Timeline for Why was a Plimsoll symbol chosen to indicate standard state?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2019 at 19:46 | history | edited | theorist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jan 29, 2019 at 19:52 | vote | accept | theorist | ||
| Jan 27, 2019 at 13:17 | comment | added | Buck Thorn♦ | According to Chemical Thermodynamics: An Introduction, by Ernö Keszei, IUPAC introduced the plimsoll in 1970 to denote the reference state. Since IUPAC was established in 1919, it's relevant that they waited so long to comment on this point (although perhaps they changed their opinion over time). My guess is that the two ecosystems coexisted peacefully but growing globalization required IUPAC eventually to pass judgement. Being exposed to and comfortable with different notations through journals it is likely that chemists never considered this question particularly important. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:56 | comment | added | Buck Thorn♦ | Atkins (Oxford U.) seems to use the plimsoll exclusively in his textbook. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:48 | comment | added | andselisk♦ | @Andrew This is a pure speculation, but probably it was either a political decision at that time (why would U.S. press promote a British MP by using his symbol?) or the lack of typographic equipment (Germany is/has been known as the major supplier of all sorts of advanced typographic machinery and ligatures; probably U.S. companies decided not to buy overseas and use what they had). | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:31 | answer | added | andselisk♦ | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:29 | comment | added | Andrew | Also, is there a geographical preference for the Plimsoll? I've never seen it in my US texts, which use the open circle "$^\circ$". | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:28 | comment | added | Andrew | The reference in Wikipedia for the history of this notation is "Prigogine, I. & Defay, R. (1954) Chemical thermodynamics, p. xxiv". Does anyone have a copy of this text? Does it cite a primary source? | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:13 | comment | added | Buck Thorn♦ | I find the argument that there is no true zero energy unconvincing. For instance, as the universe expands and exhausts entropy, isn't it also heading to a lower energy state? As you extrapolate, won't we reach a state that you can define as "zero energy". Isn't it just a matter of historical accident, of choosing reference states that are not true zeros. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChemistry/status/1089493350506483712 | ||
| Jan 27, 2019 at 11:20 | comment | added | andselisk♦ |
Plimsoll symbol was commonly used in the literature in XIX century to show the non-zero nature of standard values. It's ironic that due to typographical reasons that plimsoll symbol is often replaced by a zero sign in the superscript (ligatures for upper 0s were everywhere, but upper ⦵s were not so ubiquitous).
|
|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 11:20 | comment | added | mykhal | @TryHard Note that in the citation, there was missing strike (horizontal bar) in the second symbol. (Now fixed.) | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 11:16 | history | edited | mykhal | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typogr. fix
|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 11:10 | history | edited | andselisk♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Split large paragraph; improved markup and punctuation; added tag for [notation]
|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 10:22 | comment | added | Buck Thorn♦ | Sure enought, reading in IUPAC's notation guidelines (Pure & Appl.Chem.., Vol.54, No.6, pp. 1239—1250, 1982.), starting in section 2.2 and continuing in section 4, you see that use of the naught symbol is more common than that of plimsoll. That extra little line is bound to have cost the plimsoll in popularity. In any case, it's a really interesting origin story, would be good to see a complete answer. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 10:12 | comment | added | Buck Thorn♦ | I've always thought of it as a naught. This is the first time I hear of a nautical association. My concern is usually with choosing the right symbol. The fact that there are two choices (⦵ or o) seems a potential source of confusion. I've encountered the "naught" symbol more frequently, either empty or filled (but meaning different things). I think the idea was to employ a small, tidy and distinct symbol, the likeness to "zero" indicating a "ground" and thus reference state. Presumably the answer is buried in a grave or a library on the history of science. Also, check with IUPAC, as usual. | |
| Jan 27, 2019 at 9:48 | history | edited | theorist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 478 characters in body
|
| Jan 27, 2019 at 9:27 | history | asked | theorist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |