Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Wetting a cloth and wrapping it around the head and neck is one of the most widely used heat remedies in the world, and one of the least quantified. This paper derives a bound on what such a cloth can deliver. Evaporation from a fully wetted wrap of 0.08 m² is modelled with a mass-transfer coefficient obtained from the heat–mass transfer analogy, with the cloth surface held at the wet-bulb temperature. Cooling is called useful only if the gross evaporative power reaches 15 W, about the resting heat production of the head itself. At 35 °C in a light walking breeze of 1.0 m/s, the cloth delivers 17.6 W at 10% relative humidity and 14.49 W at 30%, so the humidity ceiling for useful cooling is 27% relative humidity: above 27% the remedy no longer meets the useful threshold at that temperature and airflow. In still air (0.2–0.5 m/s) the cloth never reaches 15 W at 30 °C or 35 °C at any humidity. A stronger breeze of 2.0 m/s raises the ceiling to 47% relative humidity at 35 °C and to 54% at 40 °C. Where the cloth is useful it is cheap in water: 21.5 ml per hour at 35 °C and 30% relative humidity, and a 250 ml wetting lasts about 698 minutes of evaporation at that rate. A plain hat of equal stated cost, by contrast, saves a humidity-independent 9.8 W of solar load; the cloth's gross power falls below the hat's saving above 52% relative humidity at 35 °C and 1.0 m/s. The plain statement of the result is that the wet cloth is a dry-air remedy: in humid heat, or in still air, it stops working as a cooling device, however wet it is kept, and shade is worth more.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: