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?

--
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

"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? :-)

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

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.

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.

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.

You have to much time on your hands LOL
Lushy from AU
"BF" wrote in message
...
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.

This is a matter of honor! Two power boaters against a sailor. No effort
can be spared! :-)

--
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

"BF" wrote in message
...
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.

"BF" wrote in message
...
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



Tada! Give that man a ceegar!

It started to sound like.....how many boaters does it take to purchase a
cooler..... ;-)

No problem!
Then three cases of beer and only one block of ice.
Any power boaters goin to loose.
BF


"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:YTlRf.503825$0l5.180645@dukeread06...
This is a matter of honor! Two power boaters against a sailor. No effort
can be spared! :-)

--
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

"BF" wrote in message
...
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.