Photo tips for Antarctica?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>> Occupational Hygiene By Kerry Gardiner, John Malcolm Harrington
>> p. 195
>> "an individual loses moisture by evaporation of water
>> diffusing through the skin"
>> At rest, about 30 grams H2O/hour are lost through insensible water loss
>> which corresponds to about 10 watts/m squared at 20C.
>>
>> You see, because the body is warm, and contains water, the
>
> 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!

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....
>
>> warm water WILL evaporate, even at rest. And it does
>> so through the skin. That creates a moisture gradient.
>
> No, it does *not*. It is immediately removed.

Duh, how do you think it is removed? IT EVAPORATES.
That causes a gradient. It just doesn't dissapear!

> There is
> no moisture gradient to speak of...

Absolutely wrong. Read the reference above.
Or is the "to speak of" the first hint of admission that
there IS a moisture gradient.

>> Any change in activity changes that gradient and that makes
>> it a challenge to manage.
>
> Says Roger, armchair expert on Northern Environments.

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.

>> The challenge in cold weather clothing is to move the
>> water through the clothing and having it evaporate and
>> not build up.
>
> 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.)

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. ;^)

> 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.

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.


> 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!

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.

> 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...

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.

> That is to say, folks who don't explore the Arctic from
> an armchair, Roger. My long time friends and neighbors.

The arctic is not the only place where there is cold, and much
colder conditions than in the arctic!

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>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.

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.

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

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 <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 7, 5:07 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern....DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:
> You have some nerve saying I don't
> understand the theories involved.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.
>
> Nothing you've said relatees to photo tips for someone
> traveling to Antarctica. There is no point in
> continuing to discuss this topic.
>
>> I understand the physics of cold and you have proven you do not.
>
> But you are good for laughs, and that sort of comment brings
> them on.

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.
>
> 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.

Great. We are done.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:38:41 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> Nothing you've said relatees to photo tips for someone
> traveling to Antarctica. There is no point in
> continuing to discuss this topic.
>
>> I understand the physics of cold and you have proven you do not.
>
> 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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:02:15 -0500, ASAAR <caught.RemoveThis@22.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:38:41 -0900, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> Nothing you've said relatees to photo tips for someone
>> traveling to Antarctica. There is no point in
>> continuing to discuss this topic.
>>
>>> I understand the physics of cold and you have proven you do not.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 04:48:45 GMT, PoorPoorASSaar wrote:

>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 9, 5:43 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern... RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:
> PoorPoorASSaar wrote:


> Unlike you, who is so jealous and insecure that you must
> change your name often and only spread hate.

....and mirth!
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:18:18 GMT, Kyle Morrison <nomail DeleteThis @spamblock.com> wrote:
: On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:53:02 -0600, Doug McDonald <mcdonald DeleteThis @SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
: wrote:
:
: >I recommend "dry bags" as used by the river rafters. These
: >are waterproof (don't "breathe"), are easy to carry
: >(have handles), and are easier to open and shut than
: >ziplocks.
: >
:
: Uh, you mean "float bags" right?
:
: People might not find them when searching by the term "dry bags".

Actually, they would. I just did. Never underestimate Google.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:23:57 -0900, floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote:
: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:
: >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
: [etc., etc., back and forth]

OK, folks, does anyone else agree that it's time for a sanity check?
Thermodynamics is a subtle and tricky discipline. In college my mechanical
engineering friends seemed to consider it among the tougher subjects they had
to master. (Full disclosure: I was a math major and still know very little
about thermodynamics.)

For nearly a week we've been watching these two bash each other with technical
arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best. I think it's time that both of
them state their academic and professional credentials in this area, to give
us at least some idea of whom to believe, since it's obvious that they can't
both be right. (Maybe neither one of them is.)

Come on, guys: why, exactly, should we believe either one of you?

BTW, don't bother citing your non-technical experience and expertise. We know
that one of you lives in the Arctic and that the other is a well-travelled
professional (or semi-professional) photographer. But this argument is now
about thermodynamics, not about wilderness survival or photography.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Robert Coe <bob.RemoveThis@1776.COM> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:23:57 -0900, floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>wrote:
>: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>: >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>: [etc., etc., back and forth]
>
>OK, folks, does anyone else agree that it's time for a sanity check?

There have been *many* reality checks provided for the
various theories being tossed around. Theory is
wonderful, but when it fails reality checks it is
*necessarily* wrong.

And to boot, your "sanity check"; well to put it mildly,
is not sane.

>Thermodynamics is a subtle and tricky discipline. In college my mechanical
>engineering friends seemed to consider it among the tougher subjects they had
>to master. (Full disclosure: I was a math major and still know very little
>about thermodynamics.)
>
>For nearly a week we've been watching these two bash each other with technical
>arguments which most of us grasp dimly at best. I think it's time that both of
>them state their academic and professional credentials in this area, to give
>us at least some idea of whom to believe, since it's obvious that they can't
>both be right. (Maybe neither one of them is.)
>
>Come on, guys: why, exactly, should we believe either one of you?

So explain to us how "academic and professional
credentials" are what determines correctness about
something that is only closely related at best?

You know, in the 1840's Sir Franklin brought 150 men to
the Arctic for a scientific expedition that was
explicitly based on the best Western science in
evidence. Food, clothing and weapons were chosen based
on the best "academic and professional credentials". It
happens that those choices were significantly different
than choices made by people who lived in the Arctic.
But that was okay, because those people were savages and
primitive, with no credentials, or so it was said.

Franklin's men were poisoned by their food and starved
to death. With the best technology that great
credentials could provide, they could not sustain
themselves in an area where "primitive" people were
being born, living happy lives, and dieing of old age.

All of Sir Franklin's men died on that expedition. They
died because they used the same sanity check you are
proposing, and ignored the same reality checks that I
have been offering.

It is a story that has been repeated many times here,
though rarely in the dramatic way that Franklin managed.

>BTW, don't bother citing your non-technical experience and expertise. We know
>that one of you lives in the Arctic and that the other is a well-travelled
>professional (or semi-professional) photographer. But this argument is now
>about thermodynamics, not about wilderness survival or photography.

But that is not what it is about at all! It is about
photography in cold weather. That is not "wilderness
survival". It is not thermodynamics either, nor is it
cryogenics.

Roger and I have described very different theory to
explain what is significant. He says he understands
the theory, I say I understand the theory, and we both
cannot possibly be right.

Your sanity check can't determine who is right, but the
*many* reality checks that I posed all along the way do.
Academic and professional credentials do not prove
anyone is applying the theory correctly. Only a reality
check demonstrates that.

The reality check results are simple: My theory passed
and Roger's failed.

That does *not* prove that my theory is right! But it
does say that Roger necessarily is wrong.

Here's another reality check:

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc/8474.jpg

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <87pryhdbs3.fld.RemoveThis@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's another reality check:
>>
>> http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc/8474.jpg
>
>the reality is that file is a ppm not a jpeg.

If you had tried a few seconds earlier, you'd have seen
nothing at all! And a few seconds later it was the right
image.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>nospam <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>In article <87pryhdbs3.fld.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
>><floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's another reality check:
>>>
>>> http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc/8474.jpg
>>
>>the reality is that file is a ppm not a jpeg.
>
>If you had tried a few seconds earlier, you'd have seen
>nothing at all! And a few seconds later it was the right
>image.

My bad... I'll get it right yet...

The best URL is actually,

http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson/misc/

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica?