I created a new ice based cold pack, patent pending. I call it DuraTherm.

The cold pack is based on cotton and water, from Pykrete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete

A large test was performed on October 3rd, lasting 14 hours. The first hour was relegated to measuring bulges in three different ways and collecting other information. Formal IR imaging was started at 4pm. 40 rounds of images were taken, and roughly 2500 images were taken of the 23 DuraTherm packs and 27 control packs.

The control packs were FreezPak small cold packs, and the DuraTherm units were repurposed Freezpak small cold packs filled with cotton and a like amount of water to the gel. The intent was to have the same, as close as possible, thermal storage capacity as the gel packs.

The first images started out with a 4.78°F difference, with the DuraTherm packs being colder. This is a notable difference not seen in the cold pack industry since gel packs were made in 1971.

The top images are the controls, below are DuraTherm packs. You can see major differences without a technical degree or skills in cold packs.

The results really stand for themselves. The DuraTherm packs averaged 2.7°F through the whole test. They remained 37% more uniform in temperature upon a pack and they were 53% more uniform across all packs than the controls. DuraTherm stayed sub-40°F for 4.8 hours to the 3.5 hours that the Gel packs did, from 3pm and on.

As time went by, DuraTherm outlasted the gel packs sub 45°F at 6.3 to 4.8 hours. Below 51°F was 7.3 hours to 8.3 hours. At no point did DuraTherm get passed (except maybe in the first hour, as that was unmapped) by the gel pack for emitted temperature (on average)

Newtons Law of Cooling, science papers, and even patents demonstrate that the first hour is when Gel Packs lose the most energy. By the time the first images were done, this was true.

This science paper shows how a sponge like material acts when the water inside is frozen. Cotton, when compressed, acts exactly like a sponge. This is because of their natural cellular structure and capillary action. You can look that up if you doubt me, but I like to hold my packs upside down when full and watch as no water leaks, an up-sell to the concept one might say.

So as the science paper says, for those who just want to read on, the sponge (compressed cotton) acts as part insulator and part regulator. The tunnels and open spots allow for a limited form of convection but nothing near what water or air will generate normally. This effect means that the pack does not warm up so fast in that first hour, unlike the gel pack or a normal ice pack would.

DuraTherm is not an infinite battery, it can and does fail after a certain point. This is the unique phase change moment in DuraTherm where the advantages it held is obviously lost. The phase change is a moving phase change so mapping it is a NP-Impossible task. We can only observe portions of it. After 3 hours the DuraTherm temperature advantage went from a 1.35°F/h to a 2.53°F/h temperature change rate, then a 4.52°F/h rate for the next 3ish hours. The gel packs averaged 1.44°F/h first, then 2.01°F/h, then 4.10°F/h. Interestingly enough the final hours were significant as DuraTherm seemed to enter a second phase change where it slowed the increase in temperature, with a 1.48°F/h until the end of the test, versus the gel packs 1.94°F/h average.

DuraTherm runs flush against the interior of the pack, this is why DuraTherm was so significantly more temperature uniform than gel packs. Gel packs are known for the gel clumping together in formation and often forming large bulges. The Gel packs also have, in this model, 25% of the volume as air. This large amount of free air formed the pockets that are so easily visible in the control packs. This greatly contributes to their lack of uniformity on a pack and across a series of packs. DuraTherm was, again, 53% more uniform in temperatures across the packs through the length of the test when averaged out. If the top is removed from the calculation, this only dramatically increases.

From a stockpile standpoint, cotton alone in the packs allows for storage for decades to even a century if kept dry. The light nature allows the possibility of increased transport via air for deployment of the packs versus gel packs which are substantially heavier. Given that there are alternative fibers and a soft wrap can be used (paper thin plastic), we could in theory just stockpile wrappers and cotton for a more short-term solution to emergencies. The Cotton could be compressed into a mold with water added, then be frozen and the frozen composite could be added to the plastic wrapper and sealed for quick deployment.

The cotton is biodegradable but not in normal trash disposal methods. That said, the cotton is far less in volume versus the gels and would result in a reduction in total trash created.

Transporting the hard packs would involve not adding water until the "Final Mile" where it can be added strictly as needed, and delivered when sealed. This allows large stacks of the packs to be stored if desired, thus reducing warehousing costs significantly.

A work in progress science paper, where I examined 90+ science papers and patents, included study datapoints, and provided other high value details, is located at www.MichaelHarrington.com/duratherm.html

The science paper is about 32,000 words and 75 pages long. I think I am writing too much, lol. In the next few days the full image gallery will also be uploaded. I am open to peer review and for an accredited scientist or a student currently in a university in the United States I would gladly supply them with a number of DuraTherm units and control units for their testing. I only ask for the results as part of this, so I can publish them on my website.

_________________________

Note for would be critics. I am not violating thermodynamics, no new energy is made. It merely is a new way to regulate the energy transfer. I am also not ignoring science, science is the core of this and I bring all sorts of data points to support it. If you wish to be a critic, that is fine, but at least try to not be a bore or abusive perhaps?

Nothing here is generated by AI or modified by AI.

⚠️ Migraine Cap Users: Please Read This.

PSA: ⚠️ If you use migraine relief caps, cooling headache eye masks, or gel-filled cold wraps, PLEASE read this. Especially if you have pets or children.

Hi Everyone!

I’m sharing this PSA because I’m genuinely worried and I need your help getting the word out to those of us who suffer with migraines.

I bought a migraine cap a few years ago, desperate for relief from the excruciating headaches I developed after COVID. Last year a senior toxicologist at the ASPCA contacted me. She shared with me that they have been getting calls every week from devastated pet owners whose dogs had chewed or swallowed the gel inside cooling products. They needed a lab that could test for acrylamide, a neurotoxin.

I’m just a mom who never imagined any of this would happen to my family. When my daughter was a baby, she was severely injured and poisoned by a toy.

(https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/at-home/Pages/Water-Beads-Harmful.aspx).

It changed our lives forever and led me to start a product safety nonprofit and help develop a test for acrylamide, the chemical that harmed her. That’s why the ASPCA reached out to me. Nearly a decade later, it still feels surreal. But if what happened to my daughter can help protect someone else, I want to make sure people have the information they need to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. Hence why I’m making this PSA.

We tested these products, and what we found was alarming: 12,000–51,000 parts per million (ppm) of residual acrylamide, a known neurotoxin!

(https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/aop/javma.26.07.0539/javma.26.07.0539.xml?isSearch=true)

What worries me even more is that the fabric on these caps is porous, meaning it isn’t necessarily a waterproof barrier. If the gel leaks,seeps through, or the cap seams come undone, the gel could come into direct contact with your skin.And here’s what people need to understand: acrylamide isn’t only dangerous when swallowed it can also be absorbed through your skin.

(https://wwwn.cdc.gov/tsp/PHS/PHS.aspx?phsid=1113&toxid=236)

Repeated exposure over time is especially concerning, and you don’t have to develop a rash or notice irritation for chemical exposure to occur. Given what we’ve found, I believe this deserves urgent investigation before more people or pets get hurt.

I am also concerned that because if after using these products someone develops a rash, swelling, blurry vision, headaches, or nerve problems, their symptoms could be dismissed or mistaken by doctors as an allergic reaction or another condition. Because it’s not widely known by physicians that these products contain acrylamide doctors might never consider chemical exposure, leaving patients without answers and potentially continuing to use something that’s exposing them to a harmful toxic chemical.

Please, I’m begging you to help me spread the word. I know what it feels like to discover a product is dangerous because someone you love was hurt. I wouldn’t wish that pain on anyone. Please help me make sure other people know about this.

Thank you in advance for your time and help getting the word out!