Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 8 Next »

Test One, 14/9/08

Setup
The refrigeration team constructed two zeer pots on September 14, 2008. A large and small pot was created with ceramics from Home Depot; there were concerns that the pots may not have been porous enough in their walls. The bottoms, on the other hand, had quarter-sized holes in them for water drainage. The team did their best to seal the holes with painters tape and duct tape. Some water was still leaking as the 14-hour temperature testing began. The tests were performed in the Teer basement labs overnight. These labs are kept fairly cool so the team decided to shine two 100W, incandescent, reflector-equipped lamps on them through the testing to encourage evaporation. 20mL of water were placed in each pot and their temperature measured every five minutes via a LoggerPro device. A control water sample of ~200mL was placed under the lamps as well as a probe to measure the air temperature.

Preliminary Results
At hour four, it was observed that water leaking from the large pot had soaked the dangling t-shirt covering completely. There were also yellowish rings forming above the sand on each pot; possible proof of some evaporation.

Data
Just after shaking off the screensaver the morning after data-collection, the laptop taking the temperature data went to a blue screen. The attached LoggerPro file, zeer_test1.cmbl, shows the initial data point (which was autosaved) and the final temperature data, roughly 17 hours after the test began. The actual collected data can be visualized with an asymptotic rise in temperature over a four hour period from the initial to the final data point (the data was briefly seen before the computer crashed).

time (hr)

T1 (deg C)

T2

T3

T4

0

25.6

22.3

23.1

23.0

17.8

27.0

28.0

30.1

27.1

(warning) need info from Toni as to which Ti belongs to which probe and pot dimensions

Conclusions
The pots in test one showed no cooling effect. T1 seemed to be somewhat insulated from the heating effects but none of the probes showed a drop in temperatures. In all likelihood, this is due to the loss of water through the bottom of the pot. Incidentally, the leaking water didn't really do much for cooling the pot. Sand in both pots was dry to the touch. By the test's end, the leaking water was gone and the cloth coverings had dried. It was qualitatively observed to be somewhat warm in the large pot, difficult to tell in the small one.

Improvements

  • employ clay as a hole-plugger
  • attempt to keep the recorded data...maybe set up an autosave routine?
  • use a covered pot with no water or no sand as control

Test two, 21/9/08

Setup
This run was very similar to the first trial; plumber's putty was used to plug the hole in the bottom. This still may not have formed a good seal, however, as the putty did not adhere very well to the clay. The cloth coverings were also cut to cover the hole but not the ring of sand.

Results
See the attachments tab for the LoggerPro file of the data. After about two hours, the pots had reached roughly equilibrated to the ambient temperature. The odd curves in the large zeer pot's trace are due to the temperature probe falling over, being readjusted, and then falling again down again.

Further Work

  • Toni's contacted an MIT group studying the zeer pot design; they were unable to bring the pot below 60degF (15degC).
  • There still may be leaking problems. We could attempt to better seal the bottom by actually using clay or by making our own pots.
  • Nothing in our research indicates that this design can take an object to below 10degC so the group will likely move on to other designs like the insulated box.


  • No labels