Strange case: Bottle of water freezing

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the phenomenon of supercooling, which allows water to remain in a liquid state below its normal freezing point of 0 °C. This occurs due to the absence of nucleation centers, such as impurities or gas bubbles, in pure water. Shaking the supercooled water can trigger rapid freezing, demonstrating the process effectively. Additionally, the conversation touches on the surprising quality of bottled water, which often lacks the necessary impurities for freezing. Overall, the thread highlights the intriguing properties of supercooled water and the conditions that enable this phenomenon.
Physics news on Phys.org
Cool demonstration but not a mystery much: I think it is just supercooling. The lack of imperfections etc. provides a lack of nucleation centres.

Shaking does the rest.
 
I think you are right...I no idea water could be supercooled to such a LOW temperature:
Water normally freezes at 273.15 K (0 °C or 32 °F) however it can also be "supercooled" at standard pressure down to its crystal homogeneous nucleation at almost 224.8 K (−48.3 °C/−55 °F). [2][3] The process of supercooling requires that water be pure and free of nuclei such as having undergone reverse osmosis, however the cooling itself does not require any specialised technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SupercoolingI'm also surprised because reviews of bottled water show it often of a no so good quality...Consumer Reports, I think.
 
Exactly, it is due to the lack of suspended solids and gas bibbles to act as nucleation centres. Overheating is also easily observed if you heat water twice in a microwave oven. The second time due to the lack of gas bubles to act as seeds for condensation you can reach a temperature much above water's boling point without boiling, however, any disturbance causes an explosive generation of vapour (if you decide to try it, be very careful!).
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top