norman wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:u9gRf.503293$0l5.338643@dukeread06...

We have a hot (or maybe cold) debate about ice coolers going between

myself

and a couple of friends. I swear by my 58 qt Coleman Xtreme but one

friend

has a 60qt Frigid Rigid and the other went nuts and bought a 55 qt

Icy-Tek.

The Icy-Tek and Frigid Rigid are built much better than my Coleman but the
Icy-Tek cost twice as much as my Coleman and the Frigid Rigid cost almost

7

times as much. Naturally my friends are desperate to prove that they

didn't

waste their money. :-)

I have set up a challenge. We will load all three with 20 lb of ice.

After

3 days we will drain and weigh the melt water. Now here is where the
controversy comes in. The Frigid Rigid and Icy-Tek are permanently
installed so we can't run the test side by side. I will set up my Hobo

data

loggers to monitor inside temps and set the external sensor outside to

track

surface temperature of the box. All the boxes will be kept shaded from
direct sunlight. I figure that the area between the two temperature

traces

(difference in temperature x the time) times the capacity will give us a
relative heat load for the test and the weight of the melt in pounds times
144 will give us an idea of the heat that actually made it through the

box.

Dividing one by the other should give us a number that indicates relative
performance.

Am I on the right track there?


If you start with equal blocks of ice, the chest that produces the least
amount of water wins. I'd drain off and measure the water at certain
intervals to judge the winner. Agree on the 'rules' beforehand, then "let
'er rip".

You do watch Mythbusters don't you? :-)





Wouldn't it be easier to weigh the block of ice before and after to
determine which has better thermal qualities?
krj