Supercooled water - latent heat of fusion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of supercooled water and the latent heat of fusion during the solidification process. Participants explore the implications of rapid solidification, energy transfer, and the conditions under which water can freeze.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that during solidification at 1 atm, about 80 cal/g of heat is released, questioning how rapid solidification from supercooled water occurs without a significant temperature increase of the ice.
  • Another participant suggests that the internal energy of supercooled liquid water is approximately the same as that of ice, implying minimal heat transfer to the environment during rapid solidification.
  • It is mentioned that not all water freezes during this process; some solid structure forms, but further cooling is required for complete freezing.
  • Participants inquire about the degree of supercooling necessary for freezing to occur and whether freezing can happen at temperatures slightly below 0°C.
  • Mathematical models are proposed to calculate the final state of the system based on specific heat capacities and latent heat of fusion, with some participants discussing the derivation of these equations.
  • Disagreement arises regarding the analysis of internal energy changes between different states of the system, with participants questioning the assumptions made about equilibrium and energy conservation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the energy dynamics of supercooled water and the conditions for freezing. There is no consensus on the correctness of the various mathematical approaches or the assumptions underlying the energy calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their analyses, including assumptions about equilibrium states and the treatment of internal energy changes. The discussion remains open to interpretation and further exploration.

lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
During water solidification at 1 atm, about 80 cal/g of heat are released; since ice specific heat is less than 1 cal/(g °C) it means that if this heat would be totally transferred to the ice, its temperature should increase of more than 80°C.

How then it is that very fast solidification from supercooled water can happen? How it's possible that the heat is immediately exchanged with the Environment?

--
lightarrow
 
Science news on Phys.org
I like your question. I can't answer it, but the Oimplication is that the internal energy of the supercooled liquid is about the same as the ice. Oherwise, there would have to be a massive heat transfer to ambient, and the transition could not be so rapid.
 
As far as I know, not all water freezes. Enough to get a solid structure, but you have to cool it more to get massive ice everywhere.

It doesn't have to be more than 80 degrees - you also have to consider all the energy that got extracted while cooling down the water (while being liquid).
 
Here is one of hundreds of youtube videos demonstrating "instant ice" I believe that is what the OP has in mind, but he's interested in the energy aspect.

 
How much is the supercooling to begin with? Once you know that, you can easily calculate the final state of the system, assuming no heat is exchanged with the surroundings.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
How much is the supercooling to begin with? Once you know that, you can easily calculate the final state of the system, assuming no heat is exchanged with the surroundings.
Actually I have no idea. I wonder if water can freeze suddenly even if T = -1°C, for example.

--
lightarrow
 
lightarrow said:
Actually I have no idea. I wonder if water can freeze suddenly even if T = -1°C, for example.

--
lightarrow
In my judgement, yes, but, with that small amount of supercooling, only about 1/80 of the water would freeze.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
In my judgement, yes, but, with that small amount of supercooling, only about 1/80 of the water would freeze.

Chet
Thanks Chestermiller.
Did you compute it using an equation similar to:

\frac{m}{M} = \frac{C_w}{(C_w-C_i)} * [ 1- exp(-\frac{(C_w-C_i)(T_1-T_0)}{H_f})] ?

m = mass of ice formed;
M = water mass + ice mass ;
C_w = water specific heat;
C_i = ice specific heat;
H_f = standard entalpy of fusion;
T_0 = initial temperature of supercooled water;
T_1 = final temperature of freezed water

--
lightarrow
 
Last edited:
lightarrow said:
Thanks Chestermiller.
Did you compute it using an equation similar to:

\frac{m}{M} = \frac{C_w}{(C_w-C_i)} * [ 1- exp(-\frac{(C_w-C_i)(T_1-T_0)}{H_f})] ?
No. The equation I ended up with was simpler than this (although it does match this result in the limit of a small amount of supercooling). Please show us how you derived this equation.

Chet
 
  • #10
Chestermiller said:
No. The equation I ended up with was simpler than this (although it does match this result in the limit of a small amount of supercooling). Please show us how you derived this equation.

Chet
Assuming the energy released by the freezing of a mass dm of ice is totally absorbed by water+ice without any exchange with the environment, the energy goes in increased temperature of the already frozen ice (of mass m) and of the remaining liquid water (of mass M−m):
H_f⋅dm = m⋅c_i⋅dT + (M−m)⋅c_w⋅dT
\frac{dm(T)}{dT} + \frac{(c_w - c_i)}{H_f}⋅m(T) - \frac{M⋅c_w}{H_f} = 0
which is a first order diff. eq. in the unknown m(T) with the initial condition m(T_0) = 0, the solution of which, for a generic temperature T_1: T_0 < T_1 < 0°C, is the one I've written.

--
lightarrow
 
Last edited:
  • #11
This is a much simpler problem than the differential analysis you've presented. I haven't checked it over, because it doesn't match the results of my analysis below.

We have a finite change that takes place between two discrete states:

State 1: (M+m) grams of supercooled liquid water at temperature Ti C, where Ti is negative.
State 2: M grams of liquid water at 0 C in equilibrium with m grams of ice at 0 C.

Because the system is isolated, the change in internal energy between states 1 and 2 is zero. If we take the basis of internal energy liquid water at 0 C, the internal energy of State 1 is (M+m)cwTi. The internal energy of State 2 is -mHf calories. So,
(M+m)cwTi=-mHf

So,

$$\frac{m}{M+m}=\frac{-c_wT_i}{H_f}$$

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrClaude
  • #12
Chestermiller said:
This is a much simpler problem than the differential analysis you've presented. I haven't checked it over, because it doesn't match the results of my analysis below.

We have a finite change that takes place between two discrete states:

State 1: (M+m) grams of supercooled liquid water at temperature Ti C, where Ti is negative.
State 2: M grams of liquid water at 0 C in equilibrium with m grams of ice at 0 C.

Because the system is isolated, the change in internal energy between states 1 and 2 is zero. If we take the basis of internal energy liquid water at 0 C, the internal energy of State 1 is (M+m)cwTi. The internal energy of State 2 is -mHf calories. So,
(M+m)cwTi=-mHf

So,

$$\frac{m}{M+m}=\frac{-c_wT_i}{H_f}$$

Chet
I see. But there is something which doesn't convince me in your analysis (not that I'm totally sure of mine, anyway): you start from (M+m) grams of liquid water at 0°C (I know that this is not the state 1 that you wrote, but you write "If we take the basis of internal energy liquid water at 0 C" ), then you supercool it and you end up with M grams of liquid water plus m grams of ice, so this final state is not the same as the initial one; how can you say that Delta(U) = 0 from these two?

Edit:
Said in another way: State 1 and State 2 are different so their internal energies shouldn't be different? I know that you say the system is isolated, but state 1 is not an equilibrium state.

--
lightarrow
 
Last edited:
  • #13
lightarrow said:
I see. But there is something which doesn't convince me in your analysis (not that I'm totally sure of mine, anyway): you start from (M+m) grams of liquid water at 0°C, then you supercool it and you end up with M grams of liquid water plus m grams of ice, so this final state is not the same as the initial one; how can you say that Delta(U) = 0 from these two?

--
lightarrow
In state 1, it had already been subcooled to less than 0 C. I don't have to account for how it got to this state. In state 2, it is at 0C, with some ice present and the rest liquid water.

Chet
 
  • #14
Chestermiller said:
In state 1, it had already been subcooled to less than 0 C. I don't have to account for how it got to this state. In state 2, it is at 0C, with some ice present and the rest liquid water.

Chet
Sorry, I was editing my post while you were already answering it.

--
lightarrow
 
  • #15
Chestermiller said:
The internal energy of State 2 is -mHf
Chestermiller, How do you deduce that?

--
lightarrow
 
  • #16
This is the heat we get out if we freeze water of mass m at 0°C.
 
  • #17
lightarrow said:
Chestermiller, How do you deduce that?

--
lightarrow
We are taking liquid water at 0 C as the datum for zero internal energy U. So the internal energy of the M grams of liquid water in state 2 is 0. The internal energy of the m grams of ice in state 2 is 0 minus the heat of fusion of m grams of liquid water to ice (the specific internal energy of ice is equal to the specific internal energy of liquid water minus the heat of fusion).

Chet
 
  • #18
Chestermiller said:
We are taking liquid water at 0 C as the datum for zero internal energy U. So the internal energy of the M grams of liquid water in state 2 is 0. The internal energy of the m grams of ice in state 2 is 0 minus the heat of fusion of m grams of liquid water to ice (the specific internal energy of ice is equal to the specific internal energy of liquid water minus the heat of fusion).

Chet
Thanks, I misunderstood the way you computed it. Now I have to find what is wrong in my reasoning.
Regards,

--
lightarrow
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K