Seems an awful lot of effort to prove nothing in particular.
A much more meaningful test would be to buy 3 cases of beer and three nearly
identical blocks of ice. Put one case of beer and one block of ice in each
cooler. Last man conscious wins.
Doesn't prove anything more but is a lot more enjoyable/
BF


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
newsYjRf.503532$0l5.17408@dukeread06...
I am not expecting a lot of difference in performance. The$380 difference
in price is what I am questioning. :-)

I was figuring to monitor ambient and interior temps with the Hobo for the
72 hour test then use the average delta to adjust the results for
environment differences. Probably simpler to take my box out to their
boats
and do the test side by side. I will have to buy an extra temperature
probe
though.
--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

wrote in message
oups.com...
Unless these tests are done in an equal still air controlled ambient
environment throughout the test period, I would not trust the results.
A good test may show only three liquid ounces of ice melt difference
between all three boxes in a 14 hour test. If you consider a liquid
ounce consumed only about 10 Btu during the phase change, how important
would the three ounces be? Now the equation must be reduced to heat
loss by quart of air space in order to compensate for different box
sizes. If the delta T were increased by having all boxes in a
controlled environment of 110 degrees the ice melt might mean
something.

How were you purposing to calculate the changing box exterior
temperature as the day night temperature changed? And what margin of
error would you use plus or minis three ounces of water.