gravitas_shortage t1_irf0gpk wrote on October 7, 2022 at 3:55 PM

Reply to comment by pvtdirtpusher in Stanley Legendary 1,9 l, water lukewarm after less than 30 hours by Loobeensky

Worth a test. My hunch was that unless the bottle is left uncapped for extended amount of time, it should not fall that quick, but then the smaller model has only half the expected hotness time, so maybe thermal mass is that important for a thermos bottle and I'm just capping my ignorance with more ignorance and should withdraw from this thread and perhaps civilisation altogether.

Loobeensky OP t1_irf1gua wrote on October 7, 2022 at 4:02 PM

Half the expected hotness time? I splurge to have the most effective thermos and that's what I get? What a disappointment.

(I'd be more than satisfied with 28–30h of properly hot water though.)

Now I wonder if their "indestructible" model performs better.

The expected temperature retention goes up with the size of the bottle, so I had big plans for this boi.

gravitas_shortage t1_irf25st wrote on October 7, 2022 at 4:07 PM

It can go two ways:

- Thermal mass is a major factor.

- The ratio of surface area to volume in a big bottle is much smaller, so the heat loss is much smaller.

Both ways can be true and act in opposite directions.

We need thermal measurements over time and volume, OP. For Science.

gravitas_shortage t1_irf6hhz wrote on October 7, 2022 at 4:39 PM

Also, I'm glad to report that I just checked, and it is not the case that there is a point of emptiness at which the larger bottle gets a smaller volume-to-area ratio than the smaller one. So, no need to get a smaller bottle depending on your expected consumption in order to preserve the heat. Whew.