No, it doesn't invalidate any research. The effect is real, but it seems that nobody can agree what it is and how it happens. The problem is that it's not repeatable because the initial conditions that create it are difficult to pin down. You can't say that it's a rule that hot water freezes before cold water. The likelihood is that it won't, but in some circumstances, it apparently can, though they don't seem to have pinned down exactly what that means. The latest research showed that the hot water doesn't get to zero first. Water has anomalous expansion so that it has maximum density at 4 deg C, which makes it freeze from the surface. That means that you can have one beaker with ice on the surface (0 deg at surface and 4 deg underneath before one that's at a lower temperature (1 deg homogeneous) if the one with ice in had some conditions that would cause the temperature gradient from top to bottom to be maintained.Yes, it's rather badly worded isn't it. The effect has been widely observed since the days Aristotle, so there are clearly many sets of initial parameters where the effect is observed, many "thousands" even.
So their results invalidate the research of many others eh? That's not quite how scientific method works, try Googling "Mpemba effect" there are lots of write-ups about it.
it's called the capillary effect or adhesion. The wall of the wires are more polar than water, so water gets more attracted by the wires than by its neighbouring water molecules (attracted by neighbours = cohesion).BTW any theory's on my observation of water droplets travelling up a wire ?
That's what you would imagine it would be but there are problems with that from what I can see.it's called the capillary effect or adhesion. The wall of the wires are more polar than water, so water gets more attracted by the wires than by its neighbouring water molecules (attracted by neighbours = cohesion).