The Mpemba effect

Miscellaneous news and views...

Moderator: scott

User avatar
scott
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:05 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

The Mpemba effect

Post by scott »

I find this fascinating. If we don't even understand how water freezes, how can we say we understand gravity?

from http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/G ... water.html:
Can hot water freeze faster than cold water?

I. Yes -- a general explanation
II. History of the Mpemba Effect
III. More detailed explanations
IV. References

I. Yes -- a general explanation

Hot water can in fact freeze faster than cold water for a wide range of experimental conditions. This phenomenon is extremely counter- intuitive, and surprising even to most scientists, but it is in fact real. It has been seen and studied in numerous experiments. While this phenomenon has been known for centuries, and was described by Aristotle, Bacon, and Descartes [1-3], it was not introduced to the modern scientific community until 1969, by a Tanzanian high school student named Mpemba. Both the early scientific history of this effect, and the story of Mpemba's rediscovery of it, are interesting in their own right -- Mpemba's story in particular provides a dramatic parable against making snap judgements about what is impossible. This is described separately below.

The phenomenon that hot water may freeze faster than cold is often called the Mpemba effect. Because, no doubt, most readers are extremely skeptical at this point, we should begin by stating precisely what we mean by the Mpemba effect. We start with two containers of water, which are identical in shape, and which hold identical amounts of water. The only difference between the two is that the water in one is at a higher (uniform) temperature than the water in the other. Now we cool both containers, using the exact same cooling process for each container. Under some conditions the initially warmer water will freeze first. If this occurs, we have seen the Mpemba effect. Of course, the initially warmer water will not freeze before the initially cooler water for all initial conditions. If the hot water starts at 99.9° C, and the cold water at 0.01° C, then clearly under those circumstances, the initially cooler water will freeze first. However, under some conditions the initially warmer water will freeze first -- if that happens, you have seen the Mpemba effect. But you will not see the Mpemba effect for just any initial temperatures, container shapes, or cooling conditions.

This seems impossible, right? Many sharp readers may have already come up with a common proof that the Mpemba effect is impossible. The proof usually goes something like this. Say that the initially cooler water starts at 30° C and takes 10 minutes to freeze, while the initially warmer water starts out at 70° C. Now the initially warmer water has to spend some time cooling to get to get down to 30° C, and after that, it's going to take 10 more minutes to freeze. So since the initially warmer water has to do everything that the initially cooler water has to do, plus a little more, it will take at least a little longer, right? What can be wrong with this proof?

What's wrong with this proof is that it implicitly assumes that the water is characterized solely by a single number -- the average temperature. But if other factors besides the average temperature are important, then when the initially warmer water has cooled to an average temperature of 30° C, it may look very different than the initially cooler water (at a uniform 30° C) did at the start. Why? Because the water may have changed when it cooled down from a uniform 70° C to an average 30° C. It could have less mass, less dissolved gas, or convection currents producing a non-uniform temperature distribution. Or it could have changed the environment around the container in the refrigerator. All four of these changes are conceivably important, and each will be considered separately below. So the impossibility proof given above doesn't work. And in fact the Mpemba effect has been observed in a number of controlled experiments [5,7-14]

It is still not known exactly why this happens. A number of possible explanations for the effect have been proposed, but so far the experiments do not show clearly which, if any, of the proposed mechanisms is the most important one. While you will often hear confident claims that X is the cause of the Mpemba effect, such claims are usually based on guesswork, or on looking at the evidence in only a few papers and ignoring the rest. Of course, there is nothing wrong with informed theoretical guesswork or being selective in which experimental results you trust -- the problem is that different people make different claims as to what X is.

Why hasn't modern science answered this seemingly simple question about cooling water? The main problem is that the time it takes water to freeze is highly sensitive to a number of details in the experimental set- up, such as the shape and size of the container, the shape and size of the refrigeration unit, the gas and impurity content of the water, how the time of freezing is defined, and so on. Because of this sensitivity, while experiments have generally agreed that the Mpemba effect occurs, they disagree over the conditions under which it occurs, and thus about why it occurs.
...
-Scott
Thanks for visiting BesslerWheel.com

"Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order."
- Pierre Proudhon, 1881

"To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it."
- Michel de Montaigne, 1559

"So easy it seemed, once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible!"
- John Milton, 1667
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by rlortie »

Scott,

Interesting article and one that I can relate to! My father made me aware of this when I was about 10 years old (1950). Believe it or not one of the best test vessels is to use automobile cooling system radiators.

Take a day when the temperature is above freezing and two autos with neither having antifreeze. Let one set and drive the other until it reaches operating temperature and then park it.

When the sun sets and temperatures fall below 32 degree F or 0 C. the car that was driven will freeze first.

During the heat of summer and their was a demand for ice cubes and you wanted them as fast as possible we used warm water in the ice cube tray.

Simple test: put warm water in ice cube tray and normal tap water in second. stick in refrigerator and see which one freezes first,

My opinion is that water molecules expand when heated and expand when frozen. The warm water accelerates the action as it already has a head start. So the question is, what is the difference and how can this change the properties? Do we look at it the same as heated and then cooled metal which is called "annealing" or to temper.

Ralph
mickegg
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:06 pm
Location: Berkshire,England

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by mickegg »

Very interesting.

I assume by equal amounts of water they are referring to mass
and not volume; as the lower temperature water would have a
higher density.

I think both samples would have to be agitated to the same degree to remove stratification for any meaningful test.

Regards

Mick
User avatar
LustInBlack
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by LustInBlack »

Awh ...

The man thinks that cooling water is inserting cold into the water ..

I believe that it is pumping the heat out of the water.

Like a siphon...
By pumping heat out of the water you create heat inertia.. If you are pumping a greater of amount of Heat, you have more inertia, thus work + inertia...

The water with less heat component, will build-up less heat inertia, thus freeze less faster ..

You have the same work component in the two cases, and more inertia in the first, I believe that the inertia component in the first case will grow up faster and bigger than in the second case..

That's what I think is happening.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by ovyyus »

Scott wrote:If we don't even understand how water freezes, how can we say we understand gravity?
Is there any anomalous demonstrable effect in terrestrial gravity physics that might suggest that current scientific understanding of gravity is wrong and/or incomplete?
User avatar
LustInBlack
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by LustInBlack »

ovvyus: We can't reproduce gravity.
User avatar
scott
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:05 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by scott »

What's the mechanism for gravity? How can you say that our understanding is anywhere near complete?
Thanks for visiting BesslerWheel.com

"Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order."
- Pierre Proudhon, 1881

"To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it."
- Michel de Montaigne, 1559

"So easy it seemed, once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible!"
- John Milton, 1667
rlortie
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8475
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Stanfield Or.

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by rlortie »

How about this approach:

In hot or frozen water the molecules are expanded making for a lighter mass, Difference being that heat is caused by the acceleration of the electrons causing friction by their banging into one another. (inertial energy as per LIB.)

So to make Ice faster all one must do is remove the kinetic electron acceleration while the molecules are still expanded.

As for terrestrial gravity; Some where on this internet is a link to the works and research of a late 1800's professor that explained gravity is is a property not any different than electrostatic charges or magnetic. Gravity is defined by mass.

His substantiation was built on hanging a pendulum down the side of a mountain. His tests proved the pendulum will not hang true vertical but will be pulled inward by the mass of the mountain.

Now how about somebody living near a sheer cliff such as the famous White cliffs of Dover. Hang a three point plumb bob or bifilar pendulum with a spirit level attached to the top and check this out. If the spirit level does not read true then the bob is being attracted to the cliff face as the researcher was said to prove.

Darn I wish I could find that link! Here is one that is close but not as descriptive.

http://www.cosis.net/members/meetings/s ... 4&s_id=801

Ralph
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by ovyyus »

Scott wrote:What's the mechanism for gravity? How can you say that our understanding is anywhere near complete?
I didn't say that scientific understanding of gravity is complete - just that there seems to be no scientific evidence or experiments that might indicate to the contrary.

While the Mpemba effect suggests that scientific understanding of how water freezes might be incomplete, is there a comparable effect in terrestrial gravity physics that might lead us to likewise question current scientific understanding of gravity?
User avatar
scott
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:05 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by scott »

I'd say it is far from complete since we have no meaningful concept of the mechanism. In fact, therefore it is all conjecture.
Thanks for visiting BesslerWheel.com

"Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order."
- Pierre Proudhon, 1881

"To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it."
- Michel de Montaigne, 1559

"So easy it seemed, once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible!"
- John Milton, 1667
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by ovyyus »

Likewise, we have no absolute fundamental understanding of physical reality or space or time - yet we continue to observe, experiment and formulate models which can be tested by experiment. Obviously, we don't need to understand absolutely 100% everything about a particular subject in order to draw likely conclusions and outcomes about it.
User avatar
LustInBlack
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1964
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by LustInBlack »

... likely outcomes ...

A spectrum of the reality is what science know.

The rest is unknown and might interfer with what is known, maybe we are lucky and some of what we pretend knowing is true because the variables are close in the spectrum.. Otherwise I believe we see just the tinyest part of the array of possibilities..
User avatar
scott
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:05 am
Location: Colorado
Contact:

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by scott »

Bill, you are right that it is all a matter of probability.

But even though it was unlikely, most of us now agree that matter is actually a strange form of bound up energy, thanks to Einstein's revolutionary equation. But we don't really understand much about this form of energy at all, except that it seems to have a weird property we call gravity.

We can measure the effects of this strange (seeminigly) attractive property with jaw dropping precision. But our explanations for how it might actually work are as primitive as kneeling to the Greek gods.

As another example, until recently conventional wisdom dictated that nothing could go faster than the speed of light (again thanks to Einstein). But novel experiments (conducted by cranks) seem to show otherwise.
http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel ... ngftl.html

-Scott
Thanks for visiting BesslerWheel.com

"Liberty is the Mother, not the Daughter of Order."
- Pierre Proudhon, 1881

"To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it."
- Michel de Montaigne, 1559

"So easy it seemed, once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible!"
- John Milton, 1667
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6545
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by ovyyus »

Scott wrote:We can measure the effects of this strange (seeminigly) attractive property with jaw dropping precision. But our explanations for how it might actually work are as primitive as kneeling to the Greek gods.
Primitive kneeling appears to still be in vogue Scott :P

An example of an observation or experiment which runs counter to current scientific understanding would be the basis upon which to build a hypothesis that our understanding of the effects of gravity is incomplete. But I can't think what that experiment might be. Therefore, doesn't current scientific understanding seem to fully explain and predict the effects of terrestrial gravity?
User avatar
jim_mich
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

re: The Mpemba effect

Post by jim_mich »

Bill wrote:An example of an observation or experiment which runs counter to current scientific understanding would be the basis upon which to build a hypothesis that our understanding of the effects of gravity is incomplete.
A starting point might be Stanley V. Byers RADIANT PRESSURE MODEL concerning gravity. Byers suggests that there is a natural upper limit to gravity. He suggests that after celestial bodies reach a certain diameter then gravity is no longer relative to the mass of the body but is relative to the cross section shadow area of the body. Conventional gravity formulas make very large planets and stars appear to made of light gasses. Myers suggests that the larger outer "Gas Planets" do not consist of gas, but consist of the common solar system gravel mix that exists in all of their surrounding moons and the remaining solar system planets and moons. He also suggest that there is an upper limit to gravity on the surfaces of larger planets. If what Myers says has any truth then I would think there might be evidence in the behavior of space probes that men have sent to probe these larger planets.

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm ...
TOTAL SHIELDING AND WEIGHT LOSS
Any radiant flow and shadowing model of remote force has the obvious inherent physical characteristics of; (1) shielding and (2) an upper limit to the force per unit area available. Shielding will occur in a group of objects when some objects are deprived of radiant flow due to overlapping gray shadows, or black shadows or streaming of the flow. An upper limit to the available force per unit area occurs when all flow is blocked in a particular force spectrum system by total shielding.

The shadowing feature of remote force within our planetary system displays the characteristic of modifying the weight of some planets by shielding. Individual objects in a system do not necessarily cast only totally black shadows, if visible, the shadows would have many shades of gray. As gray shadow objects combine to form a body or planet, a given diameter is reached where the radiant spectrum incident on one surface does not reach the other surface. The shadow it then projects in a single direction in the solar system would have a black dot in the center and all shades of gray to the outer circumference of the shadow. For planets of this diameter, maximum surface gravitational force is nearly reached. Any remaining increase is due to additional shadowing of angular rays penetrating the planet that have vector components parallel to the diameter path.

Once a planet has achieved sufficient diameter to project partial black shadows, a portion of any added matter appears lost to the solar weight system. An example of this matter shielding characteristic is obtained by considering the apparent weight of our solar system planets and the planets' projected shadow areas, given in Table 1. Shielding is most evident when one plots planetary weight per cross sectional area vs the projected area, as in FIGURE 1. Weight per projected cross-sectional area is here abbreviated as densare, and has the same units as pressure. The total shadowing effect depends on the average DENSity and AREa of the shadow, thus the abbreviation DENSARE.

For following comparisons it should be noted that DENSARE pressure and surface gravity are directly proportional and related by a constant. The densare graph, FIGURE 1, shows the densare of the smaller planets is essentially proportional to diameter. These small bodies are not large enough to stop all radiation, therefore, their integrated gray shadow DENSity and shadow AREa are exactly proportional to the total solar weight, mass and volume of matter. If all bodies had the same material density as Earth's and the shielding limit did not exist, all densare data points, including those for the large planets, would fall on the curve that relates projected area and volume on this semilog graph. For planets larger than Earth, total shielding and maximum radiant flow unbalance occurs. This total shielding is demonstrated by the plateau on the densare graph for planets larger than Earth. The densare, force per unit area, has reached the limit due to total shielding of the radiation and should be a universal constant for passive planets.
Image
TOTAL SHIELDING AND WEIGHT LOSS cont.
A radiant shadow theory suggests that an upper limit of flow unbalance should exist. It is fortunate that one limit happens to exist within the planet sizes available in our solar system. Once this DENSARE limit is reached, planet weight is no longer proportional to volume but is proportional to projected shadow area. The projected shadows of the large planets are completely black in the gravitational spectrum and cannot respond to increased size by increased shadow darkness, but only by increased shadow size. If the exact diameter and solar system weight for each of the large planets was well established it appears that the densare values would be a common constant near, 1.52 X 10 exp 14 tons per square mile
[75.7 X10^6 Lbs/SqInch] indicated by the plateau in the graph in FIG. 1.

This suggests that the "Gas Planets" do not consist of gas, but consist of the common solar system gravel mix that exists in all of their surrounding moons and the remaining solar system planets and moons. The apparent low density and weight is here attributed to shielding in the gravitational spectrum. If the large planets were divided into Earth size portions, the hidden mass and weight would reappear. Beneath any liquid and cloud layers of these planets a planetary lander should find a surface structure just as firm as that found on Venus, Mars and our Moon. A sphere that consists of 90% gas would not have spots that remain in the same position and latitude regardless of the planets rotation.

In a radiant pressure model it is obvious that the pressure is due to the radiant flow. Yet the pressure is called DENSARE to demonstrate the importance of the unseen shadow DENSity and AREa on the flow unbalance. This system of unbalanced radiant flow and shadowing is similar to the action and reaction of applied force and inertia, one cannot exist without the other.

With this radiant pressure model, the concept of "force increasing without bounds", as proposed for the existence of a black hole, is not realistic. Once the spectrum responsible for the force is totally blocked there is no further method to increase the force per unit area.

The current classical model of gravity gives no defined cause for the force. Therefore it is possible to attribute many features to the classical model such as black holes, warped space, and big bangs, since there is no defined mechanism with obvious restraints and upper limits. In any model without limits one can propose super dense nucleon stars and gravitational black holes that will swallow the universe. This upper limit of spectral flow naturally limits the size growth of planetary bodies, otherwise any sun or planet could grow to become a black hole.
Byers has a lot more information that seems to support his radiant pressure model. I call it Ether Energy. Byers calls it Prime Background Radiation. Puthoff calls it Zero Point Energy. Byers claims that Puthoff got some of his ZPE concept from Byers. I got my Ether Energy concept initially from Puthoff then later Byers increased my knowledge.

The point I want to make is that there is probably much data available to confirm or deny what Byers is saying about gravity and such, if only someone would take the time to analyze it from a Byers view point.


Image
Post Reply