Andy Katz wrote:

> Aside from the temperature of the oil, what fact did I have skewed,
> Past?

*Everything* you were complaining about hinged on your astonishingly
off-the-mark ideas about the temperature and its implications. Beyond
that, your explanation about using a doughnut fryer for fish is absurd
on its face; not enough fact. You make it sound like you just drop the
fish in and it somehow doesn't sink to the bottom and stick. No
indication of how it gets out with no fry baskets. Your lecture about
cooking and the "turbo" effect is plain nonsense...

A few posts ago, I said this to you:
"See, Andy, it's been several days that this thread has been running.
You haven't bothered to actually look at the machine to see the brand.
Or read the instructions that are inside the door of the cabinet. Or
read anything else about deep frying. Or about oil. Or about filtering.
Or about contacting any authoritative regulatory body where you are."

So, read the books I suggested, or don't. Learn something about what you
do for your money or don't. You wanted it all handed to you in ways that
agreed with your juvenile whining, and you wanted to argue with
*everyone* who offered you information.

Pastorio

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:35:21 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Andy Katz wrote:
>
>> Aside from the temperature of the oil, what fact did I have skewed,
>> Past?
>
>*Everything* you were complaining about hinged on your astonishingly
>off-the-mark ideas about the temperature and its implications. Beyond
>that, your explanation about using a doughnut fryer for fish is absurd
>on its face; not enough fact. You make it sound like you just drop the
>fish in and it somehow doesn't sink to the bottom and stick.

I'm sorry, I know I ought to let this be and let you latch on to some
other hapless reader, Bob, but I can't resist.

You take the battered filet and slide it back and forth across the
oil's surface once or twice. That enables the formation of a crust and
promotes boyancy. Of course sometimes the fish does stick, so you take
your strainer and dislodge it. If it breaks, you start with a new
filet.

The fish isn't bad. It's the candy bars and battered sausage that sink
straight to the bottom if you're not careful.

Either way, no, the temp was a side issue. Oil at 350 or 325 is still
dangerous to handle, especially in large quantities. I mean, water
boils at a mere 212, yet is capable of inflicting awesome burns.

>No
>indication of how it gets out with no fry baskets. Your lecture about
>cooking and the "turbo" effect is plain nonsense...
>
>A few posts ago, I said this to you:
>"See, Andy, it's been several days that this thread has been running.
>You haven't bothered to actually look at the machine to see the brand.
>Or read the instructions that are inside the door of the cabinet. Or
>read anything else about deep frying. Or about oil. Or about filtering.
>Or about contacting any authoritative regulatory body where you are."
>
>So, read the books I suggested, or don't. Learn something about what you
>do for your money or don't. You wanted it all handed to you in ways that
>agreed with your juvenile whining, and you wanted to argue with
>*everyone* who offered you information.

Gawd, you're as cocky as your are dumb, Bob. Why do you assume I don't
already have most of those books? Got New Professional Chef when I
finished my stagiare and started classes.

Andy Katz
"Modesty is in thought, not clothing."

Joel Shurkin

************************************************

Andy Katz wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I know I ought to let this be and let you latch
> on to some other hapless reader, Bob, but I can't resist.

You must. That is the one and only way to handle Bob.
You have to say what you want to say, and then let him
have the last word. That's the only way a Bob-war ends.

That's what caused the Great Bob-vs.-Chung War.
Bob finally ran across someone who was as stubborn
as he was, and willing to use poison gas against
innocent newsgroup civilians to boot.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Andy Katz wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry, I know I ought to let this be and let you latch
>>on to some other hapless reader, Bob, but I can't resist.
>
> You must. That is the one and only way to handle Bob.
> You have to say what you want to say, and then let him
> have the last word. That's the only way a Bob-war ends.
>
> That's what caused the Great Bob-vs.-Chung War.
> Bob finally ran across someone who was as stubborn
> as he was, and willing to use poison gas against
> innocent newsgroup civilians to boot.

<LOL> Oh, look, it's Mark "I got nothing to say but that won't stop me"
Thorson.

Pastorio

Mark Thorson wrote:
reader, Bob, but I can't resist.
>
> You must. That is the one and only way to handle Bob.
> You have to say what you want to say, and then let him
> have the last word. That's the only way a Bob-war ends.
>
> That's what caused the Great Bob-vs.-Chung War.
> Bob finally ran across someone who was as stubborn
> as he was, and willing to use poison gas against
> innocent newsgroup civilians to boot.

If you want to see a war of words go over to rec.food.baking and read
the thread about baking cakes in foil pans.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:49:53 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Andy Katz wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:35:21 -0500, "Bob (this one)" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Andy Katz wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aside from the temperature of the oil, what fact did I have skewed,
>>>>Past?
>>>
>>>*Everything* you were complaining about hinged on your astonishingly
>>>off-the-mark ideas about the temperature and its implications. Beyond
>>>that, your explanation about using a doughnut fryer for fish is absurd
>>>on its face; not enough fact. You make it sound like you just drop the
>>>fish in and it somehow doesn't sink to the bottom and stick.
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, I know I ought to let this be and let you latch on to some
>> other hapless reader, Bob, but I can't resist.
>
>You haven't noticed which "hapless readers" I "latch on to." The ones
>who don't know what they're talking about and hold forth anyway. Even
>better when they don't know what they're talking about and insist they
>do, long past the time they've been given correct data. Like you.
>Especially when they try to rewrite history and
>deny/alter/"restate"/massage/cook what they said earlier, as though it
>doesn't really have anything to do with the *real* subject they're
>trying to turn it into.
>
>> You take the battered filet and slide it back and forth across the
>> oil's surface once or twice. That enables the formation of a crust and
>> promotes boyancy. Of course sometimes the fish does stick, so you take
>> your strainer and dislodge it. If it breaks, you start with a new
>> filet.
>
>Very professional. Wonderfully efficient. A system that isn't designed
>for maximum effectiveness. "Promotes buoyancy"..."sometimes does stick."
>Only can stick when it sinks.

You really have no idea, do you?

>> The fish isn't bad. It's the candy bars and battered sausage that sink
>> straight to the bottom if you're not careful.
>
><LOL> Stop the presses...
>
>> Either way, no, the temp was a side issue. Oil at 350 or 325 is still
>> dangerous to handle, especially in large quantities. I mean, water
>> boils at a mere 212, yet is capable of inflicting awesome burns.
>
>Sorry, Andy. Can't Weasel out of it that way. Remember your expression
>"maximum temperature?" You weren't talking about the temps you are now.
>These temps are standard, normal, everyday numbers in professional and
>home kitchens. The ones you came in blasting about are *impossible* to
>reach with commercial frying equipment, and stupid to try, even if it
>were possible. And you didn't know that and insisted otherwise.

What is your problem, Pastorio? I didn't insist anything. I gave you
my sources.

And I'm not weasling. Oil in the big fryer is set at 400F. My point is
that even if it were less, it would still be dangerous.

You latched on to irrelevant details.

What happened, are you on disability?

>*ALL* kitchens carry hazard. Being alive carries hazard.

So wouldn't it make sense to avoid needless hazard?

Would you tell a cop not to wear Kevlar, or a fire-fighter to leave
his fire resistant geat behind?

>> Gawd, you're as cocky as your are dumb, Bob. Why do you assume I don't
>> already have most of those books?
>
>Having ain't reading.
>
>Because you insisted that your cooking oil was "475" then "450" then
>"set to maximum and that's 400" and now we're calmly looking at "350 or
>325."
>
>And you wanted to know the regs about that whole subject of hot
>oil/kitchen hazard and asked a hobbyist cooking group for that technical
>information. And rejected oil cookery information that was accurate
>while yours absolutely wasn't.

I didn't reject anything.

>You simply don't know anything about it. You don't know how to cook,
>merely how to cook that menu, in that place, the way they want it done.
>Being so ignorant of that basic an issue certainly suggests that your
>education stopped well short of being even remotely comprehensive.
>You're an incurious, unquestioning robot.
>
>> Got New Professional Chef when I
>> finished my stagiare and started classes.
>
>I don't believe you've taken culinary classes. I truly don't believe you
>even know what "stagiaire" - note the correct spelling - actually is.
>Maybe bike riding, certainly not cooking.

Oh, a spelling flame ... someone truly has too much time on his hands.
Real cooks would never bother.

>Now, all you need to do is read them. Just having them isn't enough,
>Andy. You have to read them. In that *one* book, they'll tell you how to
>deep fry and what temperatures to use, and all the rest of the
>information you need to do it skillfully and safely. Read it.

Stop and think: when you go to work in a restaurant you cook at the
temps you're told. Bob Pastorio doesn't want into someone else's place
and say, "Well, New Professional Chef says that you're doing this
wrong, so we're going to change this!" unless he wants to walk right
out again.

You're really showing your ass here, Bob, and it ain't a pretty sight.

Andy Katz
"Modesty is in thought, not clothing."

Joel Shurkin

************************************************

djs0302 wrote:

> If you want to see a war of words go over to rec.food.baking and read
> the thread about baking cakes in foil pans.

<LOL> Do you really think it's a "War of words?" It's a war, all right.
For a sufficiently large value of war meaning "being swamped,
overwhelmed and demolished."

It's a war of your "You can quote as much so called scientific proof as
much as you want but I know from experience that shiny aluminum baking
pans reflect heat" balanced against my third-party references.

Contrast what I posted, below, to which he replied with that brilliance
above:

"If metal is a conductor of heat, why is it that aluminum foil will
insulate food and reflect heat?
"Aluminum may be a good conductor of heat, but its a terrible
emitter or absorber of thermal radiation. When you wrap food in aluminum
foil, you dramatically reduce that food's ability to lose heat via
radiation if it's hotter than its surroundings or its ability to gain
heat via radiation if it's colder than its surroundings. Aluminum foil
doesn't have much effect on heat transferred to or from the food via
conduction or convection because aluminum itself is a good conductor of
heat." <http://rabi.phys.virginia.edu/HTW/clothing_and_insulation.html>

"...terrible emitter or absorber of thermal radiation" means that it
doesn't reflect it, it simply doesn't absorb it. It doesn't make it go
back where it came from, nor does it capture it.

See that "good conductor of heat" thing? Not "reflector" of heat.

Here's another one:
"2.132 Reflect radiant heat waves
Heat tissue paper with a magnifying glass, as in 2.131. Note the
distance from the reading glass to the tissue paper. Put a tilted mirror
half way between the lens and the paper. Feel with your hand above the
mirror until you find the point where the heat waves are focussed. Hold
a piece of paper tissue at this point. The paper ignites."

That wouldn't happen in the dark. Light is radiant heat. It reflects
light. It doesn't reflect heat as heat, it just doesn't absorb radiant
energy well, nor does it transmit it. You say it reflects heat, so I'm
sure you'd closely wrap your hand in a single layer of foil and hold a
candle under it such that the flame was 1/2 inch below it. It'll reflect
the radiant heat (we call that light) but the conducted heat and
convected heat will fricassee your hand. That's why aluminum cookware
works well. It conducts heat very well; it doesn't reflect it back
towards the flame or the coil.

"23.00 Heat & temperature, internal energy & heat, heat and the first
law of thermodynamics
Heat is a form of energy measured in Joules. The first law of
thermodynamics states when other forms of energy are converted to heat,
or when heat is converted to other forms of energy, there is no loss of
total energy. The second law of thermodynamics states heat always flows
from hot bodies to cold bodies. "
<http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh23.html>

Note that aluminum is right behind gold and copper in its capacity to
conduct heat (the last column of the chart). Silver isn't mentioned, but
it's at the top of the list.
<http://www.ee.byu.edu/cleanroom/thermal_properties.phtml>

"Clearly in selecting a conductor these are very significant differences
- so the best materials are those which lie low towards the bottom of
the metals bubble, such as copper and aluminium. Gold is excellent, but
it is so expensive it is way off the scale of the chart. Even so, it is
used for electrical contacts in microcircuits.

"Finally, thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity are closely
related - as the underlying physics is similar. The electrical
resistivity chart also gives an indication of thermal properties - with
thermal insulators towards the top (polymers and foams, and ceramics)
and the good thermal conductors - metals - at the bottom."
<http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/physics/introduction/default.html>

This means that heat and electricity are treated similarly by metals.
Aluminum is a good conductor of electricity, so it's also a good
conductor of heat. As nothing reflects electricity, nothing reflects
heat, either.

You might want to consider why there are charts for conduction of heat,
but none for reflection of heat.

This whole issue reminds me of that silly device with a hemispherical
mirror (like a bowl) into which you were supposed to put ice to reflect
the cold upwards and chill things in a small basket at the mouth of the
bowl. It was a physical impossibility.

Now you go find out what "heat" is and is not. And learn the difference
between radiant heat and conducted or convected heat is. And don't go to
cooking hobbyist sites for lessons in physics.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> That wouldn't happen in the dark. Light is radiant heat. It reflects
> light. It doesn't reflect heat as heat, it just doesn't absorb radiant
> energy well, nor does it transmit it. You say it reflects heat, so I'm
> sure you'd closely wrap your hand in a single layer of foil and hold a
> candle under it such that the flame was 1/2 inch below it. It'll reflect
> the radiant heat (we call that light) but the conducted heat and
> convected heat will fricassee your hand. That's why aluminum cookware
> works well. It conducts heat very well; it doesn't reflect it back
> towards the flame or the coil.

Sorry, Bob, I'm going to have to quibble a bit with the above. Light
is not "radiant heat," although we often speak of "heat waves" and so
forth as a convenient verbal shortcut. "Heat," technically, is the
mechanical motion of the atoms/molecules within a given substance;
such motion can be induced by several means, including the
absorption of energy from a "radiant" source, such as EM waves
(which is what light REALLY is). That's not quite the same thing as
"light IS heat." It would be more correct to say that "light (and other
forms of EM radiation) is a form of energy which can, among other
things, increase the temperature of a given object through being
absorbed by that object." In simpler terms, you don't really
"reflect heat" ever, you reflect the radiation which otherwise would
have been absorbed by the object in question, resulting in "heat."
That seems picky, but it is an important distinction here.

Anything that reflects radiation over a given spectral range will be
warmed by that radiation to a lesser extent than something which
absorbs more of that same radiation - a good example of this being
the difference between the temperatures of a white object and a
black object when placed in the sunlight. The white object obviously
is a better reflector of light over the visible spectrum than the black,
and so doesn't get as warm. The black object, on the other hand,
is absorbing more of the visible light, which means that it is converting
that energy to heat (the energy has to go into SOMETHING - it can't
just vanish).

Aluminum - or for that matter, most metals (especially when polished)
are actually excellent REFLECTORS of radiant energy (EM, and
specifically light), in addition to being excellent conductors of heat. In
the
example of wrapping your hand in aluminum foil, yes, you will "fricasee
your hand," but not as rapidly as you would if the foil in question had been
blackened (ideally, across the visible AND IR spectrums). A polished
aluminum
surface most definitely does "reflect heat." Holding your aluminum-wrapped
hand over a flame, though, brings other factors into play - it's not just
the radiation coming off the flame, but also the hot gases which are
rising from it and directly striking the surface. Perform this same
experiment in a vacuum - OK, we'll have to modify it somewhat,
with a purely-radiant source and something to also protect your hand
from being exposed to vacuum! - and the results are different. This is
why, for instance, reflective foils are so often seen covering the outer
surface of spacecraft and satellites - the ONLY way those receive
heat "from the outside" in space is via radiation, so the reflective
covering
is there to "reflect heat" (actually, to reflect the radiation - light, IR -
before it
gets absorbed and becomes heat).

So aluminum cookware, to get back to a specific topic relevant to
THIS group, DOES "reflect heat." It's just that the absorption of
radiation by cookware isn't the only, or necessarily even the primary,
means of heating said cookware. These things are also warmed by
the gases within the oven or whatever, and with that source, the
ability of the material to conduct heat is much more important. Still,
there will be a slight but measurable difference between a plain "silver"
aluminum (or other metal) container and one which is darker in color,
which is why you see such things as different cooking times/temps
on cake mixes when "dark" pans are used.


> You might want to consider why there are charts for conduction of heat,
> but none for reflection of heat.

The reason for this is that the "reflection of heat" isn't an inherent
difference between these metals - i.e., aluminimum doesn't have
one specific "coeffiecient of reflectivity" which differs from that of,
say, silver. How well these materials reflect radiant energy is, for
one thing, too much a function of the surface finish for there to be
such tables. Also, there is, as previously noted, no such thing, t
echnically, as the "reflection of heat." What you WILL find (rarely,
because this information isn't commonly used in the selection of metals
for a given application) are curves of the spectral reflectivity of the
metal
over a given range of wavelengths (if limited to the visible range, then
such a curve would roughly be telling you "what color is this metal?"
although there's more to color than that, as well). A metal surface
which is a fairly good reflector of energy across the visible EM
spectrum (say, polished aluminum) WILL be heating by a purely-
radiant source much less than will one which is relatively poor (cast
iron, just to use the first example that comes to mind).

Looking back over your original comments, this may be pretty much
what you were intending in your discussion of "reflecting heat" -
but if so, it looked like you and the other poster were talking about
different things, or at least using the same words to point to very
different
phenomena. I hope this has cleared things up a bit. And sorry for
being so long-winded - it's just so rare that I get to post something here
which has to do at least somewhat with my particular field (I'm a display
technologist, so I get fairly heavily involved with such things as light and
color and such, not to mention thermal concerns in all the hardware!)

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> That wouldn't happen in the dark. Light is radiant heat. It
>> reflects light. It doesn't reflect heat as heat, it just doesn't
>> absorb radiant energy well, nor does it transmit it. You say it
>> reflects heat, so I'm sure you'd closely wrap your hand in a single
>> layer of foil and hold a candle under it such that the flame was
>> 1/2 inch below it. It'll reflect the radiant heat (we call that
>> light) but the conducted heat and convected heat will fricassee
>> your hand. That's why aluminum cookware works well. It conducts
>> heat very well; it doesn't reflect it back towards the flame or the
>> coil.
>
>
> Sorry, Bob, I'm going to have to quibble a bit with the above. Light
> is not "radiant heat," although we often speak of "heat waves" and
> so forth as a convenient verbal shortcut. "Heat," technically, is
> the mechanical motion of the atoms/molecules within a given
> substance; such motion can be induced by several means, including the
> absorption of energy from a "radiant" source, such as EM waves
> (which is what light REALLY is). That's not quite the same thing as
> "light IS heat." It would be more correct to say that "light (and
> other forms of EM radiation) is a form of energy which can, among
> other things, increase the temperature of a given object through
> being absorbed by that object." In simpler terms, you don't really
> "reflect heat" ever, you reflect the radiation which otherwise would
> have been absorbed by the object in question, resulting in "heat."
> That seems picky, but it is an important distinction here.

Not such a quibble; rather more than I was able to lay out. I was trying
to translate what I was noting into simpleton.

> Anything that reflects radiation over a given spectral range will be
> warmed by that radiation to a lesser extent than something which
> absorbs more of that same radiation - a good example of this being
> the difference between the temperatures of a white object and a black
> object when placed in the sunlight. The white object obviously is a
> better reflector of light over the visible spectrum than the black,
> and so doesn't get as warm. The black object, on the other hand, is
> absorbing more of the visible light, which means that it is
> converting that energy to heat (the energy has to go into SOMETHING -
> it can't just vanish).
>
> Aluminum - or for that matter, most metals (especially when polished)
> are actually excellent REFLECTORS of radiant energy (EM, and
> specifically light), in addition to being excellent conductors of
> heat. In the example of wrapping your hand in aluminum foil, yes,
> you will "fricasee your hand," but not as rapidly as you would if the
> foil in question had been blackened (ideally, across the visible AND
> IR spectrums). A polished aluminum surface most definitely does
> "reflect heat." Holding your aluminum-wrapped hand over a flame,
> though, brings other factors into play - it's not just the radiation
> coming off the flame, but also the hot gases which are rising from it
> and directly striking the surface. Perform this same experiment in a
> vacuum - OK, we'll have to modify it somewhat, with a purely-radiant
> source and something to also protect your hand from being exposed to
> vacuum! - and the results are different. This is why, for instance,
> reflective foils are so often seen covering the outer surface of
> spacecraft and satellites - the ONLY way those receive heat "from the
> outside" in space is via radiation, so the reflective covering is
> there to "reflect heat" (actually, to reflect the radiation - light,
> IR - before it gets absorbed and becomes heat).

> So aluminum cookware, to get back to a specific topic relevant to
> THIS group, DOES "reflect heat." It's just that the absorption of
> radiation by cookware isn't the only, or necessarily even the
> primary, means of heating said cookware. These things are also
> warmed by the gases within the oven or whatever, and with that
> source, the ability of the material to conduct heat is much more
> important. Still, there will be a slight but measurable difference
> between a plain "silver" aluminum (or other metal) container and one
> which is darker in color, which is why you see such things as
> different cooking times/temps on cake mixes when "dark" pans are
> used.
>
>> You might want to consider why there are charts for conduction of
>> heat, but none for reflection of heat.
>
> The reason for this is that the "reflection of heat" isn't an
> inherent difference between these metals - i.e., aluminimum doesn't
> have one specific "coeffiecient of reflectivity" which differs from
> that of, say, silver. How well these materials reflect radiant
> energy is, for one thing, too much a function of the surface finish
> for there to be such tables. Also, there is, as previously noted, no
> such thing, technically, as the "reflection of heat." What you WILL
> find (rarely, because this information isn't commonly used in the
> selection of metals for a given application) are curves of the
> spectral reflectivity of the metal over a given range of wavelengths
> (if limited to the visible range, then such a curve would roughly be
> telling you "what color is this metal?" although there's more to
> color than that, as well). A metal surface which is a fairly good
> reflector of energy across the visible EM spectrum (say, polished
> aluminum) WILL be heating by a purely- radiant source much less than
> will one which is relatively poor (cast iron, just to use the first
> example that comes to mind).
>
> Looking back over your original comments, this may be pretty much
> what you were intending in your discussion of "reflecting heat" - but
> if so, it looked like you and the other poster were talking about
> different things, or at least using the same words to point to very
> different phenomena. I hope this has cleared things up a bit. And
> sorry for being so long-winded - it's just so rare that I get to post
> something here which has to do at least somewhat with my particular
> field (I'm a display technologist, so I get fairly heavily involved
> with such things as light and color and such, not to mention thermal
> concerns in all the hardware!)

Thanks for the clarifications. That's a fuller explanation than I could
have given.

What does a display technologist do?

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
..
>
> What does a display technologist do?
>

As little as humanly possible, when I can get away with it...:-)

Seriously, though, ladies and germs...there aren't a whole lot o'
people in the world that do this, but basically I am an in-house
consultant regarding technical issues on displays (and some related
subjects, like video standards, color, etc.) for one of the larger
computer companies. (Which one it is isn't all that hard to
figure out, but I tend not to mention my employer by name
here for the simple reason that I do NOT speak for them in
forums such as this. Well, OK, it's not a big problem in
THIS particular forum, but there are others where it might be.)

And, of course, a "consultant" is someone who comes to your
place from far away, then you hand him a pile of numbers.
Some time later, you hand him a pile of money, and he hands
the numbers back to you. At least, that's the normal sort of
consultant. In-house types like me work primarily in hopes that
someone will eventually remove the leg irons...:-)

Bob M.

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Thanks for the clarifications. That's a fuller explanation than I could
> have given.

Which is too bad, because it's incorrect.

Light is indeed radiant heat and vice-versa. Infra-red light is the
more commonly understood form of it, but is not different
electromagnetically from ultra-violet light other than in its arbitrary
categorization by scientific stamp collectors. Infra-red light can be
used to do things other than heat things up, and UV light can heat
things up.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the clarifications. That's a fuller explanation than I could
>>have given.
>
> Which is too bad, because it's incorrect.

You haven't shown that.

> Light is indeed radiant heat and vice-versa. Infra-red light is the
> more commonly understood form of it, but is not different
> electromagnetically from ultra-violet light other than in its arbitrary
> categorization by scientific stamp collectors.

Different frequencies.

> Infra-red light can be
> used to do things other than heat things up, and UV light can heat
> things up.

The discussion concerned *all* light, not just UV or IR.

Pastorio