The question was formed recently due to a conversation with a fellow tea-drinker. Does tea in a large cup cool off quicker – or slower – than in a small cup? I thought previously that the greater area in the larger teacup would cause a quicker cool-off than the small area of a smaller teacup. However, the volume is also larger, so how does that effect the cool-off?

One possible alternative is to consider the growth of area versus volume. Since area grows by O(n^2), but volume grows by O(n^3), it might seem that the larger the container, the more energy that needs to irradiate through a smaller area. In general, this theory holds with for instance animals – mice needs to eat much more often than elephants, because they have a much larger skin surface compared to their volume. An elephant the size of a mouse would die – it would never be able to feed itself quickly enough the replace the heat loss through the skin.

So, the following experiment was set up. Hot water at a starting temperature of 96 C was poured into different containers:

• Cup A – a small, paper cup for holding “Glögg”. Diameter 6cm, 1x water content.
• Cup B – a large McDonalds coffee mug (official McD size: “medium”). Diameter 9cm, 2x water content.
• Cup C – a medium-size ceramic coffee mug. Diameter 8cm, 1.3x water content.
• Cup D – a large (=tall) glass. Diameter 7cm, 2x water content.

Sample data was collected over 15 minutes using a steak thermometer. (Not the world’s most precise, mind you.)

The results are as follows (time is in UTC):

Surprisingly, the container that held its best was the McDonalds coffee mug. The water in the McDonalds mug was consistently hotter than in the others.

Not surprisingly, the small paper Glögg cup was a total failure – dropping down below the measurable 55 degrees Celsius on the steak thermometer, and had to be estimated to about 52.

Unfortunately, it seems that the data collected so far fails to support any conclusive theory. It seems to be largely dependent on the materials of the container, as well as “other factors”, not determined by this study.

Am I the only person in the world who thinks that McDonalds is cozy?

I like McDonalds.

Whenever I say that, people look at me funny. Both in Sweden and the United States. For Swedes, McDonalds represents the arch-enemy (pun intended) of Swedish culture; invading our poor nation with globalistic, imperialist capitalism; fattening our children; destroying household dinners; and carpeting the country with cheap and unhealthy fast food. To Americans, McDonalds represents the lowest common denominator of fast food, neither upscale nor fancy; the place you go where there’s nowhere else to go.

So why do I like it? Is it because I know the manager of the two Mc restaurants in town? Because many of my friends have at one point or other worked there? Because I’ve been there so often (purchasing coffee!) that the staff almost knows me by name now?

I fell in love with McDonalds way back in 1994, during a trip down to Roumania with the bible school I attended back then. We were just passing through Hungary, and stopped at the familiar golden arches just past the border checkpoint. A bit of familiarity on the road; and then we drove on down to Budapest. And it was there that we discovered that one of the ladies with us had forgotten her purse, complete with visas, passport, money and everything. Without this purse it would be impossible to get into Roumania. And with everything we suspected about this former East Bloc nation, the purse would be gone since long by now. Catastrophic failure loomed on the horizon, not to mention endless agony and waiting at the Swedish embassy.

Out of desperation, we stopped at a McDonalds in Budapest. It turned out it was managed by an American who had moved there, who sympathised with us and our missions trip, and not only did we get to spend time there, eating good food, using the facilities to wash up and look nice again; but the manager also called up to the restaurant in North Hungary. They had found the purse, with everything intact in it! So at McDonalds expense, they put it in a taxi and drove over 300 kilometers down to Budapest and handed it off to us. Then smiled, waved us off and wished us good luck.

It’s things like that, that imprints into your soul. Ever since then, McDonalds represents a welcome sign on the road, a bit of home. A Big Mac is a Big Mac, wherever in the world you go. And to me, it feels like wherever I go, there’s always a friendly smile behind the counter, waiting for me.

You can’t beat that.

McDonalds has shipped a new McFlurry with the taste “Strawberry Surprise”. I had a recent opportunity to try one out and the results… well, it could be better, and it could be worse.

Firstly, on the plus side: The McFlurry Strawberry Surprise is a McFlurry. This means that it derives a lot of its fame from the preceding line of excellent tastes. It is a blend of strawberries, chocolate and ice-cream in a small, comfortable package, and that is never wrong.

However, the overall impression of it is not immediately appealing: It is messy. Unbelievably messy. The chocolate and the strawberries are blended together, not lightly, but so to the extent that it is downright sloppy. The strawberries are frozen and once in the mix start to melt, and that makes it even sloppier. Furthermore, the chocolate and strawberries compete with each other, not complementing each other as you would expect. The result is less surprising and more bewildering.

After some consideration, I’m not sure whether to give it 2 or 3 points out of 5 possible. It sort of leans on a 2+ or 3-, trying to be good but not quite reaching there.

In the end, the name McFlurry saves it. It gets 3 out of 5 points, but I’ll be watching it for improvement.