Photo tips for Antarctica?

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:53:02 -0600, Doug McDonald <mcdonald.TakeThisOut@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".


(There's quite a few of us that take photos in rugged areas and extreme climates
who are watching this thread. Laughing heartily over the posts by the armchair
explorers and weekend touristas who never get nearer to snow and frozen water
than PBS on their HDTV. You should have seen the look on a Texan friend's
face one time when I tricked him into driving his brand new car on that "flat
field with the funny small houses all over it, just to see what they were all
doing out there." Then once we had driven all the way out there I told him to
stop. I got out and brushed the snow away to show him why all those people in
those funny little houses were holding short fishing poles. I have SUCH a sense
of humor! He seemed to be lacking his at the time. )
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:36:54 +1100, "Tack" <Tack.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote:

[snip]
>Gonna steal your thread Now you have had 6000 responses and a lotaa well
>meaning individuals...

Rock on

So many posts to read! I'll be looking at responses to your post too.

>I, too, am heading to Antarctica this Christmas.
>Australian Antarctic territories, commonwealth bay etc. ( other side from
>you lol)

Good luck!

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> That's a typo. It should say a *moisture* gradient
>>> can be fatal.
>>> Sorry you didn't notice the obvious.
>> {warm moist body, temp=A} {insulation} {cold, temp=B}
>>
>> If temperature A not equal temperature B there is a
>> "moisture" gradient, especially considering winter
>> conditions (anywhere).
>
> Go back to high school Roger. Or quicker, go read the
> articles that I posted explaining it.
>
> The magic is air circulation. Dry air... no moisture
> gradient.

Its really very simple: you body is ~70% water, your
skin is moist and warm, and there is a temperature gradient.
That means there must be a water vapor gradient; it is basic
physics: the water evaporates.

I'll reference an authoritative source from your area:
http://www.arm.gov/sites/nsa/nsa_cwh.pdf
Page 2, Protective Clothing:
"The under layer – to keep your skin dry
The under layer of clothing should be of synthetic
fabrics with good moisture wicking ability..."
- from:
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility/
North Slope of Alaska/Adjacent Arctic Ocean (ACRF/NSA/AAO)

Cold Weather Clothing, Gordon G. Giesbrecht,
Health Leisure and Human Performance Research Institute
Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada,
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/physed/research/people/giesbrecht/Co...Weather

"Moisture is produced at the skin through
sweating and insensible water loss." (page 2)

"Permeability indicates the ability to allow vaporized
moisture to pass through the material. Condensed
(liquid) moisture transfer is also important as liquid
can pass along material fibers to the clothing
surface where it can evaporate." (page 3)

There is a moisture gradient. Look up insensible water loss.

e.g.:
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
warm water WILL evaporate, even at rest. And it does
so through the skin. That creates a moisture gradient.
Any change in activity changes that gradient and that makes
it a challenge to manage.

The challenge in cold weather clothing is to move the
water through the clothing and having it evaporate and
not build up. Perhaps you know this in practice without
actually understanding the details of why (much like a person
can authoritatively say the sky is "blue" without knowing
why it is blue).

>> If you spin your way out of this one, there is a job
>> in Washington for you.
>
> You haven't got a clue, but just like that Energizer
> Bunny with a battery, you brainlessly keep right on
> going.

The clue to those who don't have a clue is those who
constantly resort to personal attacks and never reference
an authoritative source except their own rant.

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

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:42:18 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

>> Why, that's almost a truism! But we all know that your icy logic
>> is unlikely to chill or still our fiery Floyd's sound and fury.
>
> Tastes vary. I've always found Floyd's advice useful.

Many times it is. Always? Sorry, no. But that's not the point
though. He almost always packages his information in the most
provocative, insulting way possible, and generates more rancor by
far than anyone else in this newsgroup. He also occasionally slips
up, but virtually never admits being mistaken, resorting to smoke
screens, debaters trick and insults as diversionary tactics. You
may find that tasty. I and many others don't.


> And nothing in my (very short) experience in the far north goes
> against anything he's said.

That may be, but much of it was (as noted) diversionary, for the
reasons noted.
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 6, 12:23 pm, fl... DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> *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.

But wait a minute. In another post, I mentioned

thermodynamic and mechanical equilibrium,
and your reply was
> You think there isn't????
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!
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

Allen <allen.RemoveThis@nothere.net> wrote:
>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.

Heh heh, actually the parents of those particular children
are... Korean immigrants.

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

acl <achilleaslazarides DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 12:23 pm, fl... DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> *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.
>
>But wait a minute. In another post, I mentioned
>
>thermodynamic and mechanical equilibrium,
>and your reply was
>> You think there isn't????

Do you still think there isn't? Can you read?

>Now you're saying again that not having it is the target! (not that it

No, that is not what I'm saying. *YOU* are the one who is
saying things like that.

>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!

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

acl <achilleaslazarides.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Experience in what? I didn't say anything at all about arctic
>clothing.

Exactly. That is the topic for discussion, and you cannot
address it.

>I am just pointing out that, in addition to being rude, what

You have a lot of nerve calling me rude.

>you said regarding vapour pressure is wrong. But as usual, you'll
>never admit it.

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>This entire thread just turned into a killfile entry ... what a joke.

Unfortunately, I think you are precisely correct.

--
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 6, 4:43 pm, fl... RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 12:23 pm, fl... RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
> >> *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.
>
> >But wait a minute. In another post, I mentioned
>
> >thermodynamic and mechanical equilibrium,
> >and your reply was
> >> You think there isn't????
>
> Do you still think there isn't? Can you read?

Yes, I can read:
> >> 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.

You wrote this....


>
> >Now you're saying again that not having it is the target! (not that it
>
> No, that is not what I'm saying. *YOU* are the one who is
> saying things like that.

Heh, either you simply don't know what "mechanical equilibrium" means,
or you're lying through your teeth just to not admit anything.

>
> >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!
>
> 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.
>

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

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Allen <allen.DeleteThis@nothere.net> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Floyd, When (or if) this brouhaha dies down I would like
>> to see some of your photographs from the North Slope,
>> especially any wildlife pictures you might have. I
>> really can't imagine what that area is like, though if I
>> had pursued the career for which I was educated
>> (petroleum engineering) I might have gotten a chance to
>> see it firsthand; instead I went into banking, with air
>> conditioning and central heat as needed.
>
> There are a few on my web page, though not generally any
> of the really good ones. There is a small sampling of
> snowy owl pictures, of which I actually have probably a
> few thousands, including a couple that commonly are
> described as "the best I've ever seen". But those are
> not on my web page.
>
> Hmmm... send me some email with "Barrow Pictures" in
> the title.
>
> The web page URL is listed below in the signature:
>
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
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica? 

On Nov 6, 7:46 pm, fl... RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> acl <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Experience in what? I didn't say anything at all about arctic
> >clothing.
>
> Exactly. That is the topic for discussion, and you cannot
> address it.

Hang on. You said in your previous post:
> > > virtually everyone
> > > who has had any real experience with it is laughing at
> > > people like you.

So if you now agree that I didn't say anything about this, how come
everybody who has experience is laughing at me?

>
> >I am just pointing out that, in addition to being rude, what
>
> You have a lot of nerve calling me rude.
>

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

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Chris Malcolm <cam DeleteThis @holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip a thousand pages of subjective adjectival rant and heroic posturing]
>
> Feeling warmer now?
>

This entire thread just turned into a killfile entry ... what a joke.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!"
-- Turkish proverb
 >> Stay informed about: Photo tips for Antarctica?