A special kind of heat?



  • From this hair straightener product:

    Product Features

    Philips TRESemm HP4669/17 Salon Shine Nano Diamond Digital Slim Straightener with a professional design and performance
    Instant Heatup machanism, fast enough to reach 100 C within 30 seconds
    Even heat distribution for faster results without hot spots
    Nano-diamond ultragliss ceramic plates which protect the hair using infra-red heat. The heat from the plates penetrates in the hair and heating them from inside-out
    Nano Diamond plates lock in the moisture and natural oils and create a sleek, polished effect with added shine
    Philips SalonShine Diamond HP4669/17 straightener is featured with automatic shut-off sensor which shutoff the styler automatically after 1 hour
    Chrome plated finish for beautiful look
    Handle storage lock and Hanging loop
    Salon length 3m swivel cord for more flexibility
    LED display shows the status of the Straightener with 6 bar countdown.
    Variable heat setting.



  •  ...so i guess TRWTF is a geek straightening his/her hair ?



  • @Product Features said:

    The heat from the plates penetrates in the hair and heating them from inside-out
    ???



  • @Xyro said:

    @Product Features said:
    The heat from the plates penetrates in the hair and heating them from inside-out
    ???
    Well out of the three ways of transferring heat - conduction, convection and radiation (conduction being the most common form in these products) - <font color="orange">it would appear the product uses microwave infra-red (i.e. radiation.)</font> since there's clearly no way conduction could cause something to heat from the 'inside' out.



    I might stick this one on my site once I've perused it better for utter bollocks.



  • Indeed (hence tag).  I reckon this must be in the far infrared scale, maybe around the 100 GHz - 1 THz range?  Must is there enough moisture inside the hair follicle to be affected by microwave radiation? I guess there is an easy way to experiment >.>



  • @Xyro said:

    Indeed (hence tag).
    I rarely read them. Habit formed by reading the boards via email which omits the tags to begin with. @Xyro said:
    Must is there enough moisture inside the hair follicle to be affected by microwave radiation?
    Oh - there'll be plenty of H2O in the follicle. Since that's the only part of the hair that is actually still living. Sadly, still being in your scalp, if that starts heating up, it'd be rather painful, and would quite possibly require a visit to your local A&E.



    The actual hair itself though, is dead. Like your nails. Or the top layer of your skin. I'm wondering if you meant another word instead of follicle, but I'm not sure which, if so.



  • @PJH said:

    @Xyro said:
    Indeed (hence tag).
    I rarely read them. Habit formed by reading the boards via email which omits the tags to begin with. @Xyro said:
    Must is there enough moisture inside the hair follicle to be affected by microwave radiation?
    Oh - there'll be plenty of H2O in the follicle. Since that's the only part of the hair that is actually still living. Sadly, still being in your scalp, if that starts heating up, it'd be rather painful, and would quite possibly require a visit to your local A&E.



    The actual hair itself though, is dead. Like your nails. Or the top layer of your skin. I'm wondering if you meant another word instead of follicle, but I'm not sure which, if so.
     

    Possibly fiber, and why would he need to visit a television channel?



  • Follicle folly, my bad! I'm just so used to the two words being together. Filament was the word I was thinking of, but fiber would also be an adequate translation of the mash I typed.


    Are you saying there is not enough water in the fiber to be heated via microwave? If not, then what on earth could the advertisement's claim possibly mean??



  • He must have a severe case of British.  

    Sadly, there is no cure.



  • @Xyro said:

    Follicle folly, my bad! I'm just so used to the two words being together. Filament was the word I was thinking of, but fiber would also be an adequate translation of the mash I typed.


    Are you saying there is not enough water in the fiber to be heated via microwave? If not, then what on earth could the advertisement's claim possibly mean??

    "Fuck! I can't believe I have to write copy for 45 haircare products today. Does anybody even read this shit? I'll just make something up, no one will care. I hate this job."

    That would be my guess.



  • It's a different kind of heating element. The electric irons use a resistive heating element like an electric stove. The resulting heat can be very intense, and can vary considerably during operation, as heat gets transferred to hair and away from the iron. The infrared elements provide a different "feel" to the heat - hard to desribe - it feels "warming" rather than "burning" - and the ultra-glossy plates are a good feature too. I have used many straightening irons in my day, and there are BIG differences between them. The heating element makes a big difference all by itself.


    TRWTF is this sucky editor. How the hell are you supposed to create paragraphs here?



  • @jasmine2501 said:

    It's a different kind of heating element. The electric irons use a resistive heating element like an electric stove. The resulting heat can be very intense, and can vary considerably during operation, as heat gets transferred to hair and away from the iron. The infrared elements provide a different "feel" to the heat - hard to desribe - it feels "warming" rather than "burning" - and the ultra-glossy plates are a good feature too. I have used many straightening irons in my day, and there are BIG differences between them. The heating element makes a big difference all by itself.

    Hey Jasmine? This is a comedy site.



  • @jasmine2501 said:

    "warming" rather than "burning"
    I guess that's the matter of radiation vs conduction and convection ...  But what about the inside-out claim?  IT IS PERPLEXING.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Jasmine? This is a comedy site.

    Yes, and? You have any idea how much Eddy Murphy invests in hair products?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hey Jasmine? This is a comedy site.

    I gave an explanation of why the comment isn't funny, why it makes perfect sense, and why the average person may not understand that to someone who uses a flat-iron, the different kind of heat is really important and meaningful. So... TRWTF is not noticing all the other ridiculous things in the description and focusing on something that is fairly mundane in the context.



  • @jasmine2501 said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    Hey Jasmine? This is a comedy site.

    I gave an explanation of why the comment isn't funny, why it makes perfect sense, and why the average person may not understand that to someone who uses a flat-iron, the different kind of heat is really important and meaningful. So... TRWTF is not noticing all the other ridiculous things in the description and focusing on something that is fairly mundane in the context.

     

     but unless it's using microwaves it's not going to heat the hair from the inside out, which is where the term infra-red heat really breaks down.



  •  I bought my wife a blow dryer a couple years ago, I like to buy "nice things" so I did some research... The bullshit that "beauty care" marketroids put on their products is some new level of bullshit. I hate commercials about some new fucking shampoo with "assy-ee" berry juice, or "new, with hydraelastin oil cream ribbons that penetrate deep". Goddamnit the instant rage that these fuckwits bring up. Anyway, the blowdryer has "tourmaline" which is... a rock. It doesn't seem to have any specific magical hair-properties, it's just a fancy fucking word that the marketroids found, and made their engineers put rocks in the dryer housing so they could say "now with tourmaline!".



  • @DescentJS said:

    but unless it's using microwaves it's not going to heat the hair from the inside out, which is where the term infra-red heat really breaks down.

    Definitely full of WTF - not sure why the OP thought the other thing was funny. Microwaves don't heat from the inside out either - afaik, the only way to do that is to stick the heat source inside.

     

    mod: fixed up linky. -dh



  • @jasmine2501 said:

    afaik, the only way to do that is to stick the heat source inside.
     

    At that point, you run into a definition issue of what "inside" and "outside" really mean.

    After all, topologically, you're a torus!





  • @jasmine2501 said:

    @DescentJS said:

    but unless it's using microwaves it's not going to heat the hair from the inside out, which is where the term infra-red heat really breaks down.

    Definitely full of WTF - not sure why the OP thought the other thing was funny. Microwaves don't heat from the inside out either - afaik, the only way to do that is to stick the heat source inside.

     

    mod: fixed up linky. -dh

     

    While it's true that they don't heat from the inside out for all types of food, they are the only thing that would have any chance at all of being able to heat hair from the inside out.



  • @dhromed said:

    After all, topologically, you're a torus!

    Not true! A torus is a sphere with a single "handle" attached to it. If we only had the mouth-butt connection, then yes, we would be homeomorphic to a torus. But since there are more handles, like the connection from the left nostril to the right one, there exists no homeomorphism from a human to a torus. I'm not sure just how many handles we would have, nor do I want to imagine the effects of transforming a human into connected sum of tori...



  • @derula said:

    I'm not sure just how many handles we would have, nor do I want to imagine the effects of transforming a human into connected sum of tori...
    Let's count them!

    Ok, let's see, we have two nostrils and the mouth connected, and that's the entrance to the digestive tract, which in turn has two exits.  Well, one.  Well, are we including osmotic membranes or permeable glands as holes?  If so, the count would go up quiiite a bit.  Also, the digestive tract isn't fully open from entrances to exits all the time, but I suppose we can just ignore the temporal nature of the topology for now.  On the other hand, how many people eat food while their stomach empties while they go to the bathroom?  So many that shouldn't even count at all.  If we close our mouths, then all we've got in the list are the two nostrils, which means we really are homeomorphic to a torus. 

    Actually, never mind, this is a stupid tangent.



  • @Xyro said:

    Also, the digestive tract isn't fully open from entrances to exits all the time

    Yeah, but the sides don't merge, so it still counts as open. You don't gain a hole whenever you touch yourself.

    @Xyro said:

    Well, are we including osmotic membranes or permeable glands as holes?

    This is problematic, yes. We need to set some ground rules.

     

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Xyro said:
    Also, the digestive tract isn't fully open from entrances to exits all the time
    Yeah, but the sides don't merge, so it still counts as open. You don't gain a hole whenever you touch yourself.
    Given the topological nature, that would be within the normal definition, but presents additional problems when applied elsewhere on the body.  Consider sinuses and eyesockets.  There is an open connection between your nose and the corner of your eye near the tear duct.  Sometimes you see freak show-style stunts where people shoot water from their eye doing this, or force cigarette smoke out from their eye.  Does that count as a hole?  I guess the issue is really a matter of granularity.  Obviously, we don't want to include intercellualr distances, but presumably we'd want to include sphincters, of which there are a variety internally.  One easy and crude way of setting the boundaries is a test of water-tightness.  If a barrier is water tight, then we could say it's as good as merged.  In this case, the only holes I can think of are the nostrils.  This is not a particularly good rule of thumb, just an easy one.  A better one might be, if it can be opened and closed without damage, then we consider it a hole.  In that case, the tubey thing running from nose to eye does count as another handle.  If we use this rule, then osmotic or permiable membranes do not contain holes.  (So then we don't have to worry about the respiratory boundaries, and the urethra would also not count as a hole.  Further, this would set the eyeball as a "merged" feature, which may or may not be a good distinction.)

    However, the internal structure of the lungs is still a complex topological mess.



  • @Xyro said:

    Consider sinuses and eyesockets.
     

    I had not. Good point.



Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.