| OCR Text |
Show 50 DuBois body surface during the 560.12 + than W, normoconvective trial W*m-2) 30.74 during 528.61 + the W*m-2). exercise work rate metabolic rate trial trial .001) < (M .204 + .008) (M .216 + .011). simple Waste and hyperconvective trial, The metabolic and heat speed trials with respect the 94.91 as & Wilson, 1980), then was computed by W*m-2 in the 24.49 + W*m-2 in 20.53 + hyperconvective difference .001) < the W*m-2• 31.5 1. The waste heat Figure the significant (2 a + divided by W) to heat 414.50 higher .001) in the normoconvective lower compared as W, efficiency, computed 26.72 + 110.62 + 1034.85 (M division and amounted to 446.00 normoconvective trial of trial (2 < (Stainsby, Gladden, Barclay, significantly (2 was (M Exercise 223.75 (M 1097.06 significantly was hyperconvective 24.82 Metabolic rate in square meters. area transfer to waste data heat the wind comparing are depicted in normoconvective trial revealed that 7.2% was stored whereas the remainder of was dissipated by evaporation (70.6%), radiation (11.4%), respiration (8.7%), hyperconvective heat was (66.5%), convection the heat transfer only 4.5% remainder convection The (2.2%). revealed that was estimated to be equal across was not trials the waste radiation (10.8%), mechanism, of dissipated by Conductive heat loss, respiration (9.0%). possible was trial stored whereas evaporation and and a (9.2%), final calculated but and negligible • as |
