Talk:Barometer

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorological instruments and data task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Height of water

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

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)[reply]

New replacement article

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

Prepare a Babel Fish (website) translation on a per-paragraph basis and interleave it.

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

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)[reply]

Barometer history?

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).[reply]

Mercury meniscus

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)[reply]

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

Why I deleted the line on invention of barometer.

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)

Are u mad that u are posting these useless things on this very important website....I think u should stop posting all these non-sense things.... Srinjoy Ghatak (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srinjoy, please note that Eugene posted 10 years ago, and that his contribution history also stops 10 years ago, so I think we can assume he has "stop[ped] posting all these non-sense things"! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barometer (width of tube)

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)[reply]

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

Applications

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)[reply]

history section inadequate

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)[reply]

Original research

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)[reply]

Nothing on Drebbel

Cornelius Drebbel invented a precursor to the barometer. Should this be included in the history section? 99.245.230.104 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Face/dial

The following suggestion was out of place at the top of page. I've moved it down for neatness.

I suggest a minor change in the "Aneroid barometer"-section. Insteaf of using "face of the aneroid barometer" one, preferably, would use "dial of the aneroid barometer". - In general, an excellent article, thank you all! 46.30.132.223 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article about barometers or altimeters?

The lead section of an article is supposed to be a summary of the information given in the article (see:wp:lead). The lead section in this article fails to do that, but also it is unlike any I've ever seen before in that it mostly discusses an entirely different subject than what is in the article. An altimeter works on the same principle ss a barometer but it is a different instrument as it is calibrated differently to measure height rather than pressure. There is a place in the article for a discussion about altimeters but the lead is not the place for it. At best it should have a brief metion there. Video tape recorders work on the same principle as audio tape recorders but you wouldn't expext to find a long discussion in the lead of either article about the other machine. Richerman (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925023810/http://www.barometerfair.com/history_of_the_barometer.htm to http://www.barometerfair.com/history_of_the_barometer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention mystery units in images

The reader is presented with images such as File:Aneroid_barometer.JPG with a mystery outer dial and even more mysterious inner dial with zero description what the numbers represent. Jidanni (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after looking at the images on https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Barometric-Pressure I conclude the inner units are MmHg / 10! Jidanni (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the outer dial must be meters / 100. Odd how the manufacturers couldn't be bothered to put a simple "m" on the dial. Jidanni (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. See the table in the "equation" section, atmospheric pressure halves at around 5,500m, so looking at the dial 38cmHg would be where the "78" mark is, around 5,500m. I'd guess that the inner dial can be rotated to set the pressure at sea level, then you can just read off your height. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel barometers

This section says nothing about what a wheel barometer is. Guessing, this refers to the familiar circular aneroid barometer which is discussed below. If so, then the first paragraph should be merged in there and suitable citations used.

The second paragraph is excessive. One or two pioneers might be acceptable, but a list of 52 names and locations adds nothing to it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've researched these wheel barometers and they are a form of mercury barometer. Article updated accordingly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schnoebi:. If using "See also" this should be a hat note at the start of the section. If you insist on using it inline, then you should use a wikilink to a relevant point. Perhaps "fair to say that the Italians dominated the industry" would be better? What do you think? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baro-thermometer?

We have one red link to baro-thermometer (barothermometer). Adequacy? Estopedist1 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]