Finnnicus
Hazard to Others
Posts: 342
Registered: 22-3-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Why Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold—Physicists Solve the Mpemba Effect
I found this article on reddit.
https://www.medium.com/editors-picks/d8a2f611e853
Hopefully this isn't old news. Anyway, just thought it would be interesting!
Source for the article:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1310.6514
|
|
|
maxpayne
Hazard to Self
Posts: 78
Registered: 15-11-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Is this effect "active" only when freezing? Any research done with graphs to describe the speed of the effect? Is there an equilibrium points (two
starting different temperature points that change to one temperature point of water while cooling at the same speed)?
How does salts dissolved in water affect this effect? Is there any compound that do change the effect? etc, etc...
Trillions of serious questions must first be answered before any conclusion, math and bonding want help here or convince anyone. Experiments first!
Edit: I wish Viktor Schauberger who is known as water wizard is alive at this time. He would certainly give us some good directions.
[Edited on 31-10-2013 by maxpayne]
Man has two worst enemies: Mosquitoes & capitalists; both are deadly parasites.
|
|
|
Varmint
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 30-5-2013
Location: Near Atlanta, GA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
We did this experiment in HS chemistry class.
At the time the mantra was (and still is) that the rate of change is greater due to radiation from the wamer water, but we were puzzled (justifiably)
by the apparent slighly quicker transition to freezing.
Then the teacher encouraged us to weigh the products.
In each group (maybe 10 groups of 3 students?) we found the ice that started from the hot water was significantly less mass than that which started
from cold. I'm sorry but I don't recall the actual values or percentages right now, but the word significant should suffice.
We were expecting heat loss of course, and were satisfied that the radiation and convection justified the rate of change arguement, we just failed to
account for the significant change in mass being responsible for the "unusual" result.
I call BS on these guys, they failed to mention the key parameter, mass.
DAS
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It is widely considered proper to have read a paper in question before criticizing it. It's not like it's hard to do so; PDF copy of the
paper is on the arxiv.org link in the original post.
See page 2 and the references in the end
note from which the graphs are drawn. Evaporation as a possible
explanation is on page 3.
Come on, people.
It's not like this paper is the last word on the subject. It's incremental progress in the field. They present a theoretical model that provide an
account of a proposed process that matches known observations in a way that previous models did not. There will have to be further research to test
this model against other conditions.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 8027
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
Perform a simple experiment. Using a volumetric flask, measure 100 ml of water and transfer this to a 125 ml glass bottle. Cap the bottle. Repeat this
with another bottle of the same type, using the same source of water. Now you have two bottles, filled with water (and quite some air above it, this
is important, because othterwise the bottles may crack in the experiment). Both bottles are filled with water of the same source and same temperature.
So, you can state that within accuracy of the volumetric flask they contain the same amount of water.
Now put one bottle in a fridge with a temperature of 5 C or so. Put the other in a warm place (e.g. on top of a hot radiator at 70 C or so or in an
oven set at 70 C). Next, put both bottles in a freezer with a window in its door, so that you can watch the bottles. Which one freezes first? Maybe an
automatic setup, using a camera, which takes a picture with timestamps every 15 seconds or so, can be deployed.
Repeat the experiment, using the same bottles, but now reverse which bottle is made hot and which bottle is made cold. In this way the influence of
the different bottles is eliminated as well.
Using capped bottles assures that no water is lost through evaporation. I personally expect that the bottle with cold water freezes first.
[Edited on 31-10-13 by woelen]
|
|
|
bfesser
Resident Wikipedian
Posts: 2114
Registered: 29-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Volumetric flasks are calibrated to contain, not to deliver. Adhesion of droplets of water to the surface may be significant, particularly if the
flask isn't properly cleaned.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by woelen  | | Next, put both bottles in a freezer with a window in its door, so that you can watch the bottles. Which one freezes first? Maybe an automatic setup,
using a camera, which takes a picture with timestamps every 15 seconds or so, can be deployed. |
The
experimental data used an electronic temperature probe to measure the temperature more-or-less continuously. This data is important, because it shows
that (under certain circumstances I don't know how to characterize) the time constants for the cooling process differ; that's what the paper in the OP
purports to explain.
But really, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. I haven't read all the literature, but I have to guess that there's been more than zero work on
seeing a reproducible effect.
|
|
|
Varmint
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 30-5-2013
Location: Near Atlanta, GA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Watson:
Yes, I notice the single word dismissive use of evaporation, without any research showing their loss in mass due to evap.
In other words, they dismissed the key element. This is how "global warming scientists" are created.
DAS
|
|
|
Pulverulescent
National Hazard
Posts: 793
Registered: 31-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Torn between two monikers ─ "hissingnoise" and the present incarnation!
|
|
| Quote: | | This is how "global warming scientists" are created. |
Geeez! No fucking shit, Sherlock?
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"
A Einstein
|
|
|
Hexavalent
International Hazard
Posts: 1564
Registered: 29-12-2011
Location: Wales, UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pericyclic
|
|
Steady on, Pulverulescent.
As a modification to Woelen's experiment, because it may be difficult to determine exactly when the water samples have frozen entirely, one could
substitute the bottles for plastic graduated cylinders, calculate the expected volume change of the water between the two states, and monitor the time
taken for the water samples to reach the calculated solid volume when sat in a freezer, for example. I used this technique for a school project a
while ago, and it worked very well, within the accuracy of the graduated cylinder.
"Success is going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
Perhaps the Mpemba effect (if true) can be explained by simple crystallisation kinetics theory. For example, crystal seeding has a higher activation
energy than crystal growth, so by freezing warmer water, you create more ice crystal seeds than the case for cold water.
Or put backwards, cold water struggles to form ice crystal seeds, some eventually do and so it freezes over from there, but seed formation may be rate
limiting on an overall ice formation rate.
Still not convinced? Okay ask yourself, this effect is due to either kinetic effect or a thermodynamic reason, the latter is clearly not possible, so
that leaves only a kinetic effect.
The logical choice is therefore to turn to crystal growth kinetic theory and that gives a far more simple and plausible answer than this paper, simply
by applying Occam's razor on the two explanations.
The interesting thing about this, if true, is that it would mean that ice crystal seeds can form at significantly higher temperatures than ice itself.
But clearly millions of microscopic ice crystals don't go floating around in hot water or they would have been seen. However, the seed for ice in this
sense does not need to be a solid ice phase per say.
Water is special because of its strong hydrogen bonding and this dominates much of it's chemistry (including crystallisation physical chemistry too).
So perhaps these ice seeds are not micro solid particles, but simply regions where higher order of hydrogen bonding exists than would otherwise occur
in equilibrated fully random hydrogen bonded water.
These could be the basis of ice crystal seeds that are still 'fluidic', but of lower entropy than the bulk.
[Edited on 31-10-2013 by deltaH]
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1705
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
What if you had two beakers each with the same amount of water and heat energy, one with all the water stirred and the other with the equivalent
amount of heat but that it was set up to contain a hot layer of water on the surface? That is, very carefully add hot water so as not to mix the two
temperatures in the one beaker as much as possible. I noticed the other day an engine I ran partially submerged in a small barrel heated the water
enough to burn my hand yet just below this top layer the water was quite cool.
Would a higher heat gradient transfer/lose heat relatively faster, slower, or the same as the fully mixed beaker of heated water? Would they have the
same heat loss curve? If you wanted, a thin glass plate could be placed on the surface to inhibit evaporation.
This experiment might also introduce another factor, the surface area at the top region of the vessel, say if a Erlenmeyer flask were used.
[Edited on 31-10-2013 by Morgan]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Varmint | | Yes, I notice the single word dismissive use of evaporation, without any research showing their loss in mass due to evap. |
That's because it's in one of the references at the end of the paper.
|
|
|
maxpayne
Hazard to Self
Posts: 78
Registered: 15-11-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Since this topic is about water, please allow me to point into some directions that maybe can help someone to resolve the question of the supposed
Mpemba effect (I'm somewhat sure it is true).
First let me start with before mentioned Viktor Schauberger and his book The Water Wizard. This book is really great, it gives you strange but incredible informations you want find elsewhere. Highly recommended! Here is
some text from the book:
"Another of its life-giving properties is its high specific heat - lowest at +37.5°C (+99.5°F). The term "specific heat"
refers to the capacity and rapidity of a body to absorb or release heat. With a relatively small input of heat fluids with a high specific heat warm
up less rapidly than those with a lower specific heat. How strange then, and how remarkable, that the lowest specific heat of this "inorganic"
substance - water - lies but 0.5°C (0.9°F) above the normal +37°C (+98.6°F) blood temperature of the most highly evolved of Nature's creatures -
human beings. This property of water to resist rapid thermal change enables us, with blood composed of 80% water,to survive under large variations of
temperature. Pure accident so we are told, or is it by clever, symbiotic design?!"
"The No. 1 enemy of water is excess heat or over-exposure to the Sun's rays. It is a well-known fact that oxygen is
present in all processes of organic growth and decay. Whether its energies are harnessed for either one or the other is to a very great extent, if not
wholly, dependent on the temperature of the water as itself or in the form of blood or sap. As long as the water-temperature is below +9°C
(+48.2°F), its oxygen content remains passive.Under such conditions the oxygen assists in the building up of beneficial,high-grade micro-organisms
and other organic life. However, if the water temperature rises above this level, then the oxygen becomes increasingly active and aggressive. This
aggressiveness increases as the temperature rises, promoting the propagation of pathogenic bacteria, which, when drunk with the water, infest the
organism of the drinker."
Also you may want to check:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItsSYwTSnTY (Viktor Schauberger - Comprehend and Copy Nature)
There are other documentaries on YouTube about water memory, etc.. You'll find it if you get interested.
Someone might think that I'm promoting pseudoscience, but I merely want to give insight about water. It is not that this is an attack on current
scientific dogmas or whatsoever, all I want is to share this for those interested.
Man has two worst enemies: Mosquitoes & capitalists; both are deadly parasites.
|
|
|
deltaH
Dangerous source of unreferenced speculation
Posts: 1663
Registered: 30-9-2013
Location: South Africa
Member Is Offline
Mood: Heavily protonated
|
|
Hiya maxpayne, the first paragraph, Schauberger states a fact about the minimum heat capacity of water (I've fact checked it,
see this table), so this is not pseudoscience. Going on to speculate that we operate at this temperature because of this is in my mind scientific
romanticization (poetic speculation), but not per say impossible or flawed by known fact, so I wouldn't call it pseudoscience.
However, the second paragraph might well be pseudoscience in my opinion. Consider this plot of the solubility of oxygen in water as a function of
temperature (also from the www.engineeringtoolbox.com):
Oddly enough, I've also used this plot on another thread here about "super oxygenated" water type 'snake oils' (miracle products).
As you can see from the plot, nothing special happens below 9C. In fact, more oxygen dissolves in water the colder you go.
Perhaps the author is suggesting that at 9C, a clathrate-like solvation cage forms around the oxygen molecule in solution that isn't stable at higher
temperatures, but surely such a peculiar property deserves referencing!
Is something referenced further on in the text? I would enjoy reading that if so!
[Edited on 3-11-2013 by deltaH]
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
How strange then, and how remarkable, that the lowest specific heat of this "inorganic" substance - water - lies but 0.5°C (0.9°F) above the normal
+37°C (+98.6°F) blood temperature of the most highly evolved of Nature's creatures - human beings. This property of water to resist rapid thermal
change enables us, with blood composed of 80% water,to survive under large variations of temperature. Pure accident so we are told, or is it by
clever, symbiotic design?!"
|
Ugh. You want us to read a book by someone who is incapable of standard scientific reasoning? It's the other way round, animals evolved to take
advantage of this sweetspot. Furthermore, there are countless examples of animals with body temperatures which highly differ from 37°C.
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
turd
National Hazard
Posts: 800
Registered: 5-3-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
https://translate.google.com works quite OK for the german wikipedia page on Viktor Schauberger (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Schauberger ): He was a perpetual motion crackpot. Apparently he had a catastrophic meeting with Hitler:
Schauberger believed to have convinced Hitler. Hitler thought Schauberger was a fraud. 
|
|
|
Morgan
International Hazard
Posts: 1705
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I guess some spin-offs worked. "According to medical opinion, the whirled water can relieve tensions in the neck and shoulder areas ..."
Advance to 31 minutes and ~16 seconds.
Comprehend and Copy Nature
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItsSYwTSnTY#t=31m16s
Well, even Lord Kelvin was terribly wrong about flight. But from what it looks like there's a lot of "sifting" needed with Viktor Schauberger, as much
as one wants to like those who try to copy nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Kelvin.html
[Edited on 4-11-2013 by Morgan]
|
|
|
franklyn
International Hazard
Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The vapor heat transfer out of the liquid is faster if it is already rapidly evaporating as when hot. The result is that you are left with less
ice but quicker than if you start with cold water. Doing this in closed vessels does not prevent heat transfer out of the system. There is likely also
some stratification occuring so that freezing begins from the denser cooler bottom up. Related effects are superheating where liquid water has a
temperature above it's boiling point and supercooling where it remains liquid even as it's temperature is below the freezing point.
.
.
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have another source confirming Franklyn statement "The vapor heat transfer out of the liquid is faster if it is already rapidly evaporating as when
hot". The reference relates to the science of freezing relating to lakes. To quote from an educational site (link: http://abacus.bates.edu/~raustin/FluxFlow/Lab2.pdf ):
"Processes that remove heat from the lake include net thermal (infrared) radiation away from the lake, flow of water out of the lake, and conduction
of heat to the overlying air (if the air is colder than the ice surface). "
so conduction and thermal radiation in a kinetically more active hot water solution favors faster cooling. I will also add an evaporation effect if
the vessel is not sealed as again, I would expect more water loss from a hot solution.
Another factor, to a lesser extent, that may be occurring is the change in gas content (N2, O2, CO2,..) that occurs in cold water upon heating (see
graph of dissolved oxygen versus temperature at http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cotf.edu/ete/... ). This could be significant as it changes the mass of the water. To quote from
the same source:
"A note of caution: Temperature does not measure the amount of heat present in the water. Heat is measured in units of energy, either calories or
Joules. The heat energy stored in a volume of water is found by taking the product of the water body's MASS, TEMPERATURE, and SPECIFIC HEAT."
So, for one, simply reducing the mass of cold water by evaporation or removing dissolved gases upon heating, will lower the amount of heat energy
stored in a given volume of water, thereby accelerating the freezing process.
[Edited on 19-11-2013 by AJKOER]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
