You're probably right. I always tend to overthink while I design and mostly because, once a project is built, I want to avoid to blame myself with something like "this area does not work as expected and it wasn't at all something that makes very little difference".
I had to experience this several times and is not at all a good thing.
You learn a lot more from failures than from successes — at least if you then figure out why it didn’t work.
But if you’re having project after project fail for unknown reasons, then you need to examine your process for making projects, because that might indicate that you’re trying to do things too far for your current understanding of the subject matter.
This is the same statement I repeat myself each time I fails in something
That's the harder part! I always try to push things to the limit even without having the correct knowledge to understand if they can work. I'm afraid I will never be able to solve this.
I can't really estimate how can negatively affect two 12mm holes vs two 16mm holes, but a 16mm radiator pipe is significantly bigger and the pipes to connect are two. It's a risk, once two 16mm holes are drilled and negative impact is more than expected, I can reduce the holes, but the original and expensive insulating layers of the ice box are definitively lost. In an expensive ice chest like this, two 12mm holes are different from two 16mm holes "repaired" to 12mm.
For this reason I decided to stay on the safe side.
The 12mm to 16mm connector and all the other blue ones you see in the diagram are pneumatic connectors. They are quick release and free from any hassle.
Even with 16mm holes as you say, I still need a 12mm to 12mm connector in order to achieve "detach" functionality.
So, why not just using a 12mm to 16mm connector and obtain less intrusive modifications to the ice chest?
I don’t think any of it matters.
When using it as a cooler for foods and drinks, the main thing is to prevent airflow. Even just closing the tubes with sticky tape on both ends would give surprisingly good insulation.
When using it as an air conditioner, losses from the ice chest simply do not matter, because the losses cool the same space the cooled air is discharged into. The only time when losses would matter is if the ice chest and the “processing unit” were in completely different spaces.
This is encouraging, it's much easier that I thought!
This is something that I'm trying to better understand. If seen from this point of view, ice chest used in such kind of project would not make sense because we want immediate release of all the available cold into the room.
In the other thread a guy said that the most efficient way to cool down a room would be a big block of ice placed in the center of the room.
From the information I got from the other thread I have divided an air conditioner like this into two different categories:
- capable to cool down a small room to the desired temperature (which seems to be very hard)
- capable to only cool down a limited area of the room
From my understanding, an ice chest plays a big role in both the cases because in both the cases released cold should be controlled to ensure no waste and longer duration of the ice:
- When a room reached the target temperature we want to suspend or slow down the released cold (just like happens with a regular AC) and when this process happens, the ice chest insulation is what guarantee ice preservation
- When a target area has reached the target temperature or the cold needed to provide fresh air to that area is less than the maximum cold the cooler can provide, then we want to slow down the cooling process to the minimum required for that area rather than trying to cool down the whole room at max power.
I saw people using manual switches to reduce power (see video below). I prefer a temperature controller that reduce power based on the detected temperature. I'm not sure on what of the twos works better, so I am waiting to get a prototype up and running to see what could be the best way to control the release of the cold.
The only scenario where I see (in both the 2 previous points) an ice chest completely useless is when the full cooling power is needed all of the time. I want to hope this is a very rare possibility.
On the other thread some people have done your same observation about the processing unit and my attempt to reduce heat penetration through a styrofoam box. If I have understood well, I should rather facilitate heat penetration by leaving all the parts exposed. I'm trying how I can solve some issue if I go in this way:
- i don't know how to adapt air filtering. Placed under the radiator the filters will get ruined by the water that drops from condensation that occur on the radiator. Above above the radiator the motor blower will become much less effective. On a closed container I don't have this problem.
- With everything exposed I have less control on the cold release. For example when the unit is in standby all the parts will become hotter and the heat will easily penetrate inside the chest box. With a styrofoam box I can at least reduce a a good amount this phenomena.
- If I point the nozzle to a specific area, the cold will be released even in the cooler location due to all the parts exposed and this would be a waste. With a closed and insulated container all the cold air will go straight to the target point.
With the right design I could fix the first issue (ex: I could place the radiator vertically), but the last two issues seem harder.
In the other thread I expressed a couple of minor issues, but I think they should be easily manageable.
I'm delaying the purchase of the box because I'm in doubt. I was sure about the styrofoam box, but now not at all after I've heard your opinions.
Yes tooki, air conditioners are for sure better when possible, but they can't be all around the home or even on travel. I can guarantee you that ice-based air conditioners are pretty close as long as they are well designed (mostly available on YT aren't). They are portable, free from any cost an they can be used even outdoor to cool specific areas.
They “can’t be all around the home”?!? Uhh… central air conditioning exists, as does “buying more than one air conditioner” (e.g. to put one in each room). In USA, for example, it is common for old houses (built before air conditioning) to have a small air conditioner in each room.
I totally agree with you. Central air conditioning or even an air conditioner in each room would work like a charm and in an automated way...if someone does not care about all the money needed for the initial investment and to keep them running.
Yes tooki, air conditioners are for sure better when possible, but they can't be all around the home or even on travel. I can guarantee you that ice-based air conditioners are pretty close as long as they are well designed (mostly available on YT aren't). They are portable, free from any cost an they can be used even outdoor to cool specific areas.
They “can’t be all around the home”?!? Uhh… central air conditioning exists, as does “buying more than one air conditioner” (e.g. to put one in each room). In USA, for example, it is common for old houses (built before air conditioning) to have a small air conditioner in each room.
Free from any cost? Since when is the electricity to run the freezer free?
A freezer is running 24h anyway. We don't have to power it on just to freeze our ice packs. They are designed to freeze inserted food with minimum power usage, especially modern ones (with good energy saving rate).
When I insert new food into my freezer, the motor start spinning for, may be, 5-10 seconds, then return to its previous state.
In the ceiling of the house I still have one (unused) of such big freezers with the "Ocean" logo. It's very big (may be 2 square meters) and such freezers were very common here around 30-40 years ago. I've been tempted multiple times to use it as a dedicated device to prepare ice for my cooler especially because it allows me to completely fill the ice chest box, but...I'm afraid that this is going to be very expensive in terms of power consumption.
“Used outdoors to cool specific areas”? 
LOL no. They can be used to blow small amounts of cool air directly at a small part of a person. You’re not going to have any effect on an outdoor area.
You verified this personally?
On minute "7:58":
"Does it work? Well that's pretty subjective. I'm finding that it will cool an area and if you're in that area, it will cool you!"
Don't take this as an offence, but between someone stating that it doesn't work at all and
Mr Fred’s DIY Garage School showing the experiment directly on video with thermal camera and numbers, you agree with me who have more credits.
We can debate about effectiveness of a full outdoor vs semi-outdoor (like the open garage in the video), if can provide some cooling only on night or under shadow and many other things. But it's wrong to say that it only works inside a completely insulated room. At least, on a garage with one wall completely open, 32% humidity and all of the same conditions in video, works pretty well. As Fred said, it is subjective if a cooled area worth or not, but it is wrong to say that an area can't be cooled at all, unless you proof me that Fred faked data and made false statements.
Some people rely exclusively on thermodynamic laws and when they see a video against their statement they get hot. I'm sure is not your case.
It's good to use science as a first checking point, but science can't just calculate everything. Experiments directly in the field play a big role and should be taken into account.
Sorry, perhaps I needed to be clearer: by “cork”, I simply mean a stopper or bung, regardless of material. It doesn’t have to be natural cork. (Though that would be a perfectly valid option; I’m not sure why you think cork degrades quickly. I mean, it can handle literally decades of direct contact with liquids…)
Do not worry. Well, in this case I would say we're talking about the same thing, just different terminology.
No, I don’t think we are, because the rest of your reply indicates you absolutely did not understand what I am saying.
In this case, please accept my apologies. I will try my best from now on...
I have read about degradation in the google "People also ask" and what I have read is not encouraging at all:
How long does it take for cork to degrade?
Whole wine corks can take up to three years to fully decompose, even in ideal conditions. But you can significantly speed up this process by shredding or cutting them in smaller pieces.
It also seems to be very hard to find the needed size and length. They are mostly available in standard size (the sizes suitable for bottles).
Sometimes cork breaks and get stuck inside even when used with regular bottles.
But again, I never actually recommended using natural cork, though it likely would work.
What I clarified is that by “a cork”, I mean a stopper or bung. That means an object designed to be a removable closure for an opening, especially one that works by friction-fit of a compressible material. But a cap or other closure would be fine too.
What it doesn’t mean is completely filling the entire length of the tube.
As for your decomposition quote: you’ve again located some completely irrelevant piece of information. That wording indicates it’s saying how long to decompose when you want to compost it. It is NOT saying that cork will decompose in 3 years or less while in use as a stopper! You know that there are wine bottles decades old, with their original cork stoppers still keeping the wine inside, right?!?
OK, yep, I googled your quote and indeed it comes from a composting FAQ: https://insteading.com/blog/composting-wine-corks/
What I can say here other than "please accept my apologies"? And the worst thing is that you clearly stated that by “a cork”, you mean a stopper or bung.
You can see how much hot the other discussion has become and how many messages I had to reply. You can imagine how many drafts I have opened in the browser. Given that english is not even my natural language, do you think could be forgivable the fact that I have missed out or forgotten your statement in a scenario like this? Or I have to be considered as someone who only want people that agree with its own statements?
Let imagine for a while that you was really recommending natural cork, my concerns were not unjustified based on what stated on the google FAQ. There was no mention about composting and this is a google fault. You're right, I should have opened the url and read more, but as it has been said multiple times, it doesn't worth to spend much time in investigations for such aspect of the project and I just thought that thrusting google FAQ was more than enough.
To me the pneumatic plugs or the EPDM rubber cord seemed to match the characteristics you described, even more if you say that i don't have to fill the whole length.
Keep in mind that in my case the cork size would be 12mm x 40-50mm. I can already see how can easily break with just a couple of insertion and/or removals.
So you still have not understood why this shape is not necessary.
You just need to block airflow. You don’t need to block the entire length of the tube.
Air that cannot move is an excellent insulator. By blocking one end of the tube, you already significantly reduce heat transfer, and by simply blocking both ends, you completely immobilize the air within. The tube is already made of plastic (a relatively poor heat conductor), and it is tiny compared to the overall surface area of the box, so any improvements due to completely filling the tube would be minimal (to the point of being insignificant) at best.
Let me understand...seems to be that it is more a matter on the material I use to fill the holes, rather than the way I do it.
Apart the issues I have just mentioned, what really makes cork better than EPDM foam rubber?
I have not been able to find thermal properties comparisons, but what I found is that cork has a much lower moisture resistance compared to generic rubber and given that moisture is a concrete risk for a system like this, my concerns increase.
Your conclusion (in bold) is literally the exact opposite of what people have been trying to tell you.
1. We are saying that the important thing is to block airflow, regardless of material. To block airflow you don’t need to fill the entire length of the tube.
2. Nobody ever said natural cork is a superior material to EPDM. All I said is that natural cork would probably work fine for a stopper.
And why would the longevity of natural cork even matter? You said the stoppers are only for when you’re using the box as a beverage cooler, which is not normally a long-term thing. So most of the time, the stoppers would be removed because the tubes are in use with your cooling water, or because the box is sitting in winter storage with neither cooling water nor stoppers. Who cares about the long-term moisture resistance of stoppers that are only used for hours at a time, with ample time to dry out in between?
This is what i call a great explanation and what I was waiting for.
5 stars!Place it as the first response of the thread and we are almost done.
You've basically solved most of my concerns:
- caps showed in my diagram are useless since the tube is tiny and the heat that can penetrate is insignificant (much better than minimal).
- by blocking both ends, I completely immobilize the air within (and this is what I want, right?). No need to fill the entire length
Sorry again for my misunderstanding. I really need to be more careful!
To resume:
- Although I don't need to fill the whole hole, I am not sure that a shorter cork can significantly reduce the risk of breakage. When I said that needed diameter was 12mm I was wrong: the internal diameter of the tube is 8mm! I don't want to be considered as someone who wants validation of its own ideas through every source he can find. In this specific case I don't even involve sources and given the resistance of corks my concerns about possible breakage make sense when the diameter is only 8mm.
- I have not been able to find cork or any other material with the features you described when I was searching for 12mm. It will be even harder to find 8mm ones.
I totally agree about longevity. It was a concern I had when I checked the google faq. I was not aware it was about composting. So, I just assumed that on such small size I would had to buy a new supply each time I go on a journey and need a beverage cooler. It's not about the paltry cost, it's all about the hassle.
You're totally right about moisture resistance too: it is useless when used as a beverage cooler. Here I'm afraid happened the same event previously described. With all drafts opened and moisture issues discussed on the other thread I must have done some sort of typo (or I simply was tired and sleepy). Sorry!!!
Anyway, I'm afraid that my concerns have very little importance considering how much is difficult to find such custom size, unless I'm willing pay handsomely a specialized company plus dedicated shipping costs with the risks to find out that they get broken. If it was something I could add to an existing AE order I could give it a try, otherwise it doesn't worth.
Unless someone can suggest me an existing product, I'm afraid I will have to fallback into EPDM or pneumatic seals. Preventing air entrance is what I need and they are both excellent airtight sealers.
I’m questioning whether to spend any more time on this thread unless you demonstrate an actual effort to understand what people are saying and a willingness to accept it, because the vibe I’m getting is that you’re one of these people who simply want validation of your own ideas (whether they’re correct or not), and basically tune out anything that doesn’t agree, and find completely irrelevant sources to support your misunderstandings of things. You’re seeing what we say and even responding to it, but it isn’t penetrating.
I’ll also make clear that I think DIY ice-based air conditioning is a fundamentally poor type of air conditioning, which only makes sense in certain extremely narrow circumstances. (Like off-grid use, where you might “store” solar energy this way.) Using one in a normal house is just silly. I think you’re making a ton of effort for something that will not give a particularly good result.
A household freezer has only a small fraction the cooling power of even a small compressor-based air conditioner. The amount of ice needed to effectively cool a room is enormous: approximately 3kg of 0°C ice per square meter of floor area per 24h. So even a tiny 10 square meter bedroom would require 30kg of ice per day. That is far, far beyond what a standard home freezer compartment in a fridge can produce. (A large standalone home freezer can do about 25kg/day.)
(Yes, ice is normally kept substantially colder than 0°C, but energetically, that’s more or less irrelevant, as the huge amount of energy needed for the phase change to/from 0°C water <-> 0°C ice far exceeds the energy needed for the e.g. -20°C ice <-> 0°C ice temperature change.)
Of course my friend and I started this process by recognizing all my faults and unwanted mistakes, some of them generated by the very confusing scenario I had to face. And I ask you and the other people to accept my apologies for the very long thread it has become this due the numerous off-topic. It should have been marked as solved with just a very small amount of messages, but many people started to comment about the design of my cooler instead of the argument for which this thread has been opened and I have been forced to respond. I'm not the kind of person who ignore messages although such behaviour would have been more appropriate.
You have for sure noticed that each time I talk about my ideas, I often use terms like "may be", "not sure", "from what I have understood..." etc with the main purpose to make people aware that my idea can be wrong.
It's not that I want validation of my own ideas even if they are not correct, but I'm specifically looking for people that demonstrate the reasons why they aren't. However, when I have valid arguments against such reasons, I expose them whether interlocutor appreciate or not. I have given a concrete example with the video above. Vice versa, when such reasons are valid and I have no arguments I just close and mark my idea with something like "I need to revise my idea and make it free from the issues people mentioned!".
Please, forget about the sources I found to validate my arguments (ex: the google cork faq). This is not my default behaviour when I check sources and was not even tendentious. It was plain superficiality and too much trust in google when the argument has very low importance combined with the messy scenario I was facing.
When you talk about solar energy, do you refer to the possibility to power the ice-cooler through a solar panel rather than a battery or a regular AC socket? I feel like you're talking about something completely different.
I was aware on the difficulty to cool a room and I started the project with the awareness that cooling a restricted area (it's not the same, but call it "pushing some fresh air against an object", if you prefer) was the maximum I could achieve which it is perfectly fine for me. However you know how human kind are, they always try to achieve what seems to be impossible (and sometime, someone, succeeds).
I'm probably misunderstanding your numbers, but is 3 kg the equivalent of three 1000ml ice pack bags stored at 0C (at least this is what the conversion tools say) ? If such 3 bags are enough to keep cool one square meter for 24 hours it doesn't sound bad. I'll use gel packs and although I don't have them yet available to verify, I would say that if I give the bags the correct shape I should have the space to freeze, more or less, around 10 bags (food included).
I have no idea on the time needed to freeze such packs, but labels say around 8 hours. If this is true and I'm not misunderstanding your numbers, it should be 30 kg per 24H.
In theory the other big freezer I previously talked about should be able to provide enough ice for a whole room, but what about bills if I have the crazy idea to power it on?
I'm probably missing some other not negligible detail. On the other thread they talked about a temperature drop of 5C. So, with a temperature of 32C, with such quantities I can go down to 27C. If I accept such temp it's better for me. If I want to go to 22C, then I will need to double. Hope I'm wrong!
Thanks for the explanation about the heat exchange. There are still some unclear details, but I think I got what matter.
Regarding the current thread, in particular the ice chest sealers, I really don't want to abuse your time. Everything is well explained.
If you want to comment about the rest (and is not mandatory), it would be better on the other thread because here would be off-topic.
Thanks again
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
