Also, if some of the water starts at 100°C, then presumably some of it will evaporate, and one should measure how much remains... The article does mention this possibility, though it doesn't evaluate or quantify it.
Also, if some of the water starts at 100°C, then presumably some of it will evaporate, and one should measure how much remains... The article does mention this possibility, though it doesn't evaluate or quantify it.
A more mundane explanation is that hot water evaporates faster than cold, decreasing its volume and thus the time it takes to freeze.
[Edit - Cannot delete my comment now. As 'ketzo' points out below my point is not same as OP's. OP points out that hot water is less dense. Maybe less dense liquid cools faster]
That quoted sentence says that hot water loses volume compared to cold water.
The person you’re replying to is saying that hot water simply takes up more space as well.
- 1 m³ of hot water is less water (in terms of mass) than 1 m³ of cold water
- 1 kg of hot water has a bigger surface area than 1 kg of cold water
I am still not convinced that this alone would explain such a phenomena. I'd rather believe there is some weird fluid dynamics and layering involved.
The singular is "phenomenon".
The second less so. Hot water has a bigger surface area, which makes heat loss fast at first. When it gets to cold water's temp it should have the same surface area as the cold water making the advantage disappear.
> Water is a strange substance, less dense when solid than liquid, and with solid and liquid phases that can coexist at the same temperature.
> the Mpemba effect could happen through a related mechanism that Raz has previously described with Lu in systems that undergo a second-order phase transition, meaning that their solid and liquid forms can’t coexist at the same temperature. Water is not such a system (it has first-order phase transitions),
This is where BTUs come in handy..
Intuitively hot water should be much slower to freeze. It takes quite a bit of time for it to get to the same state that the cold water is at the start. After that time, the way we look at it, it's at the same point in experiment as if we have just put the colder water in. So we seem to still be missing something.
Unless there is very substantial mixing, the container of hot water will never be at the same state as the container of cooler water.
We did this in high school, with 3 open-topped 10L buckets, one with 25C water, one with 95C water and no mixing, and one with 95C water sitting on a magnetic mixer. They were not in a freezer, but outside at ~-25C.
The freezing order was 95C unmixed, 25C, 95C mixed. We also had a few temperature probes in the 95C unmixed bucket, and found that about halfway through, the temperature of the water in the middle about 1/3rd of the way from bottom was sitting at 0C, while the temperature of the water at middle at the top was still >70C.
Our final findings were that:
1. The buckets cool mainly by evaporation, which is only happening at the top, and which is much faster for hotter water
2. Water of different temperature stratas can be surprisingly stable even in a small container
3. In the unmixed bucket a stable, slow flow of water down the sides and up the middle forms. New hot water emerges from the middle, gets cooled and pulled to the sides, and then pulled down to the bottom. This circular flow is probably caused by the fact that water at the sides get initially cooled a bit and so it sort of biases the flow.
But now there's people saying it still works with closed-top containers, so I dunno. My physics teacher clearly did this every year and knew what was going to happen. The class came up with those findings after some very specific questions by him.
Who knows, perhaps there's even some laminar flow happening at the edges :)
Under controlled conditions, it would not. Ideally it would be in a pressure regulated space.
That probably wouldn't do much to help us answer the question of what will happen in our own freezers which aren't pressure regulated. While I'm glad there are and will continue to be all kinds of investigation and exploration around the Mpemba effect what I (and many others) really want to know is if heating water first would help with real world situations like having ice cubes ready in time for an event.
I can accept that it might not always be the case, but considering that at this point we can't say for sure if the effect is real at all it'd be nice if we could get it settled that it worked often enough and potentially decreases freezing time enough to be worth the time and trouble of microwaving our ice cube trays even if all the details and underlying mechanisms aren't well understood.
I should probably just start trying it myself and see what I come up with on my own, but even imperfect lab experiments would be much more accurate and trustworthy. I regularly do things like heat a mug full of water in the microwave, get distracted, and then forget all about it for hours.
If the mechanism is that 10% of the water evaporates away, allowing the remaining 90% to freeze smaller by virtue of its reduced mass, the take-away for making ice in a hurry is not to use hot water. It is to use cold water, but a little less of it.
Honestly, smaller ice cubes is probably your best bet if you need ice in hurry either way.
It would do a great deal to answer the question. Knowing the base physics (or at least the outcomes) then allows further experimentation and calculation to answer more complicated (less controlled) conditions.
> I regularly do things like heat a mug full of water in the microwave, get distracted, and then forget all about it for hours.
AFAIK, everyone does that ^^
Or is this effect unique to just water?
At the macro level, one can come up with ideas. Convection currents within the fluid, and in the air touching the fluid, maybe; though, say, once the hot water has cooled from 100°C to 35°C over a period of—what, ten minutes?—I'm pretty skeptical that there would be so much inertia in those currents that they'd persist, and persist strongly enough to accelerate the 35° to -1° cooling, enough to beat the head start of the water that started at 35°.
Maybe the initially cool water forms some uniform layer of very-cool water at the top (which, being very cool, doesn't exchange much heat with the very-cool air above it; an ice layer would be an example of this), which is held together by surface tension or something; whereas with initially hot water, that layer is not uniform and there's more mixing (and constantly-created convection as a result)? I have no idea if any of that is realistic. If so, it would suggest that shaking a cup of cold water (perhaps after a few minutes in the freezer) would work as well as having it start hot.
... After writing the above, I saw that (a) infogulch below has the same idea, (b) Wikipedia has an anecdote appearing to confirm it[1], and (c) the article doesn't seem to mention shaking, stirring, or otherwise agitating the cup.
[1] The Scottish scientist Joseph Black investigated a special case of this phenomenon comparing previously-boiled with unboiled water;[9] the previously-boiled water froze more quickly. Evaporation was controlled for. He discussed the influence of stirring on the results of the experiment, noting that stirring the unboiled water led to it freezing at the same time as the previously-boiled water, and also noted that stirring the very-cold unboiled water led to immediate freezing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
I'd be curious to know if the defect remains while stirring until frozen.
In theory you could also go by number of particles (measured in mol).
If it's 'yes this does happen, why?' then it seems right to try same mass, to test that theory.