You're viewing a single thread.
Rankine is there twice.
And it shouldn't have degrees like Kelvin, right?
The Rankine scale is generally measured in degrees. That's because it's defined in terms of the Fahrenheit scale, which is also measured in degrees. i.e. 1 Rankine degree = 1 Fahrenheit degree.
This is not the case for the Kelvin scale, which is defined directly in terms of thermal energy: 1 Kelvin ≈ 1.38*10^-23 J. Coincidentally (but not really of course) this amount of thermal energy is such that an increase of 1 Kelvin corresponds to 1 degree Celsius.
This is rather pedantic, as you could easily define Rankine in terms of thermal energy as well. Some people do this and don't say "degrees" in front of Rankine. Or, you could define the Kelvin in terms of the Celsius, and measure it in degrees.
tl:dr Rankine has degrees, but for mainly historical reasons.
P.S.: Kelvin actually also had degrees until 1968!
It does share a 0 with kelvin
And F and C share a -44
F and C share a -44
I thought it was -40
It is.
Maybe they got the 4 part mixed up from the old chem rhyme:
Johnny was a chemist, but Johnny is no more, because what he thought was H2O was H2SO4
It's actually -40. Not 44.
Not if it's an absolute scale, no. And then it does actually agree on what 0 is with Kelvin too.
Someone probably incorrectly wrote Réaumur degrees. (Copy of Celsius but ×0.8 for some reason; somehow stays kinda relevant in 1770-1920 Europe)
°R refers to the Réaumur temperature scale which goes from 0 for freezing and 80 is the boiling point.
And had the same zero as Kelvin.