6 posts • joined Tuesday 2nd August 2011 09:37 GMT
There's a bloody advert in the top right hand corner which obscures the article text down that side. It won't go away & can't be closed. If this is what the Reg is heading for, I'll be off!
Radiation & Convection
Lets get your understanding of heat radiation up to speed:
Heat radiation takes place even in a vacuum (obviously, otherwise we couldn't see/feel the Sun).
Heat **convection** is what drops as the ambient density goes down, because the currents of air wafting past your heat source can carry away less heat because of their lower density. I remember 1 of my lecturers commenting that heat loss is dominated by radiation for a small temperature difference like 4 deg. C. Hence the results of your REHAB experiment are what I would have expected: Now, if you had put a more powerful heater in your hyperbaric chamber (bigger delta-T) maybe the result would have been different...
I just checked. API 521 (520 is for sizing of relief valves) 5th ed. states solar radiation = 790 to 1040 W/m2. My previous nos were in Btu/h-ft2, for other criteria.
It gives time-to pain thresholds of 1740 W/m2 for 60secs, 6940 W/m2 for 9 secs and 19870 W/m2 for 2 secs, amongst others.
In Aberdeen yesterday the sun was acting as a heat sink, so 3.5 W/m2 for Newcastle sounds about right...
It so happens that 790 W/m2, impacting on yer ear, gives about 2.4 W/ear
Solar radiation is taken to be up to 500 W/m2 when doing sizing calculations for oil platform flares (350 W/m2 max in UK).
API 520 has an interesting list of how long it takes to burn at different radiation intensities.
Oh yeah, that's mostly IR rather than microwave, of course, which is more energetic (IR that is). Although IR doesn't excite the molecular bonds in water like 2.4 GHz microwaves do...
That sounds like the wrong outcome. If I understand correctly, this ruling would mean that nobody else can develop a process to look at the particular chemical sequence that is patented without negotiating a licence with the patent holder. So the holder might have a monopoly on testing for breast cancer via DNA checks.
A better outcome would be to grant a patent on the *process* used to look at the sequence. Then anybody who develops a better process to look at the same sequence can get a new patent and hey presto, we have competition!
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- FLABBER-JASTED: It's 'jif', NOT '.gif', says man who should know
- If you've bought DRM'd film files from Acetrax, here's the bad news
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging