Photo tips for Antarctica?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Nov 2, 2007.

  1. Only infants have anything like 70% body water content.
    Adult men would be 5 to 10% lower, and women are even lower
    than that.
    Skin is not necessarily moist. (It might not even be
    warm, for that matter). There is only a temperature
    gradient *if* you allow it, and doing so when exposed to
    extreme cold is generally a serious hazard to your life.
    How's your arm chair doing Roger? It must be really
    worn now that you've done all of this polar exploration
    from it. Wonderful experience you have though, huh?
    (Maybe you need to take a break... your full of crap.)

    You still just do not understand what you are reading,
    simply because you've never been there and have no
    context and no idea what most of it means. You continue
    to display arrogant ignorance, and this post is worse
    than most of the previous ones. (Granted that your
    previous article citing references on radiant heat
    transfer which proved you wrong was the silliest of them
    all; and this almost tops that for the same reason.)

    *If* you have a physical barrier to prevent rapid
    dissipation of the moisture, there will develop a
    gradient. But that would allow sufficient vapor
    pressure to cause condensation, and would be destructive
    of the ability to provide a warm environment. On the
    other hand, with sufficient air movement there will not
    be a gradient, because the moisture is removed without
    any build up. That is the target effect.

    It is true that *some* types of clothing are designed
    specifically with a gradient in mind, and for example
    will wick the moisture away. As I've previously stated,
    that is *not* a method suitable for severe cold.

    But do *not* mistake that for descriptions of wicking
    through any given layer *within* the shell of the warm
    clothing, where it would otherwise form a barrier and
    allow a moisture gradient. *Anything* close to your
    body which prevents air flow *must* be able to wick
    moisture to the area where air flow does occur. Hence
    inner layers are designed to wick, but the outside
    layers are not.

    If the inner layer did not wick, there would be a
    significant moisture gradient, condensation would occur,
    and the ability to stay warm would be reduced. That is
    to be avoided! Dry skin is *essential*.

    Please note that as I've said, the entire point is the
    removal any moisture in order to avoid a moisture gradient.
    Do you understand the words "keep your skin dry"?

    The point is to dissipate any moisture rapidly, in order
    to prevent a moisture gradient. What they are
    describing is the basic requirements for any layer that
    is close enough to the skin to block movement of
    moisture rapidly away, which is a condition that must be
    avoided. If you had actually read and understood the
    cite you provided, this section would have been the one
    you'd have noticed:

    "Ironically, overheating is a significant threat.
    Overheating caused by overexertion (or caused
    by keeping outdoor clothing on for too long while
    indoors) leads to perspiration, which in turn degrades
    the insulating value of clothing. Upon cessation of
    exertion, overheating easily turns to hypothermia."

    That is virtually *identical* to what I have been saying.
    They continue:

    "Consequently, exertion and protective clothing need
    to be carefully balanced, and adjusted as needed
    to minimize or preferably prevent perspiration."

    "Minimize or preferably prevent perspiration", which is
    to say, to avoid moisture gradients within the clothing!

    Your cited source says you are wrong, and supports exactly
    what I've been trying to get you to understand.
    Again, armchair exploration is really fun, but you
    simply can't get the kind of experience needed unless
    you get up and *move*. Once again, you've misunderstood
    one section simply because you have no context and have
    gone searching, not for knowledge, but for anything that
    you think in your ignorance might disagree with me.

    From the first page of that paper (their emphasis included):

    "3) The most important factor, which can
    be controlled by the first two principles,
    is to minimize moisture accumulation
    in clothing. The cold weather
    enthusiast should religiously do
    everything possible to...

    KEEP WATER MOLECULES OUT OF
    THE CLOTHING ENSEMBLE !!!!"

    You will recall that is *exactly* what I've been trying
    to tell you. *No* *water* *molecules*! No moisture!
    And therefore no moisture gradient. That is because it
    is "the most important factor" and it is controlled by
    *minimizing* moisture accumulation.

    Not dealing with a gradient, *eliminating* it.

    (Incidentally, that is indeed a pretty good paper. It
    does however lack information on some of the finer
    points. For example it discusses sleeve cuffs on
    coats/parkas, and totally misses the biggest problem,
    which is the tightness of virtually all elastic cuffs,
    which should simply be avoided.)
    30 grams per hour spread over your entire body... and of
    course if you have almost *any* air circulation it would
    be possible to remove multiple times that much moisture.
    Which is to say, anything like a significant moisture
    gradient is *avoided*. And not by accident!
    No, it does *not*. It is immediately removed. There is
    no moisture gradient to speak of... assuming the clothes
    are properly designed of course. (Granted that *you*, in
    your armchair, probably have significant moisture that
    far exceeds any 30 grams per hour...)
    Says Roger, armchair expert on Northern Environments.
    So even *you* are saying now that the point is to avoid
    a moisture gradient. (You did understand that is what
    you said, right? No???? Well, it is.)
    Yeah, sure Roger. That's why you can read perfectly
    good reference material and not see the "most important"
    parts, even when labeled by the author, and instead
    focus on your misunderstanding of minor points. You
    lack enough context and knowledge to even do basic
    research, and here you are proclaiming someone else,
    who you admit gets it right because they "know this in
    practice", doesn't really know it... what a hoot.

    You don't know it in practice, you don't understand the
    theories involved, cannot apply reality checks to the
    most basically ignorant things you come up with, and
    appear to be nothing other than one hell of a great
    Commodore of The Royal Armchair.
    Roger you have sprinkled all of your articles with
    "personal attacks", and yet you whine like that when
    someone points out just how foolish the things you say
    and the attempts at mis-citing authorities are. You
    invariably cite someone who flat out says you are wrong!

    You need to get a couple of things straight on this
    topic. One is that you need to understand what makes a
    source authoritative. Did you notice who your sources
    cite as their reference? Local citizens of long term
    residence in the Arctic...

    That is to say, folks who don't explore the Arctic from
    an armchair, Roger. My long time friends and neighbors.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    But wait a minute. In another post, I mentioned

    thermodynamic and mechanical equilibrium,
    and your reply was
    Now you're saying again that not having it is the target! (not that it
    makes any sense to even talk about mechanical equilibrium inside
    clothes, but you claimed that there is-no, the context around your
    statement doesn't change anything). So, you obviously don't know what
    I meant by mechanical equilibrium, yet attacked.

    Brilliant, Floyd!
     
    acl, Nov 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Allen Guest

    Floyd, I went to your page and looked at a few of your pictures. I
    decided to look at the parachuting group, and lo and behold! what did I
    see? Children (Inuit, I presume) running around in T shirts. If these
    pictures were taken near Barrow, even in July, they prove some of your
    points better than words.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Nov 6, 2007
  4. Heh heh, actually the parents of those particular children
    are... Korean immigrants.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 6, 2007
  5. Do you still think there isn't? Can you read?
    No, that is not what I'm saying. *YOU* are the one who is
    saying things like that.
    Try as hard as you like with out of context distortions,
    the *fact* still remains that what I am describing is
    correct, it is the way it works, and virtually everyone
    who has had any real experience with it is laughing at
    people like you.

    Keep trying though, it's good entertainment.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 6, 2007
  6. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    Yes, I can read:
    You wrote this....

    Heh, either you simply don't know what "mechanical equilibrium" means,
    or you're lying through your teeth just to not admit anything.
    Experience in what? I didn't say anything at all about arctic
    clothing. I am just pointing out that, in addition to being rude, what
    you said regarding vapour pressure is wrong. But as usual, you'll
    never admit it.
     
    acl, Nov 6, 2007
  7. So instead of discussing anything of practical use to anyone all you
    want to do is go on ranting about whether or not melting ice should
    be described as warm, cold, or very cold.

    [snip a thousand pages of subjective adjectival rant and heroic posturing]

    Feeling warmer now?
     
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 6, 2007
  8. Exactly. That is the topic for discussion, and you cannot
    address it.
    You have a lot of nerve calling me rude.
    What I said was correct. It is easily verifiable in
    practice, and it applies as described to Arctic
    clothing.

    If you think otherwise, you should try posting something
    that makes sense and is on topic.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 6, 2007
  9. This entire thread just turned into a killfile entry ... what a joke.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 6, 2007
  10. Unfortunately, I think you are precisely correct.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 6, 2007
  11. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    Hang on. You said in your previous post:
    So if you now agree that I didn't say anything about this, how come
    everybody who has experience is laughing at me?
    I did not call anybody "son" and I was not condescending, quite unlike
    you. And I do not attempt to show off by saying things like "vapour
    pressure is what you need to look up, but I'll stay away from such
    technicalities" (and I would be even more careful not to do it if I
    didn't actually know what the words mean).

    But do go on contemptuously dismissing everybody who disagrees with
    you: Luckily, and as you pointed out elsewhere, this stuff will stay
    here for a long time.
     
    acl, Nov 6, 2007
  12. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Tack Guest


    AND I really wanted peoples opinions on the lens I was looking at :-(
     
    Tack, Nov 6, 2007
  13. Excuse me! the 30 grams/hour is AT REST. If you actually
    read the references, you would see as activity increases the
    amount goes up 5x, 10x, 20x....
    Duh, how do you think it is removed? IT EVAPORATES.
    That causes a gradient. It just doesn't dissapear!
    Absolutely wrong. Read the reference above.
    Or is the "to speak of" the first hint of admission that
    there IS a moisture gradient.
    You've launched multiple insults, but you are really ignoring
    facts. Call me an armchair expert if you want but I
    work with far colder temperatures than the coldest temperatures
    that your ever heard of on earth, and I do it most weeks
    every year. My thesis was:
    Spectroscopic studies of water and water/regolith mixtures
    on planetary surfaces at low temperatures: Ph.D. Thesis,
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1980.
    Translating that, I studied compounds at temperatures ranging
    from -260 F to 70 F, including the effects of water,
    and radiative transfer.
    Today I studied water clathrates from -321 to -98 F.
    I've worked in cold conditions in various work environments,
    from standing working at a telescope (10 hours of no activity)
    in -10 to -20 F, hiking in mountains in similar temperatures
    and high wind conditions. That plus designing equipment to
    work in cold temperatures down to -452 F.

    I understand the physics of cold and you have proven you do not.

    1) radiative transfer effects are a major heat loss in cold weather
    conditions and cold weather clothing. You denied its effect,
    and apparently again here. You are wrong.

    2) You said there was no temperature gradient. You said it was
    a typo. But you said it multiple times.

    3) You still deny there is a moisture gradient. You are wrong.

    You been given numerous references that prove you are wrong,
    and you have given none in response, but simply ranted and raved.
    No that is not what I said. The fact the moisture moves
    means there is a gradient. The challenge is managing the
    movement and gradient so it does cause condensation. There is NO
    possibility of having no moisture gradient on a body
    unless it is 1) dead, and 2) freeze dried so has no moisture. ;^)
    There you go with your insults. Again, you have not given
    one reference to prove you are right. It wrote a PhD thesis
    that included radiative transfer in scattering media and
    effects of water. You have some nerve saying I don't
    understand the theories involved. To the contrary, not
    only have you demonstrated you don't understand the theories,
    you haven't even given any hint of a reference that supports
    your viewpoints. Show us a reference that says:

    1) "there is no moisture gradient in cold weather clothing"

    2) Radiative transfer is not an important factor in heat loss
    in cold weather clothing.

    Huh? Astounding. No reference I cited says there
    is no moisture gradient. There is no reference that I gave that
    says radiative transfer is not important.
    So you don't think "Occupational Hygiene" is a good enough reference?
    Cite a quality reference that says there is no moisture gradient.
    Cite one that says radiative transfer is not a major factor in
    heat loss.
    The arctic is not the only place where there is cold, and much
    colder conditions than in the arctic!

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 7, 2007
  14. And yet, here you are making grossly errored statements
    about a related topic. That says an awful lot.

    You repeatedly cite references that say you are wrong,
    ignore what they say, and zero in on some minor point
    that you misunderstand.

    Nothing you've said relatees to photo tips for someone
    traveling to Antarctica. There is no point in
    continuing to discuss this topic.
    But you are good for laughs, and that sort of comment brings
    them on.

    Off to the killfile with you for this topic Roger. I'll
    still try to read your articles on topics that you
    actually do understand though.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 7, 2007
  15. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    Especially while confusing vapour pressure with partial pressure, and
    not even bothering to check when told. But it's ok, he can keep
    pretending that it's not him that's wrong about it, and keep citing
    the temperature where he lives as if that has anything to do with the
    meaning of "technical terms"...

    Hardly the first time this happens, though.
     
    acl, Nov 7, 2007
  16. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    ASAAR Guest

    Beating a hasty retreat, eh? Oh, the ignominy. At least your
    parting shots evidenced a realization that you dug yourself a hole
    that you escape from, even if you don't have the character to admit
    it. I'll still try to read your articles on topics that you
    actually do understand, though. :)
     
    ASAAR, Nov 8, 2007
  17. Exactly what error? There were no errors in my statements.
    The errors were your not believing radiative transfer was
    a factor, and saying thermal and moisture gradients don't exist
    in cold weather clothing.
    Radiative transfer heat loss is not a minor point; it is
    a MAJOR factor in heat loss in cold weather clothing.
    Temperature and moisture gradients are major factors in
    cold weather clothing. They are not minor. And if
    you don't manage them properly you'll be in danger.
    I believe you actually and instinctively know this and do the
    right thing based on your years of experience in Alaska,
    but have been unable to express it in correct technical terms,
    and that set off an unfortunately long thread.
    Right. You ought to know that as one goes down in temperature,
    insulation and heat loss processes become more and more critical.
    Now extend from minus a few tens of F that you have
    experience with to minus few hundreds F.
    If you every encountered those extremes, you would really
    understand the small factors in thermal properties of
    materials that become make or break conditions, and
    on much shorter time scales.
    Great. We are done.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 8, 2007
  18. But ASSARE, doesn't this require that you know enough to tell the difference?
    I've yet to see anything ever posted by you that would show you had enough
    intellect to discern the difference between fact and fantasy.

    Nice try though. :)
     
    PoorPoorASSaar, Nov 8, 2007
  19. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    ASAAR Guest

    Hah. Being able to tell the difference between fact and fantasy
    is a prerequisite for weeding out the current infestation of fantasy
    sock puppets from regular newsgroupies, and that's something I do
    well enough to have earned your ire, eh, Biddy? By now you're
    easily recognized by most sentient newsgroupies. That your
    knee-jerk anti-RNC vendetta has you siding with our demented uncle
    Floyd is an odd combination of amusing and pitiful, but it's not at
    all surprising.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 8, 2007
  20. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    acl Guest

    ....and mirth!
     
    acl, Nov 9, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.