terry wrote:
On Aug 29, 9:51 pm, "clot" wrote:
.
I was afraid to make that comment! Coming from the other side of The
Pond, ice cold beer just ain't beer! - Hide quoted text -
.
I say. A chap shouldn't be afraid of defending their preference for
warm beer old boy.
Is there really any other way?
I mean to say; the need to chill any beer to a temperature where you
can't taste the darn stuff anyway may mean that it's not good beer
anyway; what?
And as to this stuff in bottles and tin cans!
Well ..................... what can one say.
Only good for cooking a chicken on a barbecue; as one associate often
says!
Now a Guiness etc. at close to room temperature "Is good for you". :-)
Cold beer? UGH!

Loved it. Cans and bottles do not go with beer!

In article om,
terry wrote:


And as to this stuff in bottles and tin cans!
Well ..................... what can one say.
Only good for cooking a chicken on a barbecue; as one associate often
says!


Since you brought it up, I've wondered about the wisdom of this
practice. Exposed to the heat of a barbecue, does the plastic lining of
a beer can give off anything toxic?

Doug Miller writes:

That's just complete nonsense -- suggest you look up, and compare, the
specific heat of water vs. specific heat of ice.

Nope. The heat of fusion, not the specific heat, is what flash chills. As
I said, the phase change is crucial.

On Aug 30, 9:22 am, (Doug Miller) often writes.:
..
" It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again."
..
Doug: That reference to the Boston Tea party, which in turn led to
American Independence, always amuses!
..
But even more amusing was an occasion (in the eraly 1960s) when
myself, an ex Brit. had to explain to a good friend and neighbour at
that time, an American serviceman (Tech. Sgt.) of Mexican extraction,
the significance to American history of the Boston Tea Party!
..
His wife though was from Massachusetts or Maine (somewhere in New
England) and one would have thought she would have explained it!

Regards. Terry

In article , Richard J Kinch wrote:
Doug Miller writes:

That's just complete nonsense -- suggest you look up, and compare, the
specific heat of water vs. specific heat of ice.

Nope. The heat of fusion, not the specific heat, is what flash chills. As
I said, the phase change is crucial.

It doesn't seem that you've ever made ice cream at home.

Quite right that the phase change is crucial. However, you're utterly mistaken
when you think that the cooling will be most rapid if the melt water is
drained away. The objective is to remove heat from the can of beer as rapidly
as possible, and that will happen when the beer is immersed in a bath of
icewater. Not when it's immersed in a pile of ice.

And the reason for that is that water is a better conductor of heat than ice,
and thus heat transfers from the beer can to water faster than it transfers
from the beer can to ice. On top of that, water transfers heat away from the
beer can by convection as well as conduction, and obviously ice won't.

In short, rapid heat transfer is the name of the game, and you get that with
icewater, not with ice.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

... The objective is to remove heat from the can of beer as rapidly
as possible, and that will happen when the beer is immersed in a bath of
icewater. Not when it's immersed in a pile of ice.

I tend to agree.

And the reason for that is that water is a better conductor of heat than ice,

Water has a 0.596 W/mC conductance, vs 2.26 for ice. But it's hard to keep
the can completely in contact with ice, and that way, the heat transfer from
the ice is limited to the can surface. If the can is in a large well-stirred
bath of ice and water, the ice will have lots of heat transfer area to water,
and the can surface will be very close to the temp it would be if the entire
can surface were in contact with ice.

Nick

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

... The objective is to remove heat from the can of beer as rapidly
as possible, and that will happen when the beer is immersed in a bath of
icewater. Not when it's immersed in a pile of ice.

I tend to agree.

And the reason for that is that water is a better conductor of heat than ice,

Water has a 0.596 W/mC conductance, vs 2.26 for ice. But it's hard to keep
the can completely in contact with ice, and that way, the heat transfer from
the ice is limited to the can surface. If the can is in a large well-stirred
bath of ice and water, the ice will have lots of heat transfer area to water,
and the can surface will be very close to the temp it would be if the entire
can surface were in contact with ice.

Well, maybe... that depends at least in part on the relative masses of the
ice, and the can of beer. Figure a can of beer at somewhere around 350 grams.
Pop a room-temperature beer into, say, 20 or 30 kg of ice at -20 deg C in a
well-insulated container, and the beer will eventually assume pretty near the
same temperature as the ice, long before any significant melting of the ice
can occur.

OTOH, put the same beer, and the same 20 or 30 kg of ice at -20 C into a water
bath, and the beer will *never* get colder than 0 C.

Which, of course, is why you add salt when you're making homemade ice cream:
so that the ice will melt at a lower temperature, giving you a water bath
that's much colder than 0 C.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

....
Pop a room-temperature beer into, say, 20 or 30 kg of ice at -20 deg C in a
well-insulated container, and the beer will eventually assume pretty near the
same temperature as the ice, long before any significant melting of the ice
can occur.

That "well-insulated" would have to be adiabatic, but in that case the
end result would be about right if the mass of the ice were large wrt
the beer.

OTOH, put the same beer, and the same 20 or 30 kg of ice at -20 C into a water
bath, and the beer will *never* get colder than 0 C.

Which, of course, is why you add salt when you're making homemade ice cream:
so that the ice will melt at a lower temperature, giving you a water bath
that's much colder than 0 C.

The prize! _Finally_, somebody made a cogent explanation...

--

wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:


... The objective is to remove heat from the can of beer as rapidly
as possible, and that will happen when the beer is immersed in a bath of
icewater. Not when it's immersed in a pile of ice.


I tend to agree.


And the reason for that is that water is a better conductor of heat than ice,


Water has a 0.596 W/mC conductance, vs 2.26 for ice. But it's hard to keep
the can completely in contact with ice, and that way, the heat transfer from
the ice is limited to the can surface. If the can is in a large well-stirred
bath of ice and water, the ice will have lots of heat transfer area to water,
and the can surface will be very close to the temp it would be if the entire
can surface were in contact with ice.

Nick


Actually, the conductance of the ice is irrelevant. What is important
for removing heat is the phase change happening at the surface of the ice.
If you could keep the ice in perfect contact all around with the beer can,
you would not need the mel****er (and there would be no room for it).
As the ice is melting and changing shape, you cannot keep it in contact.

So now the question is: is it better to fill that gap with air or mel****er?

The advantage of water: it is a better conductor of heat than air (although I
suspect that the greater effect is due to convention rather than conductance).

A disadvantage of water might occur if you are trying to lower the temperature
below 32F using a salt. In that case you would be using some of your cooling
power to lower the temperature of earlier mel****er. Also, the mel****er
would also better conduct heat from the walls of the vessel holding the mix.
Best to just drain the excess mel****er.

In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:

Which, of course, is why you add salt when you're making homemade ice cream:
so that the ice will melt at a lower temperature, giving you a water bath
that's much colder than 0 C.

Forgot to add that another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting
point causes the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the
step that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article HfDBi.13364$Yg.1832@trnddc02, M Q wrote:
Actually, the conductance of the ice is irrelevant.

I'm not sure I agree...

What is important
for removing heat is the phase change happening at the surface of the ice.

... because in order for that phase change to occur, you must first transfer
heat from the beer to the ice.

If you could keep the ice in perfect contact all around with the beer can,
you would not need the mel****er (and there would be no room for it).
As the ice is melting and changing shape, you cannot keep it in contact.

Certainly no disagreement there.

So now the question is: is it better to fill that gap with air or mel****er?

Water, clearly. Air (still air, at least) is an excellent thermal insulator.

The advantage of water: it is a better conductor of heat than air (although I
suspect that the greater effect is due to convention rather than
conductance).

Nope, it's due mostly to conduction. Air is a remarkably effective convector.
However, before any heat can be removed from the beer can by convection
(whether in water or air), it must be transferred from the can to the water or
air by conduction. This transfer is far more efficient with water.

A disadvantage of water might occur if you are trying to lower the temperature
below 32F using a salt. In that case you would be using some of your cooling
power to lower the temperature of earlier mel****er.

No, the mel****er would simply be at the lower temperature from the beginning.
I'm guessing you haven't made any more ice cream at home than Richard has. g

Also, the mel****er
would also better conduct heat from the walls of the vessel holding the mix.

So insulate the walls of the vessel.

Best to just drain the excess mel****er.

Define "excess". g The heat transfer will be most rapid in a bath of
icewater. If you don't have enough water to keep both the beer and the ice in
a water bath, then you don't have any excess.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Nick

M Q wrote:

... the conductance of the ice is irrelevant.

I agree.

So now the question is: is it better to fill that gap with air or mel****er?

Mel****er.

Nick

wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Nick

Maybe this will explain it. It is the latent heat of phase change.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/latent.htm

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Simply that much more energy is absorbed in melting the ice (the phase
transition from solid to liquid) than in raising the temperature of the
mixture. Google 'latent heat of fusion' or look it up in any high school
chemistry text.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Simply that much more energy is absorbed in melting the ice (the phase
transition from solid to liquid) than in raising the temperature of the
mixture.

Still makes no sense to me.

Nick

In article ,
Ralph Mowery wrote:

wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Nick

Maybe this will explain it. It is the latent heat of phase change.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/latent.htm

Still makes no sense to me.

Nick

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Simply that much more energy is absorbed in melting the ice (the phase
transition from solid to liquid) than in raising the temperature of the
mixture.

Still makes no sense to me.

The point is that if your objective is to transfer the heat from the beer to
the ice as rapidly as possible, this is best achieved by melting the ice as
quickly as possible, with the heat contained in the beer -- which in turn is
best achieved by lowering the melting point of the ice by adding salt.

You *do* know that's why you use salt to melt ice, right?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.

I wonder what that means...

Simply that much more energy is absorbed in melting the ice (the phase
transition from solid to liquid) than in raising the temperature of the
mixture.

Still makes no sense to me.

The point is that if your objective is to transfer the heat from the beer to
the ice as rapidly as possible, this is best achieved by melting the ice as
quickly as possible, with the heat contained in the beer -- which in turn is
best achieved by lowering the melting point of the ice by adding salt.

This makes a little more sense.

You *do* know that's why you use salt to melt ice, right?

Sure. Do you still believe that water is more conductive than ice? :-)

If so, I submit you are unqualified in this discussion.

Nick

wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

... another effect of the salt is that lowering the melting point causes
the phase transition -- which as RJK correctly pointed out is the step
that "eats" the most heat -- to occur much sooner.
I wonder what that means...
Simply that much more energy is absorbed in melting the ice (the phase
transition from solid to liquid) than in raising the temperature of the
mixture.
Still makes no sense to me.
The point is that if your objective is to transfer the heat from the beer to
the ice as rapidly as possible, this is best achieved by melting the ice as
quickly as possible, with the heat contained in the beer -- which in turn is
best achieved by lowering the melting point of the ice by adding salt.

This makes a little more sense.

You *do* know that's why you use salt to melt ice, right?

Sure. Do you still believe that water is more conductive than ice? :-)

If so, I submit you are unqualified in this discussion.

Not that Doug needs anybody to fend for him, that wasn't the point he
made or was intending to make--it was that water is in a practical sense
a better heat transfer mechanism than the ice because can achieve a
better _overall_ heat transfer rate owing to it being liquid and
therefore being in full contact w/ the surface whereas ice isn't...

--

wrote:
Harry K wrote:


Heh. I shipped to Germany in 1962. All local bars served warm beer -
very good beer.


I worked with Siemens in 1975. In Munich, they cooled beer in the chilled
air ducts of their large computers.

Nick


Our bank coin handers were made in Stuttgart. The workers
set their dark beer in the sunny windows so it would be warm
for lunch.

They also chuckled at our "Pilsner" beers.

-larry / dallas

In article ,
Meat Plow wrote:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:08:23 -0700, Smitty Two wrote:

In article om,
terry wrote:


And as to this stuff in bottles and tin cans!
Well ..................... what can one say.
Only good for cooking a chicken on a barbecue; as one associate often
says!


Since you brought it up, I've wondered about the wisdom of this
practice. Exposed to the heat of a barbecue, does the plastic lining of
a beer can give off anything toxic?

Are beer cans lined with plastic? I've made beer can chicken before and
you're really not heating it enough to burn plastic regardless.

Yes, all beverage cans are lined with plastic, and always have been. I
don't know what type of plastic it is, but lots of plastics will burn
easily with a match. I doubt that the plastics chosen for can lining
were chosen based on their ability to withstand the heat of a barbecue.

Doug Miller writes:

It doesn't seem that you've ever made ice cream at home.

Go ahead an scoff while you speculate about what's best. I get paid as an
engineer to analyze, design, and implement flash chilling systems. I know
how these things work, in theory and in practice, on a home scale and on a
1000s of liters/hour industrial scale.

At home I flash-chill cans in under a minute, by the process I described,
and with the concrete, quantifiable results I have claimed. It's not
speculative on my part. I have analyzed and verifed the direct-contact-
with-ice principle both ways, that it works, and that the other ways don't
work.

Now if you want to erect a conceit that you know better, go do some
experiments with your brine notions and report back. Otherwise your
hunches and expressions of contempt for wisdom and experience are just idle
insults, and a parody of engineering. Which is what Usenet is mostly
about.

In article , Richard J Kinch wrote:
Doug Miller writes:

It doesn't seem that you've ever made ice cream at home.

Go ahead an scoff while you speculate about what's best. I get paid as an
engineer to analyze, design, and implement flash chilling systems. I know
how these things work, in theory and in practice, on a home scale and on a
1000s of liters/hour industrial scale.

Isn't Usenet great, where anybody can pretend to be anything?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller writes:

Isn't Usenet great, where anybody can pretend to be anything?

Except I never pretend. My identity and credentials are plain and easily
confirmed.

In article , Richard J Kinch wrote:
Doug Miller writes:

Isn't Usenet great, where anybody can pretend to be anything?

Except I never pretend. My identity and credentials are plain and easily
confirmed.

Sure, whatever you say. What exactly are your credentials for claiming that
gasoline is safe to drink and carbon monoxide is safe to breathe, but common
household borax is a deadly poison? What exactly are your credentials for
claiming that there is no difference between a parallel circuit and a dead
short?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller writes:

What exactly are your credentials for claiming ...

You forgot my myth-busting assertion that "adding water to hydrochloric
acid is OK".

Your weekly snort of contempt for such has gotten quite old and unoriginal.
Proverbs 29:9.

In article , Richard J Kinch wrote:
Doug Miller writes:

What exactly are your credentials for claiming ...
[snippage restored]

that
gasoline is safe to drink and carbon monoxide is safe to breathe, but common
household borax is a deadly poison? What exactly are your credentials for
claiming that there is no difference between a parallel circuit and a dead
short?

[conspicuous failure to respond noted without surprise]

You forgot my myth-busting assertion that "adding water to hydrochloric
acid is OK".

Thanks for the reminder of another example of your peculiar "knowledge" of
chemistry and physics. I admit I'd quite forgotten about that one -- of
course, it's not quite such a howler as the others, either, so it was easier
to forget.

Your weekly snort of contempt for such has gotten quite old and unoriginal.

If you don't like having it pointed out that you're posting baloney, the
solution is real simple: stop posting baloney.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

... If you don't like having it pointed out that you're posting baloney,
the solution is real simple: stop posting baloney.

I see you are no longer posting about ice and water conductivities :-)

Nick

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

... If you don't like having it pointed out that you're posting baloney,
the solution is real simple: stop posting baloney.

I see you are no longer posting about ice and water conductivities :-)

Tell me, Nick, do you *really* believe ice is a better heat transfer agent
than water?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

I see you are no longer posting about ice and water conductivities :-)

Tell me, Nick, do you *really* believe ice is a better heat transfer agent
than water?

I agree with you that a spinning can in an ice water bath will cool faster
than a spinning can in a container of cubes with no water, but you wrote

... water is a better conductor of heat than ice,

which is incorrect. Water has a 0.596 W/mC conductance, vs 2.26 for ice.

It's fun to watch you wriggle when you're wrong :-)

Nick

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I see you are no longer posting about ice and water conductivities :-)

Tell me, Nick, do you *really* believe ice is a better heat transfer agent
than water?

I agree with you that a spinning can in an ice water bath will cool faster
than a spinning can in a container of cubes with no water, but you wrote

... water is a better conductor of heat than ice,

which is incorrect. Water has a 0.596 W/mC conductance, vs 2.26 for ice.

It's fun to watch you wriggle when you're wrong :-)

I'll plead guilty to imprecise use of terminology, at least. Water is a far
more efficient heat-transfer agent than ice, partly due its greater specific
heat, but largely due to its ability to remove heat by convection. You're
right that the thermal conductivity of ice is greater than that of water, but
that's not all there is to the story -- and I think you know that.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

... Water is a far more efficient heat-transfer agent than ice, partly due
its greater specific heat

But the icewater bath temp hardly changes...

Nick

In article , wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

... Water is a far more efficient heat-transfer agent than ice, partly due
its greater specific heat

But the icewater bath temp hardly changes...

Right, until the ice melts. And that's why you use salt when making homemade
ice cream: to enable you to have icewater at a temperature lower than zero C.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Right, until the ice melts. And that's why you use salt when making homemade
ice cream: to enable you to have icewater at a temperature lower than zero C.

--


An Ice/water mixture at 32deg F is probably better than just ICE alone
at 32 deg F.

But..

Ice alone could be at -20 deg F or any other colder temperature.

Then the answer is not so obvious...

Ice/water at 32 or ice at -20?

Mark

Mark wrote:
Right, until the ice melts. And that's why you use salt when making homemade
ice cream: to enable you to have icewater at a temperature lower than zero C.

--


An Ice/water mixture at 32deg F is probably better than just ICE alone
at 32 deg F.

But..

Ice alone could be at -20 deg F or any other colder temperature.

Then the answer is not so obvious...

Ice/water at 32 or ice at -20?

Ice by itself will in all likelihood be worse than the ice/water mixture
because can't easily get full contact w/ the container so the effective
heat transfer rate will be less for it than for the water. My gut
feeling is still w/ the water. But, of course, w/ the brine solution
you can approach 0F w/ salt and get the advantages of both the full
contact/good heat transfer and colder temperature than the melting ice
to boot...

--

Bob F wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Chris Friesen wrote:
clifto wrote:
You're saying that dissolving calcium chloride is endothermic?

No. What he meant was that the calcium chloride would allow the ice to
become liquid at -50F. This would give an icewater bath.

Pure ice at -50F would be solid, and wouldn't conduct nearly as well due
to air pockets around the can.

However, good luck finding a freezer that will give you ice at -50F...

That's what I figured.

It doesn't need -50F ice. Put salt in ice and the temp drops. Remember ice cream
makers?

It drops to -50F?

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Mark wrote:
Then the answer is not so obvious...

Ice/water at 32 or ice at -20?

Depends. How many square inches of contact surface? I bet 100 square inches
of 32F water will cool to 35F faster than 3 square inches of -20F ice.
Especially so if the ice forms a skin of water between ice and beer can,
limiting the interface temperature to 32F.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

franz frippl wrote:
Choice two would be to bring a mate who's frigid.

Or a friend who's really cool.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

In article ,
clifto wrote:

Mark wrote:
Then the answer is not so obvious...

Ice/water at 32 or ice at -20?

Depends. How many square inches of contact surface? I bet 100 square inches
of 32F water will cool to 35F faster than 3 square inches of -20F ice.
Especially so if the ice forms a skin of water between ice and beer can,
limiting the interface temperature to 32F.

The total contact area of the ice has not been brought up before, IIRC,
and it's certainly relevant. As far as a "skin" of water forming, ice
skaters, so I've been told, actually skate on a very thin layer of
water.