 K	728.85 °C
>1000 K

---

I can see maybe capitalizing the first word of each example, but I really don't think the names of elements & compounds ought to be capitalized. Any objections if I dash through and chop them down? -- John Owens 19:03 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

No, please do. It was my fault (I somehow had this idea that the names of the elements were proper nouns).

Another thing: The temperatures are not inserted in the orders of magnitudes yet. I have no idea where they would fit. One suggestion (from temperatures) is to equate 1 eV to 11573 K (i.e. 1 E4 K) since this corresponds to the average kinetic energy at that temperature. Is that too weird?

-- Egil 19:24 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

Anyone have a good idea how small this should go? It seems to me that most of the really small powers are better expressed as energy, when you have reactions of individual molecules and such. I know some LEDs and such go at least down to microwatts, and there's the now-infamous (there's that word again!) antpower, albeit badly calculated. Anybody know any nanowatts or smaller that have any use? Perhaps the average power output of a single human cell, or something like that? -- John Owens 10:38 19 May 2003 (UTC)