On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:52:58 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Mar 9, 8:33*pm, Kevin wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:39:43 -0800 (PST), "

You're right in that it wasn't a standard. *I studied this case in
college and it's been a while so the details were fuzzy. *McDonald's
coffee was 185 +/- 5 degrees. *I forget the exact numbers we used but
we calculated the results, using an admittedly oversimplified model,
and there was a drastic difference in the severity of the burn and
length of time it took to get there. *If you were at the high end 190
it was much worse than the low end of 180. *If you used the lower
temperature of 150-160, whatever it was, it was only borderline second
degree burns instead of third degree burns.

Nonsense. The energy contained in a liquid is proportional to its
temperature (difference).

What is so hard to understand about the fact that the hotter something
is the faster it burns you? Whether it takes 2 seconds or 2 minutes
to achieve a certain level of burn is significant.

-Kevin