£1000 Prize; Hot Water v Cold Water: Freezing
Discussion
R300will said:
That's it i think.
Me said:
If you took 1l of cold water and heated it to 100C it would marginally increase in weight. However it would also increase in volume, so you would have more than 1l of water. Based on the above densities, 1l of water at 30C heated to 100C would have a volume of 1.0389l.
Is what I meant.
My question is whether this is a temperature phenomenon, a materials phenomenon, a liquids phenomenon or just a water phenomenon?
Does this just happen in water, or do all, or any other, liquids exhibit this property. Because my hunch would then be to do with this clever hydrogen bonding that water does and the stable states of water. (Hot water probably naturally emits Higgs Bosuns, you know.....)
Does this just happen in water, or do all, or any other, liquids exhibit this property. Because my hunch would then be to do with this clever hydrogen bonding that water does and the stable states of water. (Hot water probably naturally emits Higgs Bosuns, you know.....)
Flibble said:
R300will said:
That's it i think.
Me said:
If you took 1l of cold water and heated it to 100C it would marginally increase in weight. However it would also increase in volume, so you would have more than 1l of water. Based on the above densities, 1l of water at 30C heated to 100C would have a volume of 1.0389l.
Is what I meant.Bedazzled said:
The water molecules are not heavier in any meaningful sense, you're just splitting hairs and diving down a rabbit hole; the relevant point is that the extra energy is manifest in the physical movement of the molecules, which will then affect processes like convection, evaporation, etc.
No i'm not don't be a tit about it. I'm well aware we've digressed rather majorly from the OP but they do get heavier, end of.
Bedazzled said:
Ok if you want to be pedantic, technically your original statement is incorrect, e=mc2 refers to rest mass (m0), which does not change. The relativistic mass is inconsequential, and physicists no longer make reference to it anyhow because it's ambiguous depending on the frame of reference; heat imparts kinetic energy in the molecules and increases the energy of momentum.
Not only the rest mass but mass in general. Rest mass is not a different form of mass to general mass they are the same and so can interchange. So if you add energy you add mass. Most of the energy is in the form of movement or something else giving KE but some is taken up and expressed as mass. If this helps settle this, Bedazzled is substantially correct.
But just to annoy everyone, right or wrong it is not the answer.
The clue to the answer is quite simple but almost impossible to prove empirically.
The fact is that the hot water actually takes longer to form solid ice.
I gave the answer early on and anybody who understands the formation of Chrystal structures from a liquid knows this phenomena quite well. It occurs, to a lesser extent, in all materials that pass through liquid/solid forms.
If you perform this experiment yourself you will see that two distinct forms of ice chrystal are formed and the answer is in there.
I'm off clubbing shortly but will explain fully tomorrow morning, in the time I'm waiting for F1 to kick off.
But just to annoy everyone, right or wrong it is not the answer.
The clue to the answer is quite simple but almost impossible to prove empirically.
The fact is that the hot water actually takes longer to form solid ice.
I gave the answer early on and anybody who understands the formation of Chrystal structures from a liquid knows this phenomena quite well. It occurs, to a lesser extent, in all materials that pass through liquid/solid forms.
If you perform this experiment yourself you will see that two distinct forms of ice chrystal are formed and the answer is in there.
I'm off clubbing shortly but will explain fully tomorrow morning, in the time I'm waiting for F1 to kick off.
R300will said:
Well that makes sense. What you originally said didn't. So we are now agreed that hot water is heavier then cold water at a molecular level. But in terms of volume it is less dense.
But that is what I originally said. You contradict yourself so much it's not even worth holding discussion with you.Flibble said:
R300will said:
Well that makes sense. What you originally said didn't. So we are now agreed that hot water is heavier then cold water at a molecular level. But in terms of volume it is less dense.
But that is what I originally said. You contradict yourself so much it's not even worth holding discussion with you.A quick note... there is no humiliation or loss of face in being wrong... nothing at all... ever.
If you fail to correct an error of understanding in a persons mind it can be as much your failure to explain conclusively as it is a failure of comprehension of your questioner.
Misinformation is rife and even the correct information can be conveyed so badly that the impression left is the wrong one.
E=Mc^2 is responsible for so many misconceptions it is staggering.
But the simplest way to convey the correct message is to ask one simple question... did the process you describe involve any Nuclear process?
If yes, then indeed Energy can become mass and vice versa
If no, then it can't and doesn't.
So if you warm water is that a Nuclear process?
No.... no mass added.
Cut to the chase, the fundament, and perhaps misunderstandings can be corrected.
Having a late breakfast and the bacon is about to go on...
Back later.
Cheers
Gene.
If you fail to correct an error of understanding in a persons mind it can be as much your failure to explain conclusively as it is a failure of comprehension of your questioner.
Misinformation is rife and even the correct information can be conveyed so badly that the impression left is the wrong one.
E=Mc^2 is responsible for so many misconceptions it is staggering.
But the simplest way to convey the correct message is to ask one simple question... did the process you describe involve any Nuclear process?
If yes, then indeed Energy can become mass and vice versa
If no, then it can't and doesn't.
So if you warm water is that a Nuclear process?
No.... no mass added.
Cut to the chase, the fundament, and perhaps misunderstandings can be corrected.
Having a late breakfast and the bacon is about to go on...
Back later.
Cheers
Gene.
That's a fair statement and i'm just oging off what A-level physics has taught me so at a more complex level it may not be the case.
What do you mean by nuclear processes? If you impart infrared energy into the water molecules then they hit the nuclei of the atoms making up the molecules and give them the energy neccessary to move faster so does that count at nuclear? (not sure if it hits the nuclei of the atom but am assuming it is because electrons are much harder to hit. )
What do you mean by nuclear processes? If you impart infrared energy into the water molecules then they hit the nuclei of the atoms making up the molecules and give them the energy neccessary to move faster so does that count at nuclear? (not sure if it hits the nuclei of the atom but am assuming it is because electrons are much harder to hit. )
The simple way to relate it is "Is the heating of water achieved through heat exchange or Nuclear reaction?"
It's heat exchange... therefore the process of adding mass through addition of energy is not possible.
Still have brunch guests so I'm being rude in being on here, but that is the shortcut answer.
It's heat exchange... therefore the process of adding mass through addition of energy is not possible.
Still have brunch guests so I'm being rude in being on here, but that is the shortcut answer.
R300will said:
No it isn't you were arguing that the water doesn't get heavier. Read your posts if you don't believe me, i think you've confused yourself now.
The weight gain or lack thereof is irrelevant.Heating 1 kg water from 30C to 100C is a gain of 4181.3 x 70 J of energy (4181.3 being the specific heat capacity of water). If you entirely converted that to mass via E=mc^2 you'd have a mass increase of 3.252x10^-12 kg which is significantly below the precision of anything that would be measuring the mass of 1l of water.
As such it can be disregarded (which is what I did in my original post).
What I was arguing, but that you still seem unable to grasp is:
If you have 1l of water at 30C and 1l of water at 100C, the litre of water at 30C will be heavier.
If you take 1l of water at 30C and raise it's temperature to 100C it won't get lighter, however you also don't have a litre of water any more, you have 1.03 l of water because the density has decreased.
You seem to be thinking that taking 1l of water at 30C and raising the temperature to 100C gives you 1l of water at 100C, which is not the case.
Litres measure volume, not mass!
Flibble said:
R300will said:
No it isn't you were arguing that the water doesn't get heavier. Read your posts if you don't believe me, i think you've confused yourself now.
The weight gain or lack thereof is irrelevant.Heating 1 kg water from 30C to 100C is a gain of 4181.3 x 70 J of energy (4181.3 being the specific heat capacity of water). If you entirely converted that to mass via E=mc^2 you'd have a mass increase of 3.252x10^-12 kg which is significantly below the precision of anything that would be measuring the mass of 1l of water.
As such it can be disregarded (which is what I did in my original post).
What I was arguing, but that you still seem unable to grasp is:
If you have 1l of water at 30C and 1l of water at 100C, the litre of water at 30C will be heavier.
If you take 1l of water at 30C and raise it's temperature to 100C it won't get lighter, however you also don't have a litre of water any more, you have 1.03 l of water because the density has decreased.
You seem to be thinking that taking 1l of water at 30C and raising the temperature to 100C gives you 1l of water at 100C, which is not the case.
Litres measure volume, not mass!
If the volumes were open then yes the litre being heated up to 100 will become less dense and so when you re-measured the litre it will weigh less because of this.
As promised.
Cooling and ice chrystal formation.
First, the thing to realise that ice is not always all ice, so if you conjure the molecules to form and trap water within the chrystal you simply don't have to turn all the water into ice.
So, how is this achieved?
Warm water is handy, it creates stratified boundary cooling, that is the water is turned into ice in what can be best described as ragged fingers and inside the hollow fingers water is trapped, it won't turn to ice very easily as the ice is an insulator.
Cold water does not freeze is stratified boundaries.
The answer to why it doesn't is very interesting, it is to do with the 'inertia' of the cascading temperature decline of a hot liquid, rapid cooling cannot be achieved by every part of the liquid so the liquid forms filaments of warm water surrounded by other areas that are at the limit of transmission, these filaments are eventually encased in ice, so although the warm water appears as solid ice, it is in fact not.
The closest you can get to an empirical test for this is to warm the ice and see which dissolves first, the water that was originally warm will melt more rapidly than the one that started cold.
This leads on to something we humans can experience and probably have experienced at various times.
If we heat food in a microwave with a given amount of energy input and absorbed and cook something 'conventionally' using the same amount of energies, the microwaved food will cool much more rapidly than the conventionally cooked item.
Just as there is stratified boundary cooling there is stratified boundary heating.
Whilst on the subject of SB Heating... ever wondered why an AGAs oven, made from base pig iron, cooks food so well?
EDIT... spolling ill tu cack.
Cooling and ice chrystal formation.
First, the thing to realise that ice is not always all ice, so if you conjure the molecules to form and trap water within the chrystal you simply don't have to turn all the water into ice.
So, how is this achieved?
Warm water is handy, it creates stratified boundary cooling, that is the water is turned into ice in what can be best described as ragged fingers and inside the hollow fingers water is trapped, it won't turn to ice very easily as the ice is an insulator.
Cold water does not freeze is stratified boundaries.
The answer to why it doesn't is very interesting, it is to do with the 'inertia' of the cascading temperature decline of a hot liquid, rapid cooling cannot be achieved by every part of the liquid so the liquid forms filaments of warm water surrounded by other areas that are at the limit of transmission, these filaments are eventually encased in ice, so although the warm water appears as solid ice, it is in fact not.
The closest you can get to an empirical test for this is to warm the ice and see which dissolves first, the water that was originally warm will melt more rapidly than the one that started cold.
This leads on to something we humans can experience and probably have experienced at various times.
If we heat food in a microwave with a given amount of energy input and absorbed and cook something 'conventionally' using the same amount of energies, the microwaved food will cool much more rapidly than the conventionally cooked item.
Just as there is stratified boundary cooling there is stratified boundary heating.
Whilst on the subject of SB Heating... ever wondered why an AGAs oven, made from base pig iron, cooks food so well?
EDIT... spolling ill tu cack.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Sunday 8th July 18:52
NorthernBoy said:
Gene Vincent said:
E=Mc^2 is responsible for so many misconceptions it is staggering.
But the simplest way to convey the correct message is to ask one simple question... did the process you describe involve any Nuclear process?
If yes, then indeed Energy can become mass and vice versa
.
I have to ask, why do you pretend to be an authority on science yet post rubbish like that?But the simplest way to convey the correct message is to ask one simple question... did the process you describe involve any Nuclear process?
If yes, then indeed Energy can become mass and vice versa
.
Energy/mass equivalence is not restricted to nuclear interactions only. There is no subtext in there putting a limit on where it applies; it's a pretty general rule of nature.
You do this quite often, post in a lofty manner, pretending to be an expert, but to anyone who's actually done a few degrees in the subject, well, you just seem to make an arse of yourself.
In the specific case above, even Wikipeia offer a better explanation than you do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equ...
Energy/Mass equivalence is not at issue here, they are simply equivalents.
What is at issue is turning Energy into Mass. You can't condense energy and make it become matter. Energy is 'work'... furthermore there is no theory in physics where matter's made of energy. The reverse is equally true.
Energy/Mass equivalence is the relation of two properties of matter to each other.
Finally I can't think of a better way for you to make yourself look 'intelligent' than to tell a practising Theoretical Physicist and Mathetician to look up physics topics on Wikipedia... priceless
Errr... where did your post go?
Edited by Gene Vincent on Thursday 12th July 00:16
My guess is that your A-level is over 20 years old... things move on at a huge pace.
The same with a Degree, if you attained the degree even as recently as 2005/6 and had no more than a passing interest in Fundamental Physics since, you are in possession of dead information.
Educational attainment is static, frozen in time, science moves on relentlessly.
In answer to your post, what I have written here is unambiguous and correct as of today 12/07/2012, what you learned 'back in the day' is of little or no consequence if you use that as a basis to argue against.
The same with a Degree, if you attained the degree even as recently as 2005/6 and had no more than a passing interest in Fundamental Physics since, you are in possession of dead information.
Educational attainment is static, frozen in time, science moves on relentlessly.
In answer to your post, what I have written here is unambiguous and correct as of today 12/07/2012, what you learned 'back in the day' is of little or no consequence if you use that as a basis to argue against.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff