Skip to content

Time and Temperature Can Be Traded, but Because the Rate of Exchange Is Exponential Only the Shortening Side Gains Orders ── With a Z value of 10 ℃, every 10 ℃ of temperature multiplies the time required for the same effect by exactly 0.100000 ── the separator is whether the law of exchange is exponential or linear ── [Paper 717]

Sep 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Food Drying and Modeling

Abstract

In thermal sterilisation, time and temperature can be traded. That they trade at all is not news. What is worth counting is how steep the rate of exchange is. The steepness is put into numbers, and with it the reason high-temperature short-time processing works. No new theorem or law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new theorem or law is claimed──the logarithmic law of thermal death and the conversion of equivalent times through D and Z values are basic points of food engineering (Bigelow 1921, Stumbo 1983). No D or Z value for a particular organism is claimed──Z=10 ℃ is a representative value and moves with organism and medium. Heating and cooling ramps are not included──only the holding temperature is considered; in a real process, lethality also accumulates during heating and cooling. Quality loss is not quantified──loss of nutrients and flavour is mentioned only, and its rate constants are not treated. Process standards are not discussed──how reference times are chosen in practice, and the regulations around them, are not treated. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 658 showed that tempering can trade time for temperature but quenching cannot──there the subject was the binary question of whether the trade is possible, and only changes needing diffusion could make it. Here we go inside the side that can trade and count its slope: possibility against steepness. What is added is putting the rate of exchange at 0.100000, showing the ratio to be independent of absolute temperature by the agreement of two intervals, setting 386.474866 minutes at 100 ℃ beside 2.318849 seconds at 140 ℃, attributing the viability of short-time processing to the steepness, and placing the separator on exponential against linear. First, the rate of exchange depends only on the temperature difference──every 10 ℃ multiplies the required time by exactly 0.100000 (Section 2). Second, the ratio is the same in every interval──100->110 ℃ and 130->140 ℃ agree to within 10^-12, so the ratio does not depend on the absolute temperature (Section 2). Third, and this is the core. The steepness shows up as orders of magnitude──matching 3 minutes at 121.1 ℃ takes 386.474866 minutes at 100 ℃, a factor of 128.824955 (Section 3). Fourth, on the upward side the time vanishes──23.188492 seconds at 130 ℃ and 2.318849 seconds at 140 ℃ (Section 3). Fifth, so high-temperature short-time processing works as a design──thermal damage to quality accumulates with time, so cutting the time to 0.012882 is worth something (Section 3). Sixth, the separator is whether the law of exchange is exponential or linear──if linear, the design itself would not stand (Section 4). Time and temperature can be traded, but because the rate of exchange is exponential only the shortening side gains orders. With a Z value of 10 ℃, every 10 ℃ multiplies the time required for the same effect by exactly 0.100000, and the ratio is identical from 100 to 110 ℃ and from 130 to 140 ℃, agreeing to within 10^-12──it is set by the difference, not by the absolute temperature. Matching 3 minutes at the reference 121.1 ℃ takes 386.474866 minutes at 100 ℃, a factor of 128.824955, against 23.188492 seconds at 130 ℃ and 2.318849 seconds at 140 ℃──a 40 ℃ band turns into four orders of time. That boiling is sometimes not enough, and that a pressurised vessel is needed to reach 121.1 ℃, both follow from this one ratio. And high-temperature short-time processing works because thermal damage accumulates with time and the time can be cut to 0.012882──raising the temperature speeds the damage too, but as long as its temperature dependence is the less steep, the balance is favourable. So what must be compared is not absolute rates but the two Z values. The separator is whether the law of exchange is exponential or linear──if linear, 40 ℃ would buy only a small factor and the design itself would not stand. Placed among the earlier papers──Paper 658 divided the tradeable from the untradeable; here the slope on the tradeable side is counted. To be honest──organism-specific values and the heating ramps are not treated, and Z=10 ℃ is held fixed as representative. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. Keywords: logarithmic thermal death, equivalent time, Z value, high-temperature short-time, trading time for temperature, steepness of the exchange. ----- 熱による殺菌では、温度と時間を交換できる。交換できること自体は目新しくない。目新しいのは、その交換の比がどれだけ急かである。急さを数にして、短時間高温という設計がなぜ成り立つのかを言う。新しい定理も法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい定理も法則も主張しない──熱死滅の対数則、D 値と Z 値による等価時間の換算は、いずれも食品工学の基本事項である(ビゲロー 1921、ストンブ 1983)。種類ごとの D 値・Z 値を主張しない──Z =10 ℃ は代表値であり、微生物と媒体で動く。昇温・降温を入れない──保持温度だけを見る。実際の工程では加熱と冷却の途中にも効果が積算される。品質の劣化を数えない──栄養や風味の損失には触れるにとどめ、その速度定数は扱わない。実在の基準値を論じない──工程における基準時間の取り方や規格は扱わない。既刊との関係:論文658 は、焼き戻しは時間と温度を交換できるが焼き入れはできないことを示した──そこでは交換できるか否かという二値が主題で、拡散を要する変化だけが交換できることを示した。ここでは交換できる側の内側に入り、その傾きを数える。交換の可否と、交換の急さである。加えたのは、交換の比を 0.100000 倍と数にしたこと、比が温度の絶対値に依らないことを二区間の一致で示したこと、100 ℃ の 386.474866 分と 140 ℃ の 2.318849 秒を並べたこと、短時間高温が成り立つ理由を急さに帰したこと、分離子を「指数か線形か」に置いたことである。 第一に、交換の比は温度差だけで決まる──10 ℃ 上げるごとに、要る時間はちょうど 0.100000 倍になる(第2節)。 第二に、どの区間でも同じ比である──100->110 ℃ と 130->140 ℃ は 10^-12 以内で一致し、比が温度の絶対値に依らない(第2節)。 第三に、これが本稿の芯である。急さが桁として現れる──121.1 ℃ の 3 分と同じ効果に、100 ℃ では 386.474866 分(128.824955 倍)が要る(第3節)。 第四に、上げる側では時間が消える──130 ℃ なら 23.188492 秒、140 ℃ なら 2.318849 秒で済む(第3節)。 第五に、だから短時間高温が設計として成り立つ──熱による品質の劣化は時間とともに進むので、時間を 0.012882 倍にできることに意味がある(第3節)。 第六に、分離子は、交換の法則が指数か線形かである──線形なら、この設計そのものが成り立たない(第4節)。 温度と時間は交換できるが、その交換の比が指数であるために、短くする側だけが桁で得をする。 Z 値を 10 ℃ とすると、10 ℃ 上げるごとに同じ効果に要る時間はちょうど 0.100000 倍になり、この比は 100->110 ℃ でも 130->140 ℃ でも 10^-12 以内で一致する──比は温度の絶対値に依らず、差だけで決まる。基準 121.1 ℃ の 3 分と同じ効果に、100 ℃ では 386.474866 分(128.824955 倍)が要り、130 ℃ なら 23.188492 秒、140 ℃ なら 2.318849 秒で済む──40 ℃ の幅が、時間の四桁に化ける。沸騰では足りない場合があるのも、加圧して 121.1 ℃ を作る装置が要るのも、この比のためである。そして短時間高温が設計として成り立つのは、熱による品質の劣化が時間とともに進み、時間を 0.012882 倍にできるからである──温度を上げれば劣化も速くなるが、劣化の側の温度依存が殺菌ほど急でないかぎり、正味で得をする。だから比べるべきは絶対の速さではなく、二つの Z の大小である。分離子は、交換の法則が指数か線形かである──線形なら 40 ℃ 上げても数倍しか縮まず、この設計そのものが成り立たない。既刊との位置──論文658 は交換の可否を分けた。ここは交換できる側の傾きを数える。正直に言えば──種類ごとの D 値・Z 値も昇温降温も扱わず、Z =10 ℃ は代表値として固定した。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。 キーワード:熱死滅の対数則、等価時間、Z 値、短時間高温、時間と温度の交換、交換の急さ。

View source

Similar papers

#small language model Dataset Open access Oct 2026

Socratic guiding questions in synthetic arithmetic data: matched LoRA runs (revision v2)

Supporting data, adapters, predictions and code for the article *Low-Cost LoRA Fine-Tuning of Small Language Models for Multi-Step Arithmetic Reasoning* by Jake O'Grady, Asena Isik Gürhan, Chee Fong Ting and Effirul Ramlan (University of Galway). We generated 20,000 GSM8K-derived arithmetic problems with step-by-step s...

O'Grady, Jake, Gürhan, Asena Isik, Chee, Fong Ting et al. · 465 citations
#computer vision Open access Jun 2016

Software Development in Startup Companies: The Greenfield Startup Model

The results are packaged in the Greenfield Startup Model (GSM), which explains the priority of startups to release the product as quickly as possible, and the need to shorten time-to-market, by speeding up the development through low-precision engineering activities.

Carmine Giardino, Nicolò Paternoster, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 178 citations · ⚡14
#computer vision Open access Oct 2016

Software Startups - A Research Agenda

Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.

M. Unterkalmsteiner, P. Abrahamsson, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 157 citations · ⚡17
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2016

“Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups

This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.

Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al. · 127 citations · ⚡15
#computer vision Review Open access May 2015

A survey study on major technical barriers affecting the decision to adopt cloud services

The comparison of adopter and non-adopter sample reveals three potential adoption inhibitor, security, data privacy, and portability, which underlines the importance of the technical and security perspectives for research investigating the adoption of technology.

Nattakarn Phaphoom, Xiaofeng Wang, S. Samuel et al. · 111 citations · ⚡8
#computer vision Open access Feb 2018

Lean Internal Startups for Software Product Innovation in Large Companies: Enablers and Inhibitors

This study investigates how Lean internal startup facilitates software product innovation in large companies and identifies its enablers and inhibitors, and shows the potential of the method-in-action framework to investigate the Lean startup approach in non-startup context.

Henry Edison, Nina M. Smørsgård, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 78 citations · ⚡6

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.