Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!sequoia!hoford
From: hoford@sequoia.upenn.edu (John Hoford)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: Wind Chill Index: HEAT LOSS, NOT TEMPERATURE
Keywords: Wind Chill
Message-ID: <37080@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 91 16:17:08 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.234637.2628@src.honeywell.com> <1991Jan24.082451@ultnix.enet.dec.com> <1991Jan25.004430.19802@portia.Stanford.EDU> <7346@drutx.ATT.COM> <19926@shlump.nac.dec.com>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Organization: CIRC,Radiology,U. of Pennsylvania
Lines: 12

In article <1991Feb6.234637.2628@src.honeywell.com>, jcampbel@SRC.Honeywell.COM
(Jim Campbell) writes:

>At 0K, heat transfer happens by conduction (since the entire environment is
>solid) NOT convection as is normally the case when considering wind chill.

>Since conduction heat transfer is much more efficient than convection, a
>wind chill of below 0K is pretty much meaningless.

I think the way wind chill must be something like
if there is a wind at a given temperature a human would lose heat at a give rate.
what temperature would be required for the human to lose heat at the same rate without the wind