Re: AAT:A method to falsify
David L Burkhead (r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu)
10 Oct 1995 13:09:05 GMT
In article <hubey.813299479@pegasus.montclair.edu> hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu (H. M. Hubey) writes:
>r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu (David L Burkhead ) writes:
>
>>>>temperatures when I taught survival courses for the Navy. As I remember,
>>>>it gave you about 7 minutes to live at 28 degrees F. and forever
>>>>somewhere around 90 degrees F.
>
>>downed navy pilot, or overboard seaman/officer, can survive while
>>dressed, while conserving energy (activity makes matters _worse_ in
>
>Does it make much difference that he's dressed if his clothes
>are soaked? What are you saying?
Yes, it _does_ make a difference if his clothes are soaked.
Still water (that trapped within the clothes) carries heat away far
less efficiently than moving water (against bare skin). That you
would suggest otherwise suggests you simply do not know what you are
talking about.
>Besides there's nothing wrong with what he said. Since living
>bodies generate heat, they'd be giving them off, and it's not
>necessary for the water to be 98.6 but should be less so that
>the excess heat can be given off otherwise it would overheat.
Do you have any idea how much less? Water, unfettered against
skin, is a _good_ conductor/convector of heat. Only a few degrees of
difference is capable of carrying off heat faster than the body can
generate it.
Moving, by setting up forced convection, makes matters _worse_.
It's the aquatic version of wind-chill and water's higher density and
higher diffusivity means that the situation is far worse than in air.
>In the dry savannah, it would be cold at night, and the water
>might even be warmer than outside in the air.
You still have not answered "how cold" with any valuable
references. And it's not just temperature, it's heat loss rate. Even
if the water is warmer than the air, heat loss rates can be higher.
I'm quite comfortable almost indefinately nude in 80 degree air. Nude
in 80 degree water and I'm chilled and exhausted in a matter of a
couple of hours.
>>water _anywhere_ where one can repeatedly dive, day in and day out,
>>without some kind of thermal protection.
>
>> Situations would be worse for a small hominid--higher surface to
>>volume ratio.
>
>Yes, it would be different. Then it would behoove the animal
>to get large, wouldn't it? Actually, it would be improve the
>chances of the hominid if it got larger. Now that's another
>point for AAT, isn't it? Why did the savannah hominids get
>larger, to fight the lions?
But since the hominids _didn't_ get large in the water, if they
were ever there, this argument is as meaningless as your "long legs"
argument. Modern human size developed _well_ after any possible
aquatic phase. Lucy and the First Family were _small_.
You can't claim as evidence for an aquatic phase traits that
didn't develop until long after it was _over_.
David L. Burkhead
r3dlb1@dax.cc.uakron.edu
d.l.burk@ix.netcom.com
--
Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine
Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831
|