2 ms·
> That sounds linear to me What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being
by TruthAndDare 10y ago
> That sounds linear to me
What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Figure 4 in your first link agrees with this common-sense guess.
- wpietri 10y agoThe guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about. I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.
- TruthAndDare 10y ago> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.
- wpietri 10y agoNot to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those. But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.