Cash prize offered for solving Mpemba effect

[Studiot]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...an-cold-water-royal-society-chemistry-offers/

Any ideas?

 

[DragonPetter]

Could it be related to the fact that ice is less dense than liquid water? That seems contradictory to intuition as well. I would think since hot water is less dense, its molecules are more spread out and so they need to move less to form ice. That's my immediate naive idea, I don't have time to actually think about it. Don't ask me to go any deeper or use math on that either.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this a joke?

 

[Studiot]

Is this a joke?

Not as far as I'm aware, but then it was only reported by the BBC at 1pm today as coming from Imperial College, and The Royal Institute of Chemistry.

 

[bahamagreen]

Mpemba placed cold water in a refrigerator and measured the time to freeze. Then placed hot water in the fridge and saw a shorter time to freeze...

What is the big mystery? When putting a heat source in a fridge the thermostat kicks on the compressor and actively cools down the interior.

What would be a mystery is if he had unplugged the fridge after the compressor shut off (so the fridge interior was at a known temperature), and THEN put the water in. If the hot water freezes faster without the aid of the compressor, then there is something to look at.

Or, if you set out two trays of hot and cold water outside on a windless, subzero day, in the shade...

Has anyone actually done the experiment correctly?

 

[Khashishi]

Really, I thought this was already solved. Hot water has less dissolved gases than cold water, so it has a higher freezing point.

 

[russ_watters]

Not as far as I'm aware, but then it was only reported by the BBC at 1pm today as coming from Imperial College, and The Royal Institute of Chemistry.

Well at face value it sounds like a stupid contest and the link to the contest stie is broken...

 

[russ_watters]

Really, I thought this was already solved. Hot water has less dissolved gases than cold water, so it has a higher freezing point.

That has little effect on the energy requirements, so little effect on the time.

 

[Studiot]

the link to the contest stie is broken

Works for me, however I can't be accountable for american sites.

 

[DragonPetter]

Well at face value it sounds like a stupid contest

Why is it a stupid contest? Is there already an accepted explanation for the effect? I had heard of the effect a long time ago, but I always assumed there must have been a known explanation but was probably over most people's heads.

 

[jedishrfu]

Looks real, its on Wikipedia! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect

 

[russ_watters]

Why is it a stupid contest? Is there already an accepted explanation for the effect?

The existence of the effect outside of poorly set up (or purposely set up?) experiments is dubious at best and the fact that it was "discovered" by an Indian high school student in a cooking class implies it may be in line with other dubious or overblown "discoveries" by Indian schoolchildren we've seen floating around (in fairness, not all are Indian, they just seem overrepresented). The've become somewhat of a meme.

 

[Borek]

an Indian high school student

Tanzanian. Different skin color and different continent.

 

[russ_watters]

Eek, sorry. Not sure how I got that wrong.

 

[jedishrfu]

excerpted from wikipedia on the Mpemba effect origin:

Origin

The effect is named after Tanzanian Erasto Mpemba. He first encountered the phenomenon in 1963 in Form 3 of Magamba Secondary School, Tanganyika when freezing ice cream mix that was hot in cookery classes and noticing that they froze before cold mixes. After passing his O-level examinations, he became a student at Mkwawa Secondary (formerly High) School, Iringa, Tanzania. The headmaster invited Dr. Denis G. Osborne from the University College in Dar Es Salaam to give a lecture on physics. After the lecture, Erasto Mpemba asked him the question "If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?" only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Dr. Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba's finding. They published the results together in 1968.[4]

...

[4] ^ Mpemba, Erasto B.; Osborne, Denis G. (1969). "Cool?". Physics Education (Institute of Physics) 4 (3): 172–175. Bibcode 1969PhyEd...4..172M. DOI:10.1088/0031-9120/4/3/312.

 

[Studiot]

Today's lunch time news was the first I had ever heard of the phenomenon.

My immediate thoughts are:

A given liquid has a higher heat content at higher temperature so to reach freezing more quickly must require a greater rate of cooling and heat transfer for some reason.
Certainly the initial rate of cooling will be greater due to Newton's law of cooling.
However at some point the temperature of the originally hotter liquid must match or dip below that of the other.
So by the same reasoning it should cool more slowly from this point on.

 

[the_emi_guy]

This is an old "paradox" whose explanation is that the hot container will melt and sink into the layer of ice on the bottom of the icebox thus providing less thermal resistance for the remainder of the freezing process. Of course this only works on old, non "frost free" freezers.

I believe that the hermes2012 thing is a scam to capture personal information.

 

[RonL]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...an-cold-water-royal-society-chemistry-offers/

Any ideas?

It seems quite simple in my mind,

The hot water has a more aggressive internal action, which will reflect a greater distribution of heat as it declines in temperature. The distribution of heat at a faster rate will reflect less heat overall throughout the liquid, this means a cooler central area.

When the two volumes are at an equal temperature, the hot has dispersed more heat as it declined and still has a greater internal kinetic action taking place, this continues to more evenly move heat to the boundary layer points of heat transfer, thus that center volume has a lower temperature and becomes solid before the cold container.

This is my thought process and no prior thinking, other than hearing the statement and had always discounted it's validity, the thread put my mind to work.

 

[DragonPetter]

Assuming that this is a real effect, then is it only valid for water? If so, then the explanation can only apply to water.

 

[Andre]

Deadline today. I just did submit something and I wonder if own thoughts about the results of my little experiment can be posted here.

 

[sophiecentaur]

What puzzles me is: the temperature of the 'hot water' will drop. On the way, it will pass the temperature that the 'cold water' started at. Unless there is some other factor that the experimenters haven't told us about, it is then the same stuff at the same temperature that the cold water was (it is now 'cold water') but later. How can it then (from that temperature) cool faster and overtake than the other lot of water?
Although I can't say that the effect could never happen under any circumstances, this is just not a fair test, as described - because it isn't actually described.
Possible factors are: dissolved gas affecting the latent heat of fusion, convection currents in the hot water allowing faster heat transfer by stopping the formation of an insulating of ice on the outside of the initially cold water, the thermostat (my favourite).

I heard this statement as long ago as 1954 (ish), when we (the family) bought our first Fridge. But at nine years of age, I didn't question it too much - just enjoyed ice lollies at home for the first time. (popsicles - for our trans-atlantic cousins)

 

[ZapperZ]

Just in case people are not aware, there has been quite a number of studies, both experimental and theoretical, on this effect:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1381
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604224
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512262
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3185
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2684

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

But, from what I read of those abstracts, the conditions aren't all defined in the same way. They are quite specific and sophisticated. It makes me wonder what the original statement (not the OP - I mean the really original one) was really about.

I don't think it ever meant that when you put your ice cube tray in the freezer, it's better to fill it with warm water. THAT is what everyone immediately thinks it's all about.

 

[Andre]

Meanwhile I did some interesting observations.

As I was alerted yesterday on the the contest, I did some hasty unsophisticated tests.

The hypothesis about impurities like dissolved gasses, delaying crystal forming appeared reasonable. So I used three small sealed containers with precooled boiled water and just tap water and one with hot tapwater. At around 50 minutes in the freezer, the cold boiled superfroze upon touching. Eventually the tap water followed. The warm boiled came last. That seemed to confirm that idea.

Today I wanted to reproduce that and to see if the hardiness, would also affect it, I also used rain water. We have a lot of that. I used small glass (test) tubes and sealed off the water with olive oil to prevent evaporation cooling and re-aeration

At a certain moment at which I expected some freezing, all appeared still liquid. So I touched the water surfaces with a toothpick.
When I touched the set, the control tube flash froze. When I touched the precooled boiled samples, nothing happened, still liquid. But upon touching both initial hot samples flash froze.

Back to square one, or does anybody have an idea?

( I do )

Apart from that it struck me that the flash frozen crystals sank rather than floating.

 

[Andre]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/IMG_8810.JPG was taken right before the touching test

#1 and #2 are precooled boiled tap and rain water |(that did not react upon touching)
#3 is plain, not precooled tap water (apparently already partly frozen)
#4 and #5 are initially hot boiled tap and rain water (that flash froze upon touching a few seconds later).

Something trivial :P struck me there.

 

[krd]

What puzzles me is: the temperature of the 'hot water' will drop. On the way, it will pass the temperature that the 'cold water' started at. Unless there is some other factor that the experimenters haven't told us about, it is then the same stuff at the same temperature that the cold water was (it is now 'cold water') but later. How can it then (from that temperature) cool faster and overtake than the other lot of water?

Think of it in terms of two buckets - a warm bucket and a hot one - most of the heat is lost at the top of the bucket. In the warm bucket there's a warm trapped layer in the middle of the bucket - it's trapped by falling cold water. In the hot bucket the middle layer is more energetic, and breaks through to the top of the bucket where it cools quicker. The hot bucket even pushes down cold water with more force. The distribution of heat in the two buckets is completely different.

IF...You had an stirrer going in both buckets...the cooler bucket would freeze first.


I heard about this competition a while back. I think they were looking for a fancy pants demonstration. Doing it with thermal cameras and a walk in freezer might be a thing - then quite a bit of experimentation to get the optimal temperatures for the demonstration. It will probably be done by some precious rich kid nerd (with lots of help) who will then go on TED Talks, and make us all want to vomit.

 

[Andre]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/IMG_8810.JPG was taken right before the touching test

#1 and #2 are precooled boiled tap and rain water |(that did not react upon touching)
#3 is plain, not precooled tap water (apparently already partly frozen)
#4 and #5 are initially hot boiled tap and rain water (that flash froze upon touching a few seconds later).

Something trivial :P struck me there.

I wanted to make clearer pictures so I wiped the condensated water off the tubes and then...?

 

[krd]

I wanted to make clearer pictures so I wiped the condensated water off the tubes and then...?

I think your tubes may be too small.

And before doing these, or any other, experiments, you're meant to have some kind of theory.

 

[krd]

The hypothesis about impurities like dissolved gasses, delaying crystal forming appeared reasonable.

But there should be less dissolved gasses in the hot sample than the cool one.

For crystal nucleation total absence of impurities is more of a problem. Once the crystals nucleate they get going. Beyond a certain point it doesn't really matter how much impurity is in the water.

The Mpemba effect is a conversation piece. It would be a real pain in the *** to actually replicate. Though I think I may have seen it as a child. I think it may be important in the way jelly/jello sets in the fridge.

 

[DragonPetter]

And before doing these, or any other, experiments, you're meant to have some kind of theory.

So they drill in your head in high school science class on the scientific method. I don't think he is planning to submit his observations to any peer reviewed journal. Also, hypothesis != theory, even though that's not even necessary. It can be a helpful tool to guide your experiments, and if you want to prove something, you need one, but there's no scientific rule that says you need to have one to simply make observations. Even experimenting, by itself, is not the scientific method. You don't need to have a theory to make controlled observations. Many theories came after observations.

Do you think Maxwell's equations existed before Faraday?