Is the faster temp change toward the bottom a problem with the probe reading correctly? Perhaps that would be to less boiling and the ln2 comes in contact with the pot? Interesting results. Results on the same graph would be easier to tell, but there is less difference than I would have thought. Maybe you need a rocket base, gemini and a kv2 to try.
Faster temp change toward the bottom is real... For instance this is most apparent in test 2 and test 6 with the graphs above. This is the crazy boil point, which you can readily hear and see. The LN2 boils so violently at those points it is hard to pour LN2 into the pot because there is so much upward pressure from gas/smoke rushing out the top - the stream that you are pouring directly into the pot wants to spray off to the sides. I don't know the scientific name for this, however its what happens with the copper around -130C to -160C, depending on how frosted the inside of the pot is. When it hits that point, temp is pulled down almost immediately to the maximum cold point the pot can hit. The excel data is really interesting here because I can look at the actual rate of temperature change.
Cool data to see! It seems that looking at test 2, the fusion is a faster pot (prior to icing). But then test 3 asked the F1 handily beatng out the fusion. In the test for temperature stability and then the slam, the F1 really loves up to it's name for consistency.
Test 2 definitely made the Fusion look faster with no load, I agree.
Test 3 I have some trouble with my confidence in the data - moisture and frosting effects can heavily impact this sort of test, so I need to repeat the results to verify if they are real, or if there was a problem with how I reproduced the test. They could be real and I'm keeping an open mind to whatever the data says; at the same time, I'm learning by being able to watch temps exclusively as opposed to benching while managing temps and there are some things about how the pots behave under cold which seem inconsistent (mostly it seems due to variance in moisture and internal frosting).
In test 4, both pots got down to around 191C when full without load. However the F1EE seemed to hold load temps better, warming up to -179C. The Fusion warmed up to -173C.
In test 5, the data came out more similar than I expected. Subjectively, the F1EE was easier to hold a temperature with however the Fusion was manageable too - pouring styles were different tho. Harder pours for the fusion to keep it hovering around that point, more frequent baby pours for the F1EE - both pots required a lot of attention to keep it that close. But I think the data reflects that keeping temps within <10C variance is manageable on either pot... However it would be more difficult to do that with changing loads, and careful pouring would be needed to avoid crashes and coldbugs on either when actually benching.
By the way, test 1 was the same for both. The F1 looks shaky at ambient, but that was .1C variance and the software doesn't round when it graphs so it only looks like a 1C difference.
