Yes. And you had a vessel that will change temperatures more slowly as
it absorbed the heat from the liquid. Styrofoam cups like the ones MD
uses are designed to not absorb heat rather to contain the heat.
I think the problem here is that your sensor "spot" focused on the water
from the faucet and or coffee maker was in a disrupted stream. I I
don't think that the spot focus was always hitting water rather an
airreated water air mix and you were probably getting some type of average.
Yes, the surface temp is not going to be cooler or hotter than other
points. However the surface whether it be the bottom or top is where
the transference of heat is going to take place which ever direction it
is transferring in. In this case the transference of the heat is from
the liquid top surface to the air which will have a cooling effect.
Below the surface the temperature is ever changing and more so when
exposed to different temp surfaces.
The surface reading, where the heat is escaping to a much cooler
atmosphere, is going to be cooler.
Did you look at my probe readings??? ;~)
I got much closer to predicted/expected temp readings using the probe
away from the outer surface.
Please don't ... bad enough getting our asses whipped with estrogen
fueled dominoes, AND having to run scientific experiments on top of
ITMT, just enjoying the arguing while waiting for that inevitable ass
I was thinking to my self earlier, but was was interrupted by a convoy
of 18 wheelers headed south from here, I wonder how much Karl was
getting done on the cabinets this after noon while yielding his mighty
sword at the keyboard?
Kim got home 30 minutes ago and needed help bringing in groceries. I
opened the trunk of her car and the mystery of where the trucks were
headed was solved. Kroger needed to be restocked.
Yup, and so am I apparently. I guess the biggest fault here wasn't
that McDonalds was serving hot coffee, but the fact that they didn't
accede to here original claims for compensation.
Guess they were afraid of the torrent of new claims that would follow.
So, either way, they were going to have to pay. That means, that
you're right, there coffee was too hot. Not INHO that it was
undrinkable, but that it's hotness left them open for being sued. :)
Let me see...
1. McDonalds wants their coffee to be really, REALLY hot. Undrinkably hot.
2. They serve it in a squishy styrofoam cup.
3. They put a lid on that cup (maybe just for take out, don't know, I don't
go to McDonalds)
4. In order to drink the undrinkably hot coffee, one has to remove the top.
Which is what she was trying to do.
McDonalds knows all about #1 - #3 or - if they don't - they are incredibly
stupid. Not to hard to foretell what happened to her. It seems to me that
McD just doesn't give a rat's ass which is one reason I don't go there (the
main reason is that their burgers suck, ditto BurgerKing).
Define undrinkably hot. Would you serve a drink to a five year old at
the same temperature that you might drink it?
Do you often place hot liquids served in squishy styrofoam cup between
your legs to open them?
This is not directed at you. I avoid both establishment too, not
because of the temperature of their products but because the products
them selves long term are more harmful than any thing else.
Most wood working tool manufacturers turned down the opportunity to sell
a safer saw and continue to sell saws that are more dangerous to operate
than other brands. Do they not give a rat's ass about our safety should
we attempt to use them in an unsafe manner? ;~)
There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.
So does that mean that we don't want the government to do something to
protect us to begin with, SawStop, and that we would rather sue later if
we are harmed doing something that we should not have been doing in the
first place, opening hot coffee between our legs?
Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.
No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.
Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.
When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.
As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.
End of story...
I know, tomato, tomaato.... The government was still involved in
allowing the proceedings.
Sorry, I should have said that the government run court room oversaw
the proceedings brought to it and a government appointed judge guided
those proceedings according to law.
Was the court room a private building or a public government building?
Was the judge that overruled some of the damages and over saw the
proceedings according to law hired by the attorneys or appointed by a
I guess the point I am trying to make here is that many sided with the
lady that did not insure against spilling coffee on herself and most of
those have admitted that they don't care for McDonald's and or
McDonald's doesn't give a rat's ass about the consumers safety.
On a similar point a lot of people like Ryobi, many here promote their
good experiences with the product. I used to have a great AP-10 Ryobi
planer. When the flooring guy cut his digit off because he was not
careful, the fact that he won the suite against Ryobi for his own
carelessness was about the most ridiculous thing any of us had heard of.
Now if the same guy had overridden the safety stop and done the same
with the SawStop i think many here may have sided with the idiot because
of the past tactics used by SawStop to bring their product to market.
Yes you do, But where do you draw the line? Should restraints risk
loosing 99.990% of their customers to protect against the possibility of
the other .001% harming themselves?
If I burned my self by spilling coffee made in my correctly operating
coffee maker, sued the manufacturer, and won, would you expect for that
manufacturer to recall your coffee maker and readjust it so that it no
longer heated water hotter than a 130 degrees, which will cause 3rd
degree burns, instead of the 187~192 degrees that it operates at now?
Right. She was awarded $200K damages, $2.7 mil punitive, reduced by the
judge to $160K and $480K respectively. McD made out like a bandit, only
$640K instead of $2.9 mil. What they actually paid seems to be a secret but
I'm betting it was way more than the $20K she wanted originally. Can you
say, "Penny wise and pound foolish"? :)
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam* at comcast dot net>
wrote in message
Maybe so but the best coffee I ever had in my life was at the Cafe de la
parroquia in Veracruz, Mexico. Their coffee was made with steam - 212 +
heat of conversion - on an Italian machine dating from 1870.
The home made coffee I prefer is made on a French press by pouring boiling
water over the grounds.
Right. Pour in the water, let it steep a moment or two, push the strainer
down, pour into a room temperature cup. It would still be to hot for you
and I if it were black but I add cold milk and that gets it OK. Used to
drink coffee with just sugar but after I got hooked on lecheros - strong
coffee and hot milk - in Mexico I started making coffee about double
strength and adding milk.
A neighbor from Brazil makes extra strong, freshly ground coffee and
I've had plenty of coffee in a couple of trips around the globe and
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.