The study found that the additional heat absorbed from the sun by the black robe was lost before it reached the skin.
interesting
- Thread starter demented dale
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
A quote I found after some search:
"
The study itself is hard to pinpoint, although there were at least several experiments of that kind, with a very small-scope one (three cases in total) conducted by Gerd Froese and Alan Burton in 1957. The main issue is that the body heat loss experiments, like many similar studies (athough given relatively small samples, the term "study" might be somewhat unwarranted) conducted by or on behalf of armed forces are not abstract studies with no contexts, but rather consist in a specific phenomenon in a very concrete, practical situation, because they are aimed not as much at furthering understanding of certain mechanisms but on providing practical solution to people (in this case - military personnel).
The remark above is crucial, as the body heat studies were designed to check heat loss in cold weather that could have been experienced by soldiers in the field. And it went without saying, that said soldiers won't be naked, but they will be wearing their prescribed uniform designed for cold weather or at least its close counterpart. And while there is little to prevent one from wearing trousers, parka and boots or make one suddenly lose these garment elements, the hat can be easily forgotten, lost or taken off to increase situational awareness. Thus, the aim of the study was to check how much of body heat is lost from an unprotected head in a situation when the person is adequately clothed for winter. And thus, the result of 40-45% heat loss means that when you are clothed in winter gear, you will still lose some heat, as clothing is not a perfect insulator, and almost half of this loss is caused by lack on head insulation. In other words, when you are clothed for winter, then by covering your head, you can cut the heat loss by half. Sure, in everyday situation, that loss is not that big and we aren't bothered by it, but whenever survival or combat proficiency are at stake, this small amount of heat might be a difference between life and death. "
After reading several comments I think the originally quoted article is just an unforgivable misunderstanding of what was studied. It looks like the quoting "scientist" should be kicked somewhere tender.
"
The study itself is hard to pinpoint, although there were at least several experiments of that kind, with a very small-scope one (three cases in total) conducted by Gerd Froese and Alan Burton in 1957. The main issue is that the body heat loss experiments, like many similar studies (athough given relatively small samples, the term "study" might be somewhat unwarranted) conducted by or on behalf of armed forces are not abstract studies with no contexts, but rather consist in a specific phenomenon in a very concrete, practical situation, because they are aimed not as much at furthering understanding of certain mechanisms but on providing practical solution to people (in this case - military personnel).
The remark above is crucial, as the body heat studies were designed to check heat loss in cold weather that could have been experienced by soldiers in the field. And it went without saying, that said soldiers won't be naked, but they will be wearing their prescribed uniform designed for cold weather or at least its close counterpart. And while there is little to prevent one from wearing trousers, parka and boots or make one suddenly lose these garment elements, the hat can be easily forgotten, lost or taken off to increase situational awareness. Thus, the aim of the study was to check how much of body heat is lost from an unprotected head in a situation when the person is adequately clothed for winter. And thus, the result of 40-45% heat loss means that when you are clothed in winter gear, you will still lose some heat, as clothing is not a perfect insulator, and almost half of this loss is caused by lack on head insulation. In other words, when you are clothed for winter, then by covering your head, you can cut the heat loss by half. Sure, in everyday situation, that loss is not that big and we aren't bothered by it, but whenever survival or combat proficiency are at stake, this small amount of heat might be a difference between life and death. "
After reading several comments I think the originally quoted article is just an unforgivable misunderstanding of what was studied. It looks like the quoting "scientist" should be kicked somewhere tender.
While the article may have redefined the word “Interesting” it covers more than just cranial heat loss. Like many attempts by popular journalists to assemble a column that will attract purchasers, each element will usually contain an element of an original research paper. Whether those elements are in context or whether the original is a minority report is not made clear.
The Daily Star bases its whole front page on such selection. “Boffins say your car will be destroyed by plastic eating nasties.”
I have never thought it a good idea to base my knowledge on newspaper journalism. Three generations on and facts are fading into sensationalism and propaganda. There is a popular attraction in denigrating currently popular figures and for undermining science, politics and academy. I think it has something to do with a general feeling of powerlessness amongst us.
I don’t in any way criticise the OP for posting it.
@demented dale Does It support your own view or has it changed anything for you? What particularly interested you?
As in so many articles like the one in the OP, the effect of the conclusions are totally eclipsed by our experience and in most Western countries: to accept the findings or to reject them will not affect us significantly. You will allow your children sugar or you won’t, you will wear a hat or you won’t and life goes on.
If someone is persuaded to buy the newspaper because of the article then chalk one up to the journalists. At least the purchaser has got something that they can use to light a fire. I don’t advise using the Gruniad in the bog as the ink isn’t always stable (says an article in a rival newspaper from thirty plus years ago when printing was done with hot metal Linotype machines)
The Daily Star bases its whole front page on such selection. “Boffins say your car will be destroyed by plastic eating nasties.”
I have never thought it a good idea to base my knowledge on newspaper journalism. Three generations on and facts are fading into sensationalism and propaganda. There is a popular attraction in denigrating currently popular figures and for undermining science, politics and academy. I think it has something to do with a general feeling of powerlessness amongst us.
I don’t in any way criticise the OP for posting it.
@demented dale Does It support your own view or has it changed anything for you? What particularly interested you?
As in so many articles like the one in the OP, the effect of the conclusions are totally eclipsed by our experience and in most Western countries: to accept the findings or to reject them will not affect us significantly. You will allow your children sugar or you won’t, you will wear a hat or you won’t and life goes on.
If someone is persuaded to buy the newspaper because of the article then chalk one up to the journalists. At least the purchaser has got something that they can use to light a fire. I don’t advise using the Gruniad in the bog as the ink isn’t always stable (says an article in a rival newspaper from thirty plus years ago when printing was done with hot metal Linotype machines)
As I see it, it is norm to be dressed according to temperature. No one walks outside naked when it´s freezing outside. Therefore it is fully justified to say that most of the heat goes through your bare head compared to the clothed torso, legs and arms.
But that's not what it says. It doesn't compare heat loss through an unprotected head compared to a fully clothed torso.
This is directly from the US ARMY SURVIVAL MANUAL:
"You can lose 40 to 45 percent of body heat from an unprotected head and even more from the unprotected neck, wrist, and ankles"
Here is a link to the Survival Manual (PDF.)
Page 148 under 'BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COLDWEATHER SURVIVAL' is where they state that you lose 40-45% of body heat through your head.
Page 148 under 'BASIC PRINCIPLES OF COLDWEATHER SURVIVAL' is where they state that you lose 40-45% of body heat through your head.
…….. but how significant is that percentage? If you aren’t losing much heat overall, then 40% of not much is well, erm, not much! To what extent has nature (evolution) adapted us for that degree of heat loss.
What is the effect of that percentage of heat loss for most of us under most conditions? How often will we simply feel hot or cold and pull up the hood or drop it. Is external information necessary in this instance?
The army used to issue pith helmets and spine pads but the civilians, those who lived in exactly the same conditions, didn’t adopt them.
What is the effect of that percentage of heat loss for most of us under most conditions? How often will we simply feel hot or cold and pull up the hood or drop it. Is external information necessary in this instance?
The army used to issue pith helmets and spine pads but the civilians, those who lived in exactly the same conditions, didn’t adopt them.
Perhaps they assume so and take it for granted everybody understand and don´t feel the need to write it down. As I said, no one goes nakes in freezing temps.
It's pretty clear to me what 'You can lose 40-45% of body heat through an unprotected head' means. It means 45% of total body heat loss.
There's no need to defend it, science and scientific studies have progressed beyond what was probably even imaginable at the time this study was carried out. The study was poor and the conclusion wrong, simple.
There's no need to defend it, science and scientific studies have progressed beyond what was probably even imaginable at the time this study was carried out. The study was poor and the conclusion wrong, simple.
Sorry everyone for pursuing this but the interpretation is, in my opinion, more significant than the datum.
40% of the heat being lost by the body over a particular period? …. at a particular ambient temperature?
or
40% of the total heat contained in the otherwise insulated body?
The statement isn’t as straight forward as it might appear to some.
This is in part why simplifying research data in order to popularise it is risky and can become reader dependent.
Are you asking us to read that as:
40% of the heat being lost by the body over a particular period? …. at a particular ambient temperature?
or
40% of the total heat contained in the otherwise insulated body?
The statement isn’t as straight forward as it might appear to some.
This is in part why simplifying research data in order to popularise it is risky and can become reader dependent.
