Testing wet wool clothing at -30

Those of you who suffer the fate of winter weather might be interested in this:
"We wanted to establish whether it ...t a fire."

-Blast

Awesome!

That's a great reason to wear my merino long underwear even when I don't think it's cold enough to warrant it.

Good wool is hard to beat. I like fleece, but wool can't be beat for how warm it makes you feel. I actually stopped wearing it when snowmobiling because it made me too warm under the snow suit. My good wool socks though I always wear. I would have to be dead to give them up.

It's unfortunate that it's so tough to find good wool wear in stores around here. Seems like most stores are into the latest and greatest miracle fabric or ski-based fashion. Dull grey wools are just too boring and "old school."

i found 'icebreaker' merino wool products to be warm, soft and comfortable for those chilly / cold (for us) mornings. a bit pricey - no more than the synthetics - but recently found some on sale at sierra trading post.

http://www.icebreaker.com/site/index.html

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/

thanks for the link, blast.

This would be for -30 Celsius?

Even if it's -30F that's -34C.

Not too bad of a link and an interesting experiment.

But when I ran into this statement:
"After absorbing moisture, chemical reactions take place in its fibres releasing heat and as result making the fibre feel warm against the skin."

The assertion that the fibers release heat is a very questionable. Feeling warm does not mean the wool is generating actual heat any more than drinking alcohol 'makes you warmer'. more likely the ability of wool to irritate skin just feels like warmth.

Wool has some slight advantages in some situations over most polypropylene fleece because the fiber density, and weight, on the wool is higher and it is water repellent because of the lanolin in the fibers. Not so much because of some magical "pores". Wool is not Gortex. But a lot of it is how the clothing system is driven.

But poly cannot absorb anywhere near the water that wool can so it simply falls out of the weave even if it soaks through. Less density and less wind stopping ability is not necessarily a bad thing. Separating the wind stopping into a separate layer gives you faster control over heat and moisture buildup and release. This ability to dump moisture and heat faster than most wool layers has advantages when the weather is fluctuating quickly or you need to go inside and out frequently. To get a similar responsive effect with wool you need to more dramatically ventilate it. Sometimes only total removal will work. With wool you can spend a lot more time and effort ventilating it to suit highly variable conditions.

There are brands of poly fleece that are more densely packed, more windproof, and treated with a water repellent and these may function better for those who like the dynamics of wool.

For my money even the regular, now quite inexpensive, poly is what I buy. The reasons being that cost is always an issue, I can get similar results by appropriate use of mixed layering, and wool down here is very subject to insect attack even after being 'moth-proofed' or specially packed for storage.

I also wonder about the test. They made a big deal out of removing the cotton outer layers. Why? Why would anyone wear cotton outer layers?

Given a more sensible clothing scheme for the same temperature of a thin liner under layer. Fleece insulation mid-layer/s and windproof and water repellent shell and the issues of how to recover from a dunking pretty much disappears.

The shell doesn't hold water any more than a tarp does. The mid-layer/s only need to be removed and shaken to remove the bulk of the water. The liner layer can stay on but it, even if it is soaked, dries immediately in the air mainly because the water simply falls out so there is no need to roll in any snow.

So the response with a proper synthetic layering system is much less drama. Take off outer layer and shake off the water. Take off insulation layer/s and shake out the water. Put the fleece back on. Put the outer layer back on but keep it loose and open for ventilation. Do a few jumping jacks or run in place to regenerate warmth and to drive off the last bit of remaining moisture.

That ability to quickly and easily recover when soaked is why the army gave up on wool and went for poly fleece. Wool will always have a following. Particularly where the weather is cold and dry. But polypropylene isn't going anywhere and more people are learning how to use it to good advantage when things are cold and wet. A lot depends on how you drive the system.

These are actually well documented properties of wool and some of the many amazing properties of the stuff.

Wool is naturally water repellent because of it's microscopic structure and because of the wax within the fibers. In the right situation, water will bead off. This structure also allows vapour to freely pass through the fibers...so in this way it is sort of like Goretex.

Wool will also absorb moisture. Because under normal circumstances it will try to repel the water and absorb the vapour, it generates heat because water vapor being forced back into a liquid form is an exothermic chemical reaction which generates heat. Wool can also absorb up to 1/3 it's weight in liquid.

This is also what keeps us cool in the heat when the opposite happens. We sweat and the wool absorbs that moisture and wicks it away from the skin naturally, then it evaporates...an endothermic reaction which absorbs heat effectively cooling us. These are the chemical reactions he's referring to.

Now that being said, in this case they've soaked the wool forcibly by dunking it in water so they've bypassed this effect (wool is water repellent, not water proof). I think the warmth they are feeling is what was left of their own body heat. Wool will wick the moisture away very quickly and as it does, the insulating properties of the wool will be restored somewhat.

Also, I'm with you on the synthetics. For the most part I like poly and similar materials better because of their durability. But as a base layer wool is amazing. I wear the same Merino tops and bottoms in the cold (silk weight) under insulated clothing as I do in the summer when it's +35C...I can't do that with Poly...I'd roast. I wear poly layers over top of that base layer for added effect and it seems to work really well.

My guess on why they wore Cotton was a worse case scenario test.

I like mixing materials. My polyester next to skin layers consist of CoolMax or Nomex. Over that will be either a wool or poly fleece material and over that the opposite. For flight ops I have a nomex fleece jacket and I'm considering a nomex mid-layer. Nomex has some nice properties in the right weave. CoolMax, poly fleece and wool (inner to outer) works well. If it's raining add non-insulated raingear over the top.

Cotton is okay as long as it stays dry. At very cold temps when there is little humidity it can serve well as a tough abrasion resistant material that takes a spark from a campfire much better than nylon or polyester. However, once wet (falling into a river) it needs to come off immediately. Let it freeze and then knock out the ice. I remember many cold winters wearing jeans in the snow and I never got wet because the cold kept the water in a frozen state. Knock off the snow before you go inside.

Cotton is often preferred by those in very cold temps if using a
fire for warmth as Russ noted.

Cotton feels real good, is cheep, helps the NA clothing industry, works great in hot weather, but kills in the cold. It wicks, drys from the outside in, and drys slowly. I avoid it like the plague in Winter.

Possibly the biggest gripe I have with poly is that it can be a hazard if exposed to fire.

Way back in the olden days, the 70s (when we rode on dinosaurs ... like a '74' Bonneville), when polyester was the fashion (Anyone here old enough to remember those gosh awful leisure suits?) the military started running into problems with synthetic underwear. People caught in fires were often escaping relatively intact only to find their underwear had melted onto and into the family jewels. Necessitating surgical removal and skin grafts.

After some testing it was determined that if the cloth had at least 50% natural fiber content it didn't adhere to the skin or cause the sorts of traumatic damage that the mostly synthetic ones did.

This may be the single exception to the straight 'Cotton Kills' line. A light and thin natural-fiber banana hammock helps keep the boys safe, if not always as warm as they might be. I tried silk, a good alternative, but I found my boys were just a little too happy with them.

The other related hazard is that the better synthetics are so good at insulating that if you get too close to a fire you can have it catch and be totally unaware of it. Right until the time it melts onto the skin. Several times I have had to beat out flames on a fellow camper.

My long hope has been that they would come out with a good low-cost Nomex fleece. Last I heard they had something like that but it wasn't anything like cheap. Find me a fireproof fleece that works as well as the existing poly and is not to much more expensive and I'm all over it.

It's not cheap, but it works. If it was cheap I'd have lots more of it.

Wool is flame retardent in some weaves, and won't stick to flesh, same as cotton.

Wool doesn't pick up orders like synthetics.

Cotton as an outer layer in extreme cold doesn't kill. It can't
get wet barring jumping in the creek. Even then the right weave
of cotton is used in some immersion suits.

Cotton outerwear in sub freezing temperatures is great stuff. Key is to keep it dry, but not that hard to do when you won't get rained on. I have one of these, http://www.empirecanvasworks.com/arcticanorak.htm and it's a stellar piece of kit.

Unless you fall in water...or...
Unless it's above freezing during the day but 20 below at night...which isn't that uncommon here.

Above freezing during the day and -20 at night is one whale of a daily temperature shift. That is certainly not the norm in Minnesota. The cotton anorak isn't worn for warmth, but for wind protection. If you fall in the water you'd still have wool layers underneath. At temperatures above freezing I doubt I'd have need to ever wear an anorak.

Here's a few records I keep in mind when dressing for Alberta weather:


December 27 and 28, 1999: It was so warm in parts of Alberta (as high as 20.6C in Claresholm) that grass fires broke out and trees sprouted leaves. It was hotter in Alberta than in parts of Mexico.

January 29-31, 1989: Alberta was experiencing a mild period during the latter part of January up until a particularly vicious cold front from the Yukon dropped temperatures from plus 2 C to -12 in the span of an hour, as it charged through Edmonton during morning rushhour on the 30th. Rain rapidly changed to heavy snow and the mercury fell to the -25 range and was still falling at noon. By that time the front had surged through Calgary, and by late afternoon the entire province was in the grips of a blizzard. The Edmonton area received the most snow, around 35 cm, an all-time January record. Portions of the province south and east of Red Deer were spared the snow, but still had to endure the bitterly cold winds. The effects of the storm lingered for days. Temperatures were in the minus 30's. In the Edmonton area alone, seven deaths were directly attributed to the storm's fury.

January 15th, 1971: A Chinook blew into Lethbridge, AB, raising the temperature from -20C to 1C in one hour.

January 6th, 1966: A spectacular weather change occurred at Pincher Creek, AB. Thermometer readings were -24.4C at 7 a.m., 0.6C at 8 a.m., and -21.7C at 9 a.m. The temperature remained steady until 3 p.m. and then rose to 2.2C for the rest of the day.

Rare no doubt but there are many more examples which are less extreme but still amazing...these are just some of the record weather events. Summer is no different sometimes but nobody dies when it goes from +30 during the day to freezing at night so it doesn't as often make the news or the record books LOL.

Oh. And I forgot my favorite:

http://www.meted.ucar.edu/norlat/cases/c..._2004_07_11.htm



That picture was taken July 11, 2004 (linked from the above site).

I'm always anal about what I wear when I go out because I've been caught in that crap before.

I don't think so. Cotton has been used traditionally in dry-cold conditions for outer layers and/or insulating layers. It breathes and breaks the wind. Examples are moleskin trousers often used in antartica, Grenfell cloth, 60/40 mountain parkas, etc.

Frankie

Everest has been climbed with climbers wearing cotton outerwear, the poles have been reached doing the same. These expeditions were using what was available at the time and could have chosen anything they wanted. So long as you keep the cotton outerwear dry it is a wonderful fabric. If you expect rain, you'll need to bring along separate rain gear, but for wind protection in dry weather, cotton is great.

Alberta weather - that's just nuts.

Good woolen knitwear is getting increasingly difficult to find at a good price due to the availability of fleece. Although fleece performs well and is lightweight I prefer a woolen knitwear simply because of the advantages of greater comfort and safety. Low end quality fleece also tends to become cheap looking and the worst for wear after only a short period.

The Arktis 1514 Woolen Antartica Shirt has been designed to be flame retartdent. Its a 70% Merino wool/ 30% Nomex midlayer garment.



http://www.lansdaleltd.com/prod.php/prod/1514G

Its called the Arktis D190 in the US at $85.95. The D191 bottoms $59.95 are also available at

http://www.arktisusa.com/MilitaryClothing/Thermal/

Or there is always the classic Wooly Pully.

http://www.actiongear.com/cgi-bin/tame.exe/agcatalog/level4s.tam?xax=17726&M5COPY%2Ectx=8467&M5%2Ectx=3268&M2%5FDESC%2Ectx=Woolly%20Pully%26%23174%3B%20Wool%20Sweaters&level3%2Ectx=results%2Etam&query%2Ectx=wooly%20pully&backto=%2Fagcatalog%2Fresults%2Etam

Or if this is to tactical looking then a thick merino wool sweater from the Swedish company Chevalier is excellent but more expensive.



http://www.davidgoldie.co.uk/acatalog/copy_of_copy_of_Orkney_Sweater.html

The wool/nomex looks good. Too bad it's UK, do they ship to the California? My latest buy on this is a Firelite Pullover.

I'll wear wool or nomex under (depending on weather) and this on top.

Much of the Helly Hansen fire resistant clothing is a wool/nomex blend I believe.

The Helly Hansen tops I have are wool/polypro. Could not find nomex at hellyhansen.com/

Hi Russ,

Arktis does have a distributor in the US, but I don't know if they ship to California. I suspect they would.

http://www.arktisusa.com/Contact/

They can be contacted at sales@arktisusa.com

Excellent, thanks. Didn't think to look for a US distributor.

Looks like I was mistaken. Their FR tops don't have poly though. It's a Wool/Viscose/INOX blend. You need to look into their 'work wear' to get into the fire reistant stuff.