|
|
|
|
|
by xeromal
1338 days ago
|
|
Thanks for commenting. I'm a layman here so providing hard numbers helps me wrap my head around the comparison. I think you're saying that water is roughly double a better thermal insulator? I wonder if the man could devise a water layer around what generates the heat in order to reduce the chance for burning his body? He probably has to weigh the chance for water to mix with the components vs a simple titanium hunk of metal. I guess that's what materials engineers are for? |
|
No, I didn't provide numbers on thermal conductivity, just specific heat, though it is now unfashionable to call it that.
Yes, putting some water inside the titanium would increase the thermal mass of the overall assemblage, and I don't know of anything that would work better than water for this. This would reduce the temperature to which the eye-socket tissue is heated by intermittent but high-intensity LED usage, reducing the risk of burns, because it smooths it out over time. If the LED is not at the top of the eye, or if the eye rotates, liquid water would also help to smooth it out over space.
However, to minimize the temperature to which the eye-socket tissue is heated, it would also be beneficial to interpose thermal insulation between the tissue and the heat source, such as a thick layer of teflon around the outside of the eyeball (or saline-solution-soaked teflon foam). This will slow heat transfer from the hot eyeball to the eye-socket tissue, giving blood flow more time to convect away the waste heat and thus producing a lower temperature in the sensitive tissue.
I think the more important issue here is that he's using low enough power with a low enough duty cycle that it isn't much of a problem.