Talk:Mpemba effect

Template:LOCEcopy

Expand

It'd be nice if someone could expand this a little bit.. Suppafly 04:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. --YixilTesiphon 20:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Goofball physics

Goofballs can see the effect in their own kitchens. Simply put a cube-tray of cold water and another of hot water side-by-side in the freezer compartment of your refridgerator. I have not done this in a "frost-free" freezer, but in a frosty one the hot tray froms a bond with the freezing surface, and the water rapidly freezes from the bottom up. Meanwhile, the cold water, insulated by a top film of ice and bottom layer of frost, just sits there. When the hot-water cubes are fully frozen, they will have a dimple on top, whereas the cold-water cubes will be domed. If you peek at the hot-water tray too early, you will see the freezing cubes cup the remaining unfrozen water that is now not so hot. This, by the way, is not an effect depending on physics but technology. There are also techno-logical cases in which cold water will boil before hot -- in the same kitchen's coffeepot. [User Lee-in-Siam, 15 July 2006]

Simply it is goofball physics. An exact time can be calculated for the cooling rate of water, and it is related to its heat capacity. Also, a cooling rate can be calculated for any material, based on that material's heat capacity. So the falacy comes from the lack of validity of comparison of samples, IE.!, all the sheise gehabt different heat capacities, so different cooling rates...and yuck I hate refrozen ice cream, makes me wanna barf.

--Hard Raspy Sci 07:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Have a nice day!

Goofball it would seem. But, calculations with thermodynamic data do not equate to experimental results w/ impure samples and such. If this has been disproven countless times, then surely you can provide specific references to experimental results rather than just waving the weasel phrases. Experimental results with "pure water" or tap water or ??? Don't need the orange disclaimer - just references to back up the statement. -Vsmith 11:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And goofball it is. The point is--Mpemba did it with ice cream not water, thus that makes a falacious argument out of hot water freezes faster as Mpemba incorrectly assumed from his ice cream observations, without observing water in the same experiment--known as experimental error. Importantly, Mpemba did not use water in his experiment...instead it was ice cream a completely different thermodynamic nightmare.

That is called dis-proof by logic...need any more help? Hard Raspy Sci 00:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. June is a good month for ice-cream

Did it occur to you to read any of our numerous and well-documented sources before jumping to conclusions? Yes, some of the anecdotal experiments involved ice cream. These prove nothing; they were just the first clue. It's the documented experiments in scientific labs involving pure water that show that the effect exists. I kindly ask you to refrain from reposting this material, as it violates our no original research policy and directly contradicts the generally accepted body of scientific knowledge. Deco 28 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)

I had an argument with a friend about this, and I went ahead and tested this theory. Anyone armed with hot and cold water, measuring cups, some gladware and a freezer can test this (which is also surprising why it seems no one here has actually tested the effect). Anyway, I tried this with tap water versus boiling water and warm (about 85°F) versus boiling water. Saran wrap was used to prevent water loss via evaporation and the containers were placed on wood in the freezer to make sure conductivity was not an issue. A ball bearing at the bottom of the container was used to gauge when the entire volume of water (or just about 95% of it) had frozen. Every time the cooler water froze before the hot water. Try it for yourself. Also see the "Straight Dope" external link I added which confirms my observations and discusses an experiment where hot water did freeze earlier than cooler water, but the specific case involved very hot water versus very, very hot water at precise temperatures. And by the way what exactly was Mpemba (if he even exists) doing with the ice cream. Ice cream must be constantly churned while it is freezing, otherwise all you get is a block of milky ice, not ice cream. You would also think ice cream manufacturers would be heating up their starting mix to cut down on production time. Last I heard they start with their initial mix at room temperature. This seems to be one hell of a persistent myth. There is also another myth which is the inverse of the Mpemba effect: that cold water boils quicker than hot water. Tried that one too and the hot water beats the cold water with oodles of time to spare. I know that some people may point quotations from here and there (there seem to be a lot around). I suggest you try it for yourself. It won't take long and then you can have ample time to ponder who are these people coming up with weird results -A.H. 7/25/05

The article and the Physics FAQ makes it clear that specific conditions are needed. That you failed to choose the parameters that cause it, or failed to control for other parameters, only demonstrates that it doesn't occur under all conditions, which is well-known. That Mpemba observed it under conditions he didn't set up carefully was really sheer chance. The ice cream is irrelevent, because it has been later reproduced using water. The ice cream was only where it was first noticed. Deco 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not that the effect occurs under specific conditions that is the issue. Even the Jearl Walker experiment published in Scientific American, and consistently apearing in the papers talking about the Mpemba effect, points out that his results were for two very specific temperatures. And, the effect disappeared the moment Mr. Walker covered the two containers, i.e. the effect was due to evaporation. More relevant to the matter is that most people espouse the Mpemba effect as something applicable to most situations, in fact to almost any situation. I know people who put hot water in their ice cube trays because they think it'll freeze faster. Even the wikipedia article on zambonis, until recently, attributed the hot water being used due to the faster freezing time of hot water. According to the Zamboni company the purpose of the hot water is quite the opposite: to melt some of the top layer of ice to smooth out the ice surface. In other words the myth of the Mpemba effect is that people believe it to be the norm for most situations. It's as if people believed that ice, water and water vapor can normally coexist just because there is a specific pressure and temperature (triple point) where they do co-exist. And there are high school physics teachers (and a few college professors) who talk about the Mpemba effect like it is a widespread and commonplace occurence applicable to almost all temperatures of water. -A.H. 7/27/05

This sounds reasonable. I wouldn't attempt to debunk the known research in the article, unless you're citing other researchers who have done so, but perhaps a section on common misconceptions with your ice cube tray example would be illuminative. Please feel free to add. Deco 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I won't dispute the hypothesis that under some but not most otherwise identical conditions, warmer water can freeze faster than cooler water. However, I must hasten to point out that if you raise the freezing point of the warmer water by boiling it, contditions are not identical. Removing dissolved gasses from the warmer water is equivalent to stirring some salt into the cooler water. If the effect is genuine, the contitions must be truly identical at the start of the experiment.

Wrong. It is goofball. It is also goofball and wrong to think that one can raise the freezing point of the warmer water by boiling it...NOOO! I think you really need to understand energy and heat and thermodynamics in general, before you even try to quench my knowledge with some lame no original research quip which is entirely out of line. Read any book on Thermodynamics, Superfluidity, Quantum Mechanincs...then pull out a book on Fluid dynamics and Materials Science to even begun to get a clue that Mpemba effect is wrong. or fallacious, or inaccurate. See my comment about alloys below.

Hard Raspy Sci 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Superficially it looks completely frozen."

from:

David Auerbach, Supercooling and the Mpemba effect: when hot water freezes quicker than cold, American Journal of Physics, 63(10), 1995.

Words like superficial and looks do not indicate hard core physics, and this comes from the source supposedly proving Mpemba? Wrong, try again.

Hard Raspy Sci 09:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This article discusses a well-known phenomenon with a variety of supporting sources published in well-known journals. The content you added is original research in that it attempts to debunk the theory without directly citing any authoritative source on the matter. It is your right to attempt to debunk the theory, but don't do it here - do it in the journals and other legitimate research channels. Wikipedia documents research, it does not publish it. Deco 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In short, I really don't mind having a section on why the effect might not actually exist, but before such a section could reasonably be added it would be necessary to locate at least one legitimate, authoritative source which explicitly states that the Mpemba Effect may not exist. Deco 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

(William M. Connolley 21:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Some of this seems very odd. I can't understand how the supercooling question can still be open: you just stick in a thermometer into both to find out. Ditto several other possibilities. Only a fairly determined effort not to do the right experiments could stop even a half-well-equipped lab finding out.

This particular information was taken from the Usenet Physics FAQ. You may wish to redirect your question to a forum like sci.physics, for which the FAQ was written. Derrick Coetzee 04:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 08:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I've read the physics FAQ, which as you say is the source of the info. I still say its odd: the physics FAQ doesn't address my point above. Subsequently I've read the Auerbach abstract which makes things a bit clearer.

Why

Why was the paragraph on Mpemba not being the first to discover the fact that hot water can freeze faster than cold deleted? It did contain new information; it corrected and explain futher the fact that Mpemba didn't discover the phenomenon just introduced it to the modern sci. community (rediscovered). The first paragraph states the Mpemba discovered it and gives no credit to the fact that it was know before Mpemba. Please Consider undoing this edit.

I remember reading this was disproved

But I googled for data and apparently there are indeed several mechanisms that can cause not only the apparent freezing of hot water faster but also under certain conditions the actual freezing of an equal amount of formerly hotter water faster. Weird but true. 4.250.33.91 14:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the topic is called materials science. For example, there are thousands of alloys of iron(steel) that have different physical properties compared to one another--mostly which seem bizarre.

Simply, ice cream could be considered an alloy of water... Hard Raspy Sci 00:50, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

Um, nope, still not good enough. The article already contradicts itself. The whacky "original research" claim should also apply to the article as it stands since none of the "numerous sources" explicity claim to have Mpemba effect as true or existing. To further confound your single-mindedness, I was using the sources on the page as the source for the additions I made.

What are you arguing? The sources referred on the page do not support Mpemba explicitly. So you should expect I will be heavily revamping, if it is not reverted back...thank you. And, Deco, you are absolutely wrong, articles and ideas on wikipedia are constantly debunked on wikipedia, otherwise nothing could be edited.

Hard Raspy Sci 22:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

(the following only reinforces the contradiction already existing in the page)

Pathological And Anecdotal

Mpemba's story is kept alive for the wrong reasons. While the less scientific persons are easiliy tricked into believing the story, they are also further tricked by statements like—"...given as a cautionary parable to those who reject theories or experiments solely because they seem counterintuitive, or contradict accepted theories,...etc.,etc,.etc.", and "The Mpemba effect is the somewhat surprising phenomenon whereby hot water can, under certain conditions, freeze faster than cold water." However, the reasons that experiments like Mpemba get rejected are due to the following extremely proven realities:

• Lack of scientific method

The absolute basis for all science is the ability to statistically prove beyound a shadow of a doubt that experiment A is what the author claims. The statistics are based on defined and controlled measurements.

• The instance is merely anecdotal.

If only other anecdotes are used to prove the instance, it is not science. And/or the instance itself is anecdotal—meaning that there are as many versions of the story as there are reasons why the anecdote is false. This usually leads us into circular arguments.

• Logic.

Typically, bad logic and bad writing methods are used in an attempt to carry on unprovable anecdotes. No matter what any person ever says, no one can prove the Mpemba Effect, because no notes where ever taken. It is too simple, but try proving that you had a winning lottery ticket, if you already burned it completely in your fireplace.

• Miss-quoted sources/facts.

Also, valid sources on scientific experiments are incorrectly quoted on a daily basis. Slinging around sources does not prove anything. For example, Newtonian cooling applies to solids, that are not losing mass!

Agreed, the whole style of this article is 'babbly', I feel the person who wrote it wanted to exercise their knowledge of big words and how difficult the Mpemba Effect is to prove, rather than actually explain what the Mpemba effect is and how it is believed to work. Question: Heating water reduces the oxygen/air content I believe, so could the Mpemba effect be explained by the fact that oxygen/air is less dense, therefore heat (or cold in this case) transfers faster through the de-oxegenated water than if it had not been heated? NinjaKid 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources - A very, very, very short list

Introduction to Logic, by Harry J. Gensler

Introduction to Logic, by Irving M. Copi

Crimes Against Logic, by Jamie Whyte

Scientific Method in Practice, by Hugh G. Gauch Jr

How to Think Like a Scientist : Answering Questions by the Scientific Method, by Stephen P. Kramer

A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method, by Stephen S. Carey

Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction, by Barry Gower

An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method, by Morris R. Cohen, Ernest Nagel

Theory of Scientific Method, by William Whewell, Robert E. Butts

Thermodynamics, by E. Fermi

An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics, by Terrell L. Hill

Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, by J. M. Smith

Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, by Richard E. Sonntag

Chemical Thermodynamics: Advanced Applications, by J. Bevan Ott, Juliana Boerio-Goates

Chemical and Engineering Thermodynamics, by Stanley I. Sandler

Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus, by Martin Gardner

Experimental Physics: Modern Methods, by R. A. Dunlap

I said an authoritative source which explicitly claims that the effect does not exist. Of course the initial discovery involving ice cream was not performed using the scientific method, and it proved nothing. It was only confirmed through later rigorous experiments under controlled conditions, and it was later reproduced in lab conditions by many people around the world. Unless you are really claiming that all of these experiments were performed incorrectly, then you have no argument.

If you're claiming the effect contradicts themodynamics, then you're simply wrong, because experiments have shown that it occurs, and this article and the Physics FAQ explain in considerable detail why there need not be a contradiction. In fact, the effect is only interesting mainly because it seems to contradict thermodynamics, but in fact does not.

You continue to offer only objections which have already been addressed - at least come up with a new argument that might actually be worth investigating. Deco 02:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you are still wrong. I think it is basically because you do not understand thermodynamics. And I am arguing that you are still wrong, and you are not able to support Mpemba. Additionally, I am using the sources already here to argue against Mpemba, which means you don't have the argument and you have to bring in other sources that *explicitly* define Mpemba effect.

But let's take two steps back. From the perspective of thermodynamics, the only interesting thing, remotely close to this topic, is the physical properties of water and the thermodynamics of water. The study of the thermodynamics of water has been constant from now until how ever far you want to go back. Some of it, maybe most of it, predates 1963. Now, because of that date, it invalidates Mpemba's claims. Other scientists across the planet had already made loads of discoveries about water before Mpemba, OK! And some of them, for example, were Nazis.

So by date, Mpemba's claim is late, in addition to all of the other malpractices that envelope Mpemba's original "discovery" that invalidates it. To be absolutely clear, I am rejecting Mpemba, but I am not rejecting the thermodynamics of water. Mpemba's effect was the wrong way to go about it, and it is constantly explained in very ambiguous terms, thus invalidating itself further. And I don't need references for common sense. Because if something can be debunked with common sense, ...well let's say nobody has a patent on common sense.

You are going to have to get past the idea that Mpemba's is a cool thing to promote. Its not, it is confusing to inexperienced persons wanting to learn science. However, I think its perfectly fine to talk about it in a negative way. It deserves mention, but only in a negative way. In reality, Mpemba's effect is miniscule in comparison to all of the thermodynamic anomalies of water. By anomalous, I mean in comparison to other properties of other liquids, solids, or gases.

Hard Raspy Sci 03:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect."

—Aristotle

You know, I never really cared that much about this topic in the first place. I'm not even claiming Mpemba's effect or the story of its discovery is accurate and truthful - only that it's well-documented and verifiable, which is Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. I'm not some kind of pro-Mpemba freak. I was attacking only the notion that a single person who feels that a well-documented subject should not be "promoted" could engage in a campaign of misinformation and personal insults to get it censored.

But you know what, it worked. If you feel so strongly about it, you can trash the article. Maybe someone more persistent will follow me. Have a nice day. Deco 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know wether the Mpemba effect exists or not - I highly doubt it, but that's not the point. The point is, sir, that you've just Godwined. Your arguments can be summarized as "I know what I'm talking about, and you don't agree, so you must be a stupid idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about!". Cripes, I don't care if the effect exists or not (and I'm a physics student, for crying out loud); it's a nice story with a good moral: "Mpemba's story is often given as a cautionary parable to those who reject theories or experiments solely because they seem counterintuitive, or contradict accepted theories, or because their proponent is not an expert." I suggest you try to take that advice to heart before starting selfrighteous flamewars. DodgeK 12:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Who Godwined?? Nobody Godwined here yet. Are you refering to a reference of fact I made? I made no comparison's as held under Godwin's_law. Hard Raspy Sci 05:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"And some of them, for example, were Nazis."

Um, nope, first learn to read, that's not a comparison to anyone here, nor is it designed to stop discussion--1st point of Godwin--its a statement of fact that during the period of the Third Reich, german scientists perfomed extensive experiments on water. Thank you and grow up. Hard Raspy Sci 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Got anymore cliches ...

An outside opinion

Hard Raspy Sci, your edits are going against the consensus on the talk page, and your uncivil arguments are not helping anything. "Learn to read" is not a useful contribution to the discussion, it is a personal attack, like many of the other things you have said here.

Your point of view, in summary, seems to be that

1. Mpemba did not demonstrate the Mpemba effect scientifically
2. the Mpemba effect depends on particular conditions not being controlled by the experiment, as otherwise it would violate thermodynamics
3. the Mpemba effect should not be taught

The first point is valid and I think agreed upon by contributors to the talk page. However, the effect does exist (as a name for a certain kind of observation that can be made under certain conditions), and it is nevertheless called the Mpemba effect. Your arguments are not going to change the name of the effect, and Wikipedia is not in a position to do so anyway. Perhaps a sentence could be worked in pointing out explicitly (instead of by omission) that Mpemba did not do the experiment with water, especially if a reference can be found for who did do the experiment with water.

The second point is stated very adequately by the article, I believe, so I don't see the point of arguing it.

The third point is irrevocably POV. It cannot be resolved by citing references, because it is pure opinion. It should not be allowed to affect the content of a Wikipedia article.

I ask that you agree to removing the "hoax" template from this talk page, as clearly none of the contributors here are pulling a hoax. Also, to make this article able to progress, I'd like you to specify what kind of changes you want made to the article before considering it not to be "disputed". And please be civil as you continue these discussions. rspeer 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Civil answer and apology

First, I would like to apologize for any misunderstandings in any of my prior posts on this page that may have offended anyone reading this. Hard Raspy Sci 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(From here on, I will refer to Mpemba as anything related such as the experiments, etc.)

References

There exists one initial reason why I started changing the article--the references (on the page) contradicted the overall meaning of the article.

Secondly, none of the references have direct proof of Mpemba's results. At best each acknowledges anecdotal existance but do not produce any results to support a viable repeatable experiment.

Other problems exist, at least one of the references cited are non-refereed, non peer reviewed personal web sites of questionable merit.

Others are anectdotal in nature and are just Q&A websites similar to Dear Abby columns from a newspaper.

Oddly, the main claim is that according to consensus there are loads of references so why bother in editing the page. As such, each time I do an edit, it gets reverted by User:Deco.

When faced by loads of background Deco conveniently throughs up a smokescreens and thwarts peoples efforts:

• 1. Did it occur to you to read any of our numerous and well-documented sources before jumping to conclusions? Yes, some of the anecdotal experiments involved ice cream. These prove nothing; they were just the first clue. It's the documented experiments in scientific labs involving pure water that show that the effect exists. I kindly ask you to refrain from reposting this material, as it violates our no original research policy and directly contradicts the generally accepted body of scientific knowledge. Deco 28 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)
  2. This sounds reasonable. I wouldn't attempt to debunk the known research in the article, unless you're citing other researchers who have done so, but perhaps a section on common misconceptions with your ice cube tray example would be illuminative. Please feel free to add. Deco 02:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. You know, I never really cared that much about this topic in the first place. I'm not even claiming Mpemba's effect or the story of its discovery is accurate and truthful - only that it's well-documented and verifiable, which is Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. I'm not some kind of pro-Mpemba freak. I was attacking only the notion that a single person who feels that a well-documented subject should not be "promoted" could engage in a campaign of misinformation and personal insults to get it censored. But you know what, it worked. If you feel so strongly about it, you can trash the article. Maybe someone more persistent will follow me. Have a nice day. Deco 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this to retain efforts an last word on edits?? The article does not follow with the references cited, at any time that anybody puts in text--that follows the references--Deco installs the above arguments.

Absurdity and contradiction. It is getting debunked because the sources have already debunked it.

Ambiguity and Non-neutrality

In its current prose, or any past version, the article is misleading in its basic form. However, others have tried to clear up the ambiguity, but get cited with "no new work" or "no research allowed" or whatever by Deco. Unfortunately, the article has turned into an unreadable mess and is completely disorganized.

In articles attempt to lightly explain Mpemba, the reader is left with very unreal notions:

1. ...that scientists are nothing but stuff shirt know-it-alls...and you can't get them to believe anything out of the accepted norm
2. ...a bad misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics
3. ...a bad misunderstanding of advanced thermodynamics
4. ...a basic mistrust of science -- (hoax)
5. ...that real scientists never question anything out of the accepted norm
6. ...that the article is autoritative source on physical properties of water

How is Mpemba, itself, ambiguous:

1. no existing data of original experiment--all anecdotal, all references cite this!
2. given in terms of high school level science about subject matter that is graduate school level material.

This deserves longer detail. Mpemba does not define the boundaries of the experiment. It does not define the nature of the samples, nor does it provide a definition of the "control". As was approriately argued by others in this discussion, but opposed by Deco

Historic Desenters of Consensus

Maxwell, Gallileo, Kepler, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, Columbus, Darwin, ... (could be its own article)

Authoritative Arguments Welcome

Third year physics students do not constitute as an authority, since thermodynamics is a third or four year subject.

However, it should be noted that unlike courtroom arguments, scientific arguments are never closed. As such I am absolutely opposed to any claim that states a consensus has been reached before this posting, with in reason I will voice that and only if I believe that position has merit. So understand that not even the most powerful Wiki admin can close a scientific argument based solely on policy, without undermining the merits of Wikipedia itself.

As per Rspeer's request I will post a my opinion and suggestions at the end of this posting in the Summary section.

Uncivility and Censorship by an admin?

For all of the reasons above, I believed that there was possibly a joke or a hoax forming out of this discussion, especially when considering Decos actions and comments directed toward anyone attempting to edit the article with respect to the given citations.

My own response was fueled by a person counter-editing in a fashion that contradicted the already supplied references, and patronized editors that did so by falsely misrepresneting the body of knowledge available. And falsely accusing personal insults to get it censored, I am sorry but I do not remember and couldn't find directed insults or non-directed insults.

My complaint goes to Deco for obviously not reading sources, not being a authoritative source on the matter, and for bullying others for attempting to make edits by citing it violates our no original research policy and directly contradicts the generally accepted body of scientific knowledge -- (so don't edit anything without my prior written authorisation).

In Summary

My thoughts are:

1. its OK to teach Mpemba, but in its proper way, and I do not have any motivation to have names changed
2. the article should stay no matter what
3. the references should stay, except ones that may be a dead link and personal websites (no responsibility, merit)
4. the article should be edited open and freely as provided by Wikipedia's foundation and remain so
5. the article is in need of refinement, and not changed in a way that is polarized by Deco
6. all edits that have been made, but erased by Deco to support Deco's claim, have been falsely done in an illegitimate manner
7. the existing parable should be either removed or properly explained
8. it should also be noted that the article (at this posting) in its current existance is better than it was when this garbage started
9. the article may only need cleaing up at this point with out the destabalization of Deco's counter-edits
10. in acuality Deco violates his own claims by citing or supporting the miss-represented or unverifiable sources
11. the ambiguity needs to be cleared up if possible
12. some of the data on the atricle is supported by possible bad references

Response by Rspeer

Thanks for the response. I understand your position a lot better now, and I agree that some changes need to be made to the article.

Deco doesn't deserve your vitriol, though. Reverting changes is not "censorship", particularly when it brings the article from a version that has serious problems in style back to a better version.

Deco's edit comment when he reverted you was spot-on: "articles should not argue with themselves". That degrades the quality of the article. Disputes should be worked out on the talk page so that the text of the article can be changed to a coherent, consensus version. Your version also contained a number of opinionated statements like "Mpemba's story is kept alive for the wrong reasons," which violates the "neutral point of view" policy.

rspeer 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe by some stretch, that it was wrong to place the above opinion to counter the parable that is enforced by the article-which fundamentally violates the same neutral point of view policy. At the time the article conflicted with the sources...?

In reality, it appears that conflicting policies are the next issue here. But I don't think that's the case. The problem is this article never had non-conflicting, supportive sources, and some plain do not exist.

The real moral to the story concerning Mpemba is how not to perform an experiment and expect to retain your dignity -- especially since Mpemba more closely relates to the parable of re-inventing the wheel.

But understand, it is also odd to have "articles should not argue with themselves" pertaining to edits when the article already contradicts either itself, its sources, or both.

However, I believe both parables can be given in a clear manner without having an article that "argues with itself" ... because maybe it would retain its neutrality.

- Hard Raspy Sci 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

============================================

It is interesting to discuss about mpemba effect. but i have some imagination. Can Mpemba effect happen at metal when hot liquid metal get in cooling circumtances ? is there anybody that could explain this condition. (josh at indonesia)

i dont get it how is it posible

this artical dosnt make sence to me how could hotter water freez quicker than cooler water when the freezing point of water is zero degrees. wouldnt it take longer to cool the water then freez it rather than just strait out freezing it? someone please explain..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.34.233 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

A little help

Some documents which may help. I'm working hard on the subject and just wanted to give a few useful documents. (some contains little mistakes, but all are interesting) http://www.math.udel.edu/~rossi/Math512/2004/cooling5.pdf http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0604224 http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3A0704.1381 I wanted to point out that mpemba effect do occur! It has been observed in many situations (not involving only water) and by many (at least enough) scientists. Its consequences may not be of a great interest (however the food industry is interested in it) but the effect does exist !

A possible solution is nearly coming out

I’m doing the Mpemba effect as a topic of my thesis. I have done many experiments; I think I can find out the real mechanism of this effect soon.

If you are interested in this topic, please pay your attention on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.229.129.58 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Entropy and crystallization

I always thought the Mpemba effect was simply due to the need of freezing water to decrease entropy and form ice crystals. Cold water has to absorb external heat to do this, whereas hot water already has the heat so it forms crystals (and thus freezes) faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.17.226 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Scalar functionality

I cannot find a source for the comments under this heading. Is there one? Also the quote does not seem to be from the reference provided. Where is it from? It seems like someone's 'research'. Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I note that this original edit was made by the anonymous 28.104.178.238 so I cannot chase them up for a source. But I would appreciate a response. Martin Chaplin (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered that the quote has no source (it is certainly not Monwhea Jeng's) and it seems likely that the paragraph has none either , so I will delete them. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. It looks like an instance of water memory POV insertion. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you are now stalking me. The statement is a misquote and it has no support. I know you cannot support it (as there is no support,; I have checked) so it seems totally wrong to reinsert it. It is not a POV, I inserted a real quote from a real source. Please revert your change. Martin Chaplin (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should start an RfC. I see the quote included in the source when I read it. I'm also not stalking you. I had a hand in writing the Physical paradox page and this is one of the physical paradoxes linked from that page. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote is not there. Even the first word is not in the reference. I read it and a more recent paper (and better source) and I requested the author if he had written it elsewhere (he said no). It is simply not there. The other text has no foundation. Martin Chaplin (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I linked to the paper where the quote is found. The removal of the rest is unwarranted and I have undone it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I have repeated, the quote is incorrect. Originally it was from the wrong source. I put in the smae source as you, that you have deleted and then put up an inferior version of the same source .(I gave your source for the text within the complete source if you had checked). The quote is not there. The first sentence is, but the rest is not. As I said, I checked with the original author of the source. He has never written that quote. The rest of that inclusion is simply not there. The author states that supposedly quoted from source is wrong and gives his own oppositely directed research with no source. It is clearly OR and contrary to the good source that we have both put there (at different times). You are being disruptive and pushing your POV without any source. I am reverting your edit. Martin Chaplin (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of carrying on the edit war, I have referred this dispute for a third opinion. Martin Chaplin (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I do notice that ScienceApologist has now read the quote. However the rest of the edit in this section is disagreeing with this source (the same source I put up and was deleted) without any evidence or RS. The view needs support as it is OR. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to the plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

I don't understand why there is even a dispute. The cited source clearly contains the quoted text, right there on page 6, just below the middle of the second column: "Analysis of the situation is now quite complex, since we are no longer considering a single parameter, but a scalar function, and computational fluid dynamics is notoriously difficult."

So, what exactly is the problem here? If the dispute is about the existence of that quote, then the quote does indeed exist. Perhaps the dispute has been resolved already? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mpemba

Does anybody know what happened to Erasto B. Mpemba? 75.157.255.58 (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Scalar functionality (2)

The POV and OR in this section is clear at present. It was requested above over two weeks ago (Scalar functionality) that suitable sources be provided for effectively the same text, but this request seems to have been ignored. The quote given now for Jeng is totally out of context as it is not a 'concluding' quote and Jeng did not discuss this area much at all. More suitable would be 'It is clear that evaporative cooling can play an important role in the Mpemba effect, and that the history of the water can affect the amount of supercooling. But beyond that, the experiments together paint a very muddled picture' which is from Jeng's final paragraphs. The Tutor (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to edit by Shot as no sources have been given since request over two weeks ago and otherwise it is standing as OR and POV. The Jeng article only mentions this area in the one quoted sentence; the rest of his paper is on other things. The Tutor (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC) SA has asked for more time. Edits should only be made with the sources to hand, or close by. Some more time is given, but it should be noted that if there are not any sources forthcoming then we have been misleading our readers for a considerable time. The Tutor (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC

In the absence of the promised sources, this section is an OR and POV paragraph, which should not be there any longer. The Tutor (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not given enough time. Please stop this posturing. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You have had three weeks. Are there any sources or not? As I have looked, in detail, in this area, I do not believe there are any. The Tutor (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There are sources. I am very busy with other projects. Stop pretending like you own the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How long do you need? If you know of them, then put them in. Remember, that readers may believe the text is sourced, so it should be. The Tutor (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently involved in two massive undertakings. Give me until 15 April at least. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is about a month too long for the article to remain as your OR and POV. There is clearly no article to hand. The Tutor (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SA, I appreciate your effort in supplying some references. However, these references primarily are concerned with the supercooling and do not mention any 'heat transfer problem'. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me how they are related to your text? The Tutor (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

References are appropriate. Start an RfC if you think otherwise. This discussion is over, as far as I can tell. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some other scientists can weigh in here with their views. SA seems to be equating 'cooling' with 'supercooling'. The Tutor (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this about the Dorsey references? No library within forty miles of me has the book, but it looks reasonably relevant enough that I have no problem trusting ScienceApologist to have reason for citing it. Clearly they are too old to refer to Mpemba directly, but supercooling and heat transfer between segments of the water during crystallization is perfectly relevant, as confirmed by Jeng. This whole section could be cited to Jeng, in fact. What is the issue here? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Dorsey reference. I actually added the later Dorsey work myself here. What is wrong is that it is nothing to do with fluid dynamics. No reference I can find states what is written under 'scalar functionality'.; particularly that Jeng reference does not mention it apart from that one quote given saying that it is difficult, and therefore this is not a reasonable quote to have taken from that paper. The statement that I gave [earlier] (later improved) is more indicative of Jeng's conclusions: 'there is no unique explanation yet for why, in some specific circumstances, hotter water freezes faster than colder water'. These references talk about 'supercooling' not 'partial differential equations' and nowhere does it state that 'this (Mpemba) effect is a heat transfer problem', with the recent papers on the effect giving other reasons. The paragraphs are OR and POV. I will not get into any more fighting over this. If you believe that the papers say what is written leave it as it is. There are some out there who revert anything I do, see [for example]. The Tutor (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent view of the Mpemba effect

I have added two recent sources giving the current view of the science and evidence surrounding the Mpemba effect . SA keeps being disruptive and he appears to have a vendetta against me as he even reverts my spelling corrections on a far distant page, see [for example] The Tutor (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you learned to research or report findings, but you seem to be under the impression that the source is saying something far different than it is actually saying.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I learnt to read at an early age. The Tutor (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And when did you learn reading comprehension? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are not being civil. Stop this deliberate disruption of my edits, as you did [here ]. Why do you not agree to join and improve the article rather than just being destructive. The Tutor (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any perceived incivility. I just improved the article including a more representative quote from the Physics World article. Cheerio. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion. The Tutor (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

The Wikipedia:Third opinion request is malformed. Not only did the requester sign it rather than just date it, but the section linked to above concerns a dispute about spelling in a completely different article. Please, make it simpler for a third opinion responder to help out, read the directions carefully, and clearly state the problem.

The most recent dispute in the edit history appears to concern a quote from the introduction of an Physics World article, versus a quote from the middle. Either quote looks fine to me, but the quote from the introduction seems to summarize the gist of the article slightly better, in my opinion.

I see other disputes further down the edit history, but it isn't clear whether the third opinion request concerns them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I did not make the disputes clear or use the correct form, and I missed the correct signature. Please treat the request neutrally although I do state the case below from my perspective. The page has been protected for a week to enable us to come to an agreed conclusion. There are two current disputes that are linked. They concern the 'Scalar functionality' (2) and 'Recent view of the Mpemba effect' paragraphs. The more important is the 'Scalar functionality' where the key reference is Jeng. Although Jeng does state the quote given, his paper is a review that does not come up with a single cause and he starts his concluding paragraphs with "It is clear that evaporative cooling can play an important role in the Mpemba effect, and that the history of the water can affect the amount of supercooling. But beyond that, the experiments together paint a very muddled picture. More experiments are needed to solve this 2000+ year-old puzzle." Jeng certainly does not appear to state that the effect is solely a heat transfer problem, spending time considering, amongst other things, the gas content and supercooling (associated with crystal initiation rather than heat transfer; although it does involve heat transfer that is not a problem). The rest of the 'scalar functionality' paragraph is an essay on CFD that is not fairly attributable within the (solid but not relevant to this discussion) sources stated. The 'recent view of the Mpemba effect' was put in as balance as recent papers still remain undecided over the reason for the Mpemba effect, at least there is no consensus in the recent scientific literature; the reasons still being given are in the 'Causes' section of the article. The quotes that were originally given here in 'recent view of the Mpemba effect' were 'A number of scientists have investigated Mpemba's claim, but their results remain inconclusive' and 'More experiments are needed to solve this 2000+ year-old puzzle'.. The Tutor (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a homeopathic POV-push in order to try to get water memory in the back door. Sad. Very sad. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as a POV push to mention water memory. I also don't have an objection to mentioning it (no more than 1 brief sentence) as an unsupported explanation for the effect, but frankly I think it's a stretch.

The Tutor: Thanks for your more detailed explanation, but it doesn't really explain what is being disputed. Would you care to summarize, say, the scalar functionality dispute? You have explained your perspective, but I don't have a good handle on where the disagreement lies. From the comments, it would appear that ScienceApologist disagrees that Jeng constitutes valid source material. ScienceApologist, is that correct, and if so, why? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeng is fine, it's just that The Tutor is twisting Jeng's intention to make it seem like this is one of the big unsolved mysteries of science. Instead, Jeng is trying to say that we should simply let high school students investigate this at science fairs because it is easy to do and kinda interesting. Nothing more. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mpemba effect still has no clear explanation, but may be due to a combination of factors. There have been several recent papers giving different views; see Jeng, Ball, Esposito and Katz references on the main page. I believe that readers should be given as clear picture as possible of the present confusion over its mechanism but the ‘scalar functionality’ (I am also unsure what this term is meant to signify) paragraph seems to indicate that present consensus is that the phenomenon is explainable by CFD. I do not believe any reference states that the Mpemba effect can be explained by computational fluid dynamics. I would be truly interested if such a paper existed. I believe it is only a memory of water effect in so far as the amount of supercooling appears to be different dependent on the previous history of the water. I have no intention of describing it as a 'memory of water' effect here or elsewhere as there does not seem to be a strong case for calling it this with the understanding that many editors have shown elsewhere of the 'water memory' term (connected with Homeopathy) and who do not wish this association be made. The Tutor (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that "scalar functionality" is meant to indicate that the section is about treating the system using a scalar function defined at each point, as opposed to a vector function or a simple bulk parameter like temperature. This sort of involved problem is precisely why computational fluid dynamics exists.

Also, for the 3Os who are genuinely uninvolved (I would count myself as at least semi-involved) - the memory of water contention may make more sense in light of the conversations at Talk:Water memory, which are occasionally acrimonious. My view of the current points of contention is that (each please forgive and correct if I misrepresent your points) SA wants the article to present the origins of the effect as subtle, interesting, and basically well-understood or at least operating according to established principles; TT wants the article to emphasize that we do not at present have any good way of predicting whether a certain set of initial conditions will lead to observation of the Mpemba effect. Both of these points are perfectly valid and well-supported (WP:WEIGHT, as always), and I suspect that at least some of the combativeness here is spill-over from other articles. What I would love as a way forward is a nice comprehensive summary of the Jeng, neatly improving the article beyond the current quibbles. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft and Amatulić, thank you very much for your effort and time for your third opinion. You have summarized part of my contention. It is not the unpredictability that is important but that there is no consensus as to the mechanism either; is it gas? Is it supercooling? Is it phase changes? Is it solutes? Is it evaporation? does ‘freezing’ equate with ‘totally frozen’? Etc. I certainly do not believe anyone (except SA) has written that the Mpemba effect is well-understood. It has not been investigated by CFD (not published anyway) and it has not been established as happening in any other liquid (maybe no one has looked?) However, perhaps you have pointed to a successful way forward and I have attempted a paragraph to replace the two at issue. How do you find the following? (I will put the refs in properly later)

It still remains unclear which of the above effects are the more important but it is clear that the study of this effect is surrounded by experimental difficulties (Jeng). In particular, the importance of supercooling remains unclear (Dorsey 1948, Auerbach). Perhaps the effect is analyzable using computational fluid dynamics but this does not yet seem to have been attempted (Jeng). In his review, Jeng compares this effect to the different but related phenomenon of hot water pipes being more likely to burst in Winter than adjacent cold water pipes. The Tutor (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)