| ▲ | pinkmuffinere 9 hours ago |
| > During their simulation of Mallory’s Everest expedition, the data showed that on summit night, the average body temperature difference between the twin in modern down and the twin in complicated layers of silk, wool, and gabardine was a staggering 1.8°C. The human body self-regulates, and is pretty sensitive to dramatic temperature swings. So, conditioned on the fact that they both survived the adventure, we should expect their temperature differences to be relatively small. This doesn't mean the clothing is great, it means [their body] + [their clothing] is adequate. Additionally, I'm not a doctor but 1.8 C is not small compared to normal human variation! Normal body temperature ranges between 36 and 37 C, a "high fever" starts around 39 C [0], and hypothermia is anything below 35 C [1]. The comfortable range of human temperature is 1 deg C, and the "outside of this is concerning" range is only 4 C wide. 1.8 C is quite big from that perspective. [0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treat... [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypothermia/s... |
|
| ▲ | ak217 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Right, the 1.8C difference is substantial in terms of human physiology and indicates a diminished level of comfort as the body fights to keep the temperature up. I also found it funny how they mentioned that modern clothing keeps you warmer longer once you stop moving, then tried to minimize the significance of that. There's a reason "cotton kills" is a cliche. Modern fabrics, windbreaker shells, and engineered layers don't make a huge difference in warm, dry, active conditions - it's when things go sideways that they can be the difference between comfort and fatal hypothermia. |
|
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I didn't see more details in the article, but my guess is they were taking and averaging multiple temperature reads across the body. That is, core temp should only be within a narrow range like you say, but fingertip temp will vary much more widely. All in all I found this to be a very strange article. If you just look at the data, I think a reasonable conclusion is that modern gear is vastly better at its function than old time Mallory gear. It's much lighter and keeps the wearer much warmer than old gear. But the whole tone of the article is about "myth busting" and how there haven't been really that many improvements in gear. I'm just looking at their charts and data and wondering what they're smoking. |
| |
| ▲ | fwipsy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think they're "debunking" a strawman argument that old gear was completely useless | | |
| ▲ | db48x 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Obviously that older gear wasn’t useless, since real people used it to climb the exact same mountains that people climb today. It’s pretty clear from the text that they have debunked the idea that modern synthetic materials have outstripped older materials in performance. At the start of their project they expected modern gear of similar capabilities to be lighter. What they found was that modern gear’s advantage is primarily that it is simpler to use. Instead of seven carefully–chosen layers of wool and silk, you can wear a single coat. That single coat is also effective over a much larger temperature range than the older clothes. Really this should not be all that surprising, as the expertise required to pick those layers has been condensed by engineers into the design of the coat. The modern climber no longer needs that same expertise, just money to buy the coat. This is the same story of specialization that has powered our economic growth for centuries. You and I no longer need to know how to grow vegetables, or shoe a horse, or design a circuit. There might still be advantages to knowing how to write a sonnet or plan a battle, but for the most part we can leave these tasks to specialists who can get better results than we can. Those specialists in turn can leave other tasks to us. Everyone gets more efficient as a result. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | WillPostForFood an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It was 1.8 C difference in skin temperature, not core body temperature. As you note, 1.8 C would be massive for core temp. Wearable thermometer patches attached to each man’s head, chest, hands, feet, and legs recorded body temperature at five-minute intervals, nonstop, for the entire 10 days of the expedition. |
|
| ▲ | tantalor 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Normal body temperature", ok but these are two mountaineering nerds (not normal) so who knows. |
|
| ▲ | ginko 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not to be a stickler (ok I like being a stickler) but temperature delta, especially deltas between degrees celsius, should be given in kelvin. A 1.8K difference makes sense. A 1.8C difference would be 274.8 kelvin! |
| |
| ▲ | hexer292 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is probably the most ridiculous comment I've read in the history of this website. There is no difference in the amount of energy 1 degree Celsius delta and 1 degree Kelvin delta represents. The only (and I really mean only) difference is how zero energy is defined. It is not possible to have negative energy, and that zero Celsius represents the freezing point of water is an artifact of convenience, not of absolute definition. | | |
| ▲ | hexer292 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Also, the way Kelvin is defined necessitates that both degrees are identical. If 10 degrees Celcius defined the boiling point of water at 1 atmosphere (or whatever the actual definition is) then Kelvin would be smaller by a factor of 10. And this applies to both negative and positive K values. | |
| ▲ | zippyman55 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ranking, Celsius, Centigrade have the degrees. Kelvin is a base unit, absolute and no degree! |
| |
| ▲ | _Microft 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Taking differences between degrees Celsius values is absolutely fine. Ratios are undefined because the Celsius scale has no absolute zero while the Kelvin scale has. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > A 1.8K difference makes sense. A 1.8C difference would be 274.8 kelvin! I think there was some insight here that went off on a bad tangent leading to a math word-problem mistake, confusing these two: 1. A difference... between [X] and [Y], which is a delta of 1.8°C 2. A difference... between [0°K] and a reading of [1.8°C], which is a delta 274.95°K. | |
| ▲ | atombender 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Celsius is not an absolute scale, but that isn't a problem for deltas: (10C - 5C)=5C, (10K-5K)=5K. Celsius is only problematic when multiplying or dividing. 10C is not twice as hot as 5C. | |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That makes no sense. A difference between a read of 37C and 38.8C is still 1.8C. | | |
| ▲ | ginko 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | hn_throwaway_99 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Dude, you are just completely making shit up, and it makes no sense. So what if Celsius and Kelvin have different 0 points - they are still valid scales and you can talk about differences between 2 measurements. According to your logic it would be impossible to state that two Fahrenheit measurements differ by some number of degrees F - why, I have no idea. | |
| ▲ | dekhn 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, but this is absolutely false from a scientific perspective. If you believe otherwise, please provide some citations to your beliefs so we can understand what you are trying to say. | | |
| ▲ | hexer292 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Saying something is false and then asking for citations doesn't seem that helpful to me. To support your argument, take the following example: Lets take some water at 273.15 Kelvin and add 1 Kelvin of energy to it. The water is now at 274.15 Kelvin. The difference is of 1 Kelvin. If we had the same amount of water at 0 degrees Celsius and added 1 Celsius of energy, the water would now be at 1 Celcius. Converting these values leave us with 273.15 Kelvin and 274.15 Kelvin respectively. You can repeat this experiment (ignoring latent heat) for any value of Kelvin or Celsius, therefore Kevlin and Celsius are interchangeable in reference to temperature comparasion. | | |
| ▲ | dekhn 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I believe any chemistry or physics textbook will state (possibly indirectly) how temperature deltas work. But I think it's sufficient to just say that Kelvin and Celsius have the same scale magnitude and just a constant offset. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | alistairSH 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kelvin and Celsius use the same unit magnitudes. It would be a 1.8* difference either way. | |
| ▲ | altairprime 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "A 1.8C difference" expands as "A difference of 1.8C" expands as, and here's the ambiguity, either: "An absolute difference of 1.8C, or 274.8K, measured between A and B" or "A relative difference of 1.8C, or 1.8K, is added/subtracted to A/B in order to reach B/A" I don't think the context-free variant with K will improve understanding and decrease confusability in this discussion context, but I appreciate the pointer about it in general. I'll take a lot more care around it in a future thread about space apparel! | |
| ▲ | hightrix 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be a stickler, communication requires respect for your audience. The vast majority of everyone understands a 1.8 degree C delta. I would argue that very few people anywhere would understand a temperature delta given in kelvin. | | |
| ▲ | ginko 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is expecting readers to not understand what a kelvin is respecting the audience? | | |
| ▲ | hightrix 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You misread. Most people do not understand temperature on the Kelvin scale. As such, you should not use it to communicate in a general setting such as this. | |
| ▲ | hexer292 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The same way expecting you understand what a Kelvin is isn't respectful to you. |
|
| |
| ▲ | stackghost 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >A 1.8C difference would be 274.8 kelvin! Categorically and factually incorrect. A 1.8 degree C different would be 1.8 kelvin. The two degrees have different zero points but one degree Celsius and one degree Kelvin are identical in magnitude. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|