RAF Moustache Story?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Tighe

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
Well, the mention on another thread on the relaxing effect versus the
possible dangers of smoking in a fast jet jogged my memory to an old
tale, and I want to know if it is true...

The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
hair...

Now, I know the perils of someone stupid using oil on the threads when
connecting up high pressure oxygen bottles (don't try that at home!),
so this is probably not completely impossible - but did it really
happen, and if so, has anyone seen the story in a flight safety mag or
biography?

Mike Tighe
Speaking from the bottom left
hand corner of the big picture.

Dweezil Dwarftosser

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 02:03:53 GMT, mik...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Tighe)
wrote:

>The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
>sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
>or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
>sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
>100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
>hair...
>
>Now, I know the perils of someone stupid using oil on the threads when
>connecting up high pressure oxygen bottles (don't try that at home!),
>so this is probably not completely impossible - but did it really
>happen, and if so, has anyone seen the story in a flight safety mag or
>biography?

I don't know if that happened or not - but I did know a rather
dim-witted crew chief that would put a drop of LOX in his hat and pull
it down over his ears. This often resulted in a hair oil/oxygen
connection that would *pop* the hat off his head.

I'm told he's on life-long daily medication these days...

- John T.

Mary Shafer

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
mik...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Tighe) writes:

> The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
> sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
> or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
> sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
> 100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
> hair...

In the last year or two there was an article in Approach about a Naval
Aviator who set his moustache on fire with the O2 system. He'd used
the wrong kind of moustache wax. He had to have skin grafts to repair
the damage. This wasn't the first such story I'd read in a reliable
source; I think the RAF was the leader in discovering the
incompatibility of petroleum-based moustache waxes and O2, but the US
forces have continued to do research on the problem.

--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com

Tarver Engineering

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to

Mary Shafer wrote in message ...

>mik...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Tighe) writes:
>
>> The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
>> sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
>> or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
>> sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
>> 100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
>> hair...
>
>In the last year or two there was an article in Approach about a Naval
>Aviator who set his moustache on fire with the O2 system. He'd used
>the wrong kind of moustache wax. He had to have skin grafts to repair
>the damage. This wasn't the first such story I'd read in a reliable
>source; I think the RAF was the leader in discovering the
>incompatibility of petroleum-based moustache waxes and O2, but the US
>forces have continued to do research on the problem.

I think you will find that all oxygen gages for torches say "use no oil",
and that predates the stupidity displayed by the RAF.

John


wal...@oneimage.com

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
wc...@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 02:03:53 GMT, mik...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Tighe)>wrote:
>>>The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
>>sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
>>or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
>>sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
>>100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
>>hair...
>>>>Now, I know the perils of someone stupid using oil on the threads when
>>connecting up high pressure oxygen bottles (don't try that at home!),
>>so this is probably not completely impossible - but did it really
>>happen, and if so, has anyone seen the story in a flight safety mag or
>>biography?
>>I don't know if that happened or not - but I did know a rather
>dim-witted crew chief that would put a drop of LOX in his hat and pull
>it down over his ears. This often resulted in a hair oil/oxygen
>connection that would *pop* the hat off his head.
>>I'm told he's on life-long daily medication these days...
>>- John T.

Here's a real-life maoustache story for y'all; I was there. In the 326 FIS
we had a pilot with a semi-handle bar 'stash; within regs, that is. He came
down from a flight in a 102 with a scorched face and had a hair-raising story
about his chapsticked lips cathcing fire from the Deuce's 100% oxygen (that's
all we had - there was no diluter mode). I was 'Life Support Officer' - read
Personel Equipment Officer - then and was in on the investigation and report.
Unfortunately it wasn't quite true. He had felt the need for a cigarette and
had neglected to shut off the oxygen flow. His coffin nail lasted but a second
or so and startled the hell out of him plus gave him mere first degree burns.
He was very lucky! (Clay, if you're out there - Hi!)
Walt BJ ftr plt ret

IanDTurner

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
As far as I know it IS true!! I seem to remember a reference to it in an
official flight safety publication (recently), and it was certainly featured in
a training film whilst I was at Halton in 1985.

LOX can provide a bit of perverse entertainment. I remember a mate of mine
finding a dead rabbit once - dipped it in LOX and shattered it with a hammer (
sick but true )

Ian

Paul J. Adam

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
In article <u0u2x03...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov>, Mary Shafer
<sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes

>I think the RAF was the leader in discovering the
>incompatibility of petroleum-based moustache waxes and O2, but the US
>forces have continued to do research on the problem.

It surprised me (it shouldn't have, but it did) to hear how careful you
had to be with cosmetics when flying.

Given that as a twentysomething male I've never even considered that as
an issue or a problem, I can all too easily see pilots having problems
with petroleum-based lip balm and other such substances.

Meanwhile, Hazel can tell you with alarming accuracy the contents of
everything she puts on her skin: I'd think you'd have a much easier time
getting her into an oxygen-rich environment than me.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk

Mary Shafer

unread,
Feb 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/5/99
to
"Paul J. Adam" <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:

> In article <u0u2x03...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov>, Mary Shafer
> <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes
> >I think the RAF was the leader in discovering the
> >incompatibility of petroleum-based moustache waxes and O2, but the US
> >forces have continued to do research on the problem.
>
> It surprised me (it shouldn't have, but it did) to hear how careful you
> had to be with cosmetics when flying.
>
> Given that as a twentysomething male I've never even considered that as
> an issue or a problem, I can all too easily see pilots having problems
> with petroleum-based lip balm and other such substances.

I carefully wipe off my lipstick before snugging the O2 mask up, but
that's more to keep from smearing it all over me and the mask than
because I worry about setting my lips on fire. I've never heard of a
woman having a problem with lipstick and O2, or makeup and O2, in an
airplane and surely something like this would have been newsworthy
enough to appear in one of the many magazines I get.

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
Mary Shafer <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:
--cut--

>I carefully wipe off my lipstick before snugging the O2 mask up, but
>that's more to keep from smearing it all over me and the mask than
>because I worry about setting my lips on fire. I've never heard of a
>woman having a problem with lipstick and O2, or makeup and O2, in an
>airplane and surely something like this would have been newsworthy
>enough to appear in one of the many magazines I get.
>Mary Shafer

I've been looking this thread over and noticed that your last sentence
came as close as anything to what's been my experience...for seven
years I flew the Fairchild C-119 Boxcar all over the north, and as far
east as Greece. With around 7,000 hours in it I've had lots of time to
play with the oxygen system. The fact that I was in my early twenties
then helps (young and stoopid).

I've found that if you fill your lungs with 100% oxygen then light up
a cigarette you can blow out gently and get the cig to emit a little
flame. If you drop a lit butt into a Dixie cup then blow into it you
can, with a little work, make the cigarette butt catch on
fire...that's about it, these stories about hair oil blowing your hat
off, cheese fires in your beard etc are just silly stories dreamed up
by silly teenagers. Think about it for a minute...where would the
ignition come from?...gee...
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada

Tex Bennett

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 02:03:53 GMT, mik...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Tighe)
wrote:

>Well, the mention on another thread on the relaxing effect versus the


>possible dangers of smoking in a fast jet jogged my memory to an old
>tale, and I want to know if it is true...
>

>The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
>sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
>or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
>sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
>100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
>hair...

I read this story several years ago in the RAF in house Flight Saftey
magazine "Air Clues" - so if Wg Cmdr Spry says it's true that's good
enough for me. However, I'm sure it was a Shacklebomber back seater.

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to
"Rock" <andy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--cut--
>The ignition source is your
>body heat. Its a little bit of high school chemistry if I can remember back
>that far. If you want to know how hostile a 100% Oxygen environment is just
>talk to any of the technicians and firefighters who watched a RAAF P3 burn
>after a few Rust Particles entered the aluminium tubing of the Oxy system.
>
>Rock
>
>
"The ignition source is your body heat" you say?...I see...so you're
telling me that if I take a bite out of a sandwich (buttered) then
take a lungful of 100% oxygen that I'll explode?!...sure I will
sonny...sure I will...cripes, if 100% oxygen were that dangerous then
you wouldn't dare breathe it...don't you suppose there's any fatty
substance available inside your body?...why is it that these kids
dearly love to say startling things like 'microwave ovens heat from
the inside out' or hot water will freeze quicker than cold water (and
vice versa). I think they're likely thinking to themselves 'this guy
thinks I'm real smart'...yeh...sure kid...we do indeed...yes...

SL Nyveen

unread,
Feb 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/6/99
to

> "The ignition source is your body heat" you say?...I see...so you're
> telling me that if I take a bite out of a sandwich (buttered) then
> take a lungful of 100% oxygen that I'll explode?!...sure I will
> sonny...sure I will...cripes, if 100% oxygen were that dangerous then
> you wouldn't dare breathe it...don't you suppose there's any fatty
> substance available inside your body?...why is it that these kids
> dearly love to say startling things like 'microwave ovens heat from
> the inside out' or hot water will freeze quicker than cold water (and
> vice versa). I think they're likely thinking to themselves 'this guy
> thinks I'm real smart'...yeh...sure kid...we do indeed...yes...

I'm the last guy in the world to start believing urban folklore, but...

Hot water does freeze more quickly than cold. Really. While it does not
do so under ideal experimental conditions, it will in real life.

Remember the following facts before I launch into my explanation:
- Hot water is less dense than cold for temperatures above 4 C
- Temperature is a simple way of saying "average heat of all molecules in
a given volume".

To explain how, lets look at the ideal conditions first:

1) Take equal amounts, by mass, of cold water and hot water, each in an
expandable, closed container with no airspace. Place them in a freezer on
top of perfectly insulated pads, so no heat will be lost through contact
with the floor of the freezer.

2) Under these conditions, no evaporation can take place, so the number of
molecules remains the same in each container. Heat loss takes place
purely through contact with air molecules in the freezer. Given that the
cold water has less heat to lose to reach freezing temperature, it should
freeze first.

No, lets look at real life:

1) Take equal volumes, say 1 L, of cold water and hot water and place them
in perfectly insulated buckets. Place these buckets in the freezer.

2) First, the volumes are the same but the hot water, less dense, will
have fewer molecules in it. This accelerates cooling - all will agree
that a thimle of hot water freezes before six L of cold water would,
right?

3) The temperature of the hot water is higher than the temperature of the
cold (tautology, but so what - it makes the point). So the hot water has
more molecules of any given heat content (= energy). Therefore, the hot
water will have more molecules reach the heat content (= energy) required
to break intermolecular bonds. Thus the hot water will have more
molecules evaporate from its surface than will the cold water. This
reduces the mass of the water in the hot water bucket. (Lets ignore what
happens to evaporated water - it will condense equally in both buckets and
on the freezer walls.)

4) Loss of high energy molecules (= evaporation) will continue to lower
the average heat (=temperature) of the hot water more than the same
process in the cold water. At some point, this will equalize temperatures
in the two buckets.

5) By the time the temperatures in the two buckets equal one another,
there is less of the water that was the hot water than there is of what
was the cold water. There was less to start with and this has been
exacerbated by evaporation.

6) Both buckets are the same temperature, but there is less "hot" water.
Ergo, it has less heat to lose before freezing and it will freeze first.

Note that the real-life effect will be more pronounced with a wood
(insulating) bucket than with aluminum (conducting) buckets since with
conductive buckets, heat is lost to the ground and the air (through the
sides) without reducing mass.

See?

Laurie Nyveen lawr...@dsuper.nett
_____________________________________________________________________
Editor, Netsurfer Digest - http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/index.html
101 Sqn opus-in-progress - http://www.dsuper.net/~lawrence/index.html
DNRC Minister of Adding "ue" to Words That End in "log"
"All we are, basically, are monkeys with car keys."
- Grandma Woody (Northern Exposure)

Please remove the extra "t" to e-mail me. Sorry.

Rock

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to

>
>I've been looking this thread over and noticed that your last sentence
>came as close as anything to what's been my experience...for seven
>years I flew the Fairchild C-119 Boxcar all over the north, and as far
>east as Greece. With around 7,000 hours in it I've had lots of time to
>play with the oxygen system. The fact that I was in my early twenties
>then helps (young and stoopid).
>
>I've found that if you fill your lungs with 100% oxygen then light up
>a cigarette you can blow out gently and get the cig to emit a little
>flame. If you drop a lit butt into a Dixie cup then blow into it you
>can, with a little work, make the cigarette butt catch on
>fire...that's about it, these stories about hair oil blowing your hat
>off, cheese fires in your beard etc are just silly stories dreamed up
>by silly teenagers. Think about it for a minute...where would the
>ignition come from?...gee...

>--
>Gord Beaman
>PEI, Canada

Ok Gord heres a challenge. Get a pair of greasy overalls and put them on.
Now fill a room with pure oxygen such as what happens if you spill LOX. Now
walk in and ........ Its something I wouldn't want to risk just because
someone else hasn't suffered third degree burns. The ignition source is your


body heat. Its a little bit of high school chemistry if I can remember back
that far. If you want to know how hostile a 100% Oxygen environment is just
talk to any of the technicians and firefighters who watched a RAAF P3 burn

after a few Rust Particles entered the aluminium tubing of the Oxy system.

Rock

wal...@oneimage.com

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
If the atmosphere is anything like it is here in Colorado static
electricity would provide the spark. Along the rust in lines bit we had a small
fire in the oxygen mask test system at RGAFB; it was metal paricles blown down the
line by the oxygen from a suddenly opened valve, according to the
experts who invetsigated it. I was OIC of the Life Support Shop when and where it
happened back about 1961.
BTW some of our denser ramp rats used to stomp on spilled LOX and make it go bang
on the asphalt ramp - until their NCO saw what they were doing. Nothing like a little
'extra instruction' to get their attention.

Rock

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to

>>
>"The ignition source is your body heat" you say?...I see...so you're
>telling me that if I take a bite out of a sandwich (buttered) then
>take a lungful of 100% oxygen that I'll explode?!...sure I will
>sonny...sure I will...cripes, if 100% oxygen were that dangerous then
>you wouldn't dare breathe it...don't you suppose there's any fatty
>substance available inside your body?...why is it that these kids
>dearly love to say startling things like 'microwave ovens heat from
>the inside out' or hot water will freeze quicker than cold water (and
>vice versa). I think they're likely thinking to themselves 'this guy
>thinks I'm real smart'...yeh...sure kid...we do indeed...yes...

>--
>Gord Beaman
>PEI, Canada

Hey Gord,
Settle down. My point is that there is a danger present. If there wasn't
some basis in the theory why does the RAAF have a policy of no make up of
any kind for all aircrew and why did that USN pilot have a helmet fire when
he used the wrong type of hair Gel (suffering severe burns to his head) as
reported in our flight safety magazine here in Aus. And why does the RAAF
insist on all technicians handling LOX wear dedicated overalls that are
guaranteed clean of grease. And how come we use silicon grease on all oxygen
systems??????
If you have so much faith in the fact that you wont explode into flames go
ahead and do my little experiment. I will keep to a grease free environment
thanks very much.

Rock

Andrew Yeung

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
On Sat, 06 Feb 1999 21:07:18 GMT, gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord
Beaman) wrote:

>the inside out' or hot water will freeze quicker than cold water (and

Hot water actually freezes quicker. The latent heat of vaporization
coupled with the convection currents of the steam help to remove more
heat faster.

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
lawr...@dsuper.nett (SL Nyveen) wrote:
--cut--

>1) Take equal amounts, by mass, of cold water and hot water, each in an
>expandable, closed container with no airspace. Place them in a freezer on
>top of perfectly insulated pads, so no heat will be lost through contact
>with the floor of the freezer.
>
I started out arguing your post point by point but I think I can sum
it up much easier by wiping all that out and saying 'hot water will
not freeze quicker than cold water unless you start manipulating
conditions to make it happen'...you can make almost anything happen if
you manipulate enough parameters enough.

I prefer the reasonable mature adult method of reasoning problems out.


That you seem to prefer the trick-ridden approach merely lends
credence to the pertinent statement about this in my original post.

Emmanuel Gustin

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
Tarver Engineering wrote in message <79f9ns$pgs$1...@remarQ.com>...

>I think you will find that all oxygen gages for torches say "use no oil",
>and that predates the stupidity displayed by the RAF.


IIRC NASA lost two rocket-engined X-series test aircraft because
the wrong type of gaskets was used for connectors on LOX lines.

Emmanuel Gustin


Bubba

unread,
Feb 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/7/99
to
I've got a bride in Brooklyn for sale. Not interested? How about some
land in Florida then?

Hot water freeze faster than cold my ass!!!

Andrew Yeung wrote in message <36bd23cc...@news.pacific.net.sg>...

Jim Erickson

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

>On contrary, that is the experimental method: controlling all
>variables except the one being tested.

Laurie,

I just picked up this thread and Gord Beaman has you beat. He is
absolutely right, cold water will freeze faster than hot unless you
start to manipulate the parameters. Your claim to follow the
experimental method is specious. First, you conveniently ignore the
issue of surface to volume ratios and the amount of exposed surface
which are critical factors in heat transfer or evaporative cooling. I
suspect there are surface to volume ratios and exposed surface areas
that will produce the phenomenon you describe, but there are many that
will not.

Second, your argument depends on having a perfect, or near perfect
insulator, otherwise heat transfer through the sides of the container
will profoundly influence the results as you admit in your mention of
the difference between aluminum and wooden buckets. Where in the "real
world" are you going to get that perfect insulator?

Third, your argument is not experimental, it's a theoretical statement
that is not backed up by any quantitative figures. If you want your
argument to be convincing you ought to present some numbers that support
your thesis that the higher evaporative cooling rate of a hot liquid
will result in a greater net loss rate of heat in the liquid than the
evaporation rate for a cold liquid. As it is, you simply assert that
what you say is true.

Fourth, you ignore the question of what is a hot and what is a cold
liquid. Would you argue that 5°C water will freeze faster than 4°C?
How about 20°, or 50° or 80°? At what point does your argument prevail?

Jim Erickson

David E. Oakley

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

wal...@oneimage.com wrote:

> >
> If the atmosphere is anything like it is here in Colorado static
> electricity would provide the spark. Along the rust in lines bit we had a small
> fire in the oxygen mask test system at RGAFB; it was metal paricles blown down the
> line by the oxygen from a suddenly opened valve, according to the
> experts who invetsigated it. I was OIC of the Life Support Shop when and where it
> happened back about 1961.
> BTW some of our denser ramp rats used to stomp on spilled LOX and make it go bang
> on the asphalt ramp - until their NCO saw what they were doing. Nothing like a little
> 'extra instruction' to get their attention.
> Walt BJ ftr plt ret
> >

Walt

We denser ramp rats are easily amused. 8-)

What we were taught in one or another of our fire safety classes was that as the percent
of O2 goes up, the kindling temperature goes down. For very high concentrations of O2,
the kindling temperature for some materials gets very close to ambient. No spark
required, it just goes bang. 8-)

David

Andrew Yeung

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 18:11:34 GMT, gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord
Beaman) wrote:

>lawr...@dsuper.nett (SL Nyveen) wrote:
>--cut--

Tarver Engineering

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

Emmanuel Gustin wrote in message <79l42i$e80$1...@fu-berlin.de>...

Ooops. :)

I could see one, but two?

John


Maury Markowitz

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
In <36bdd5e1...@news1.sympatico.ca> Gord Beaman wrote:
> I started out arguing your post point by point but I think I can sum
> it up much easier by wiping all that out and saying 'hot water will
> not freeze quicker than cold water unless you start manipulating
> conditions to make it happen'.

Manipulating the conditions? Put two ice cube trays in your freezer, one
with warm water, one cold. Try it for yourself Gord.

> I prefer the reasonable mature adult method of reasoning problems out.

I prefer experimentation, human reasoning is fallible.

Maury


Paul J. Adam

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to
In article <36bd0...@206.168.123.253>, wal...@oneimage.com writes

> BTW some of our denser ramp rats used to stomp on spilled LOX and make it go
>bang
>on the asphalt ramp - until their NCO saw what they were doing. Nothing like a
>little
>'extra instruction' to get their attention.

The "pure 02" TINS I heard was a guy who'd been doing a tank inspection
at a steelworks: a big oxygen tank, drained for inspection and checking.
The technician in question went into the tank, with thorough antispark
and antistatic precautions, and did the interior check.

Of course, it was _cold_ in there, so he'd dressed very warmly.


The check complete, he came out, closed the tank, made sure all was safe
and the high-oxygen environment of the tank was sealed off and protected
from hazard.


That done - cold, tired and miserable - he lit a cigarette.

Of course, he was wearing several thick layers of clothing, which were
saturated with oxygen, and he burned like a torch. His shocked comrades
tried to smother the flames, but his sweater and fleece jacket and all
the rest of his clothing contained suxh a high level of oxygen that
smothering it did no good at all.

Erickson Lab

unread,
Feb 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/8/99
to

Maury Markowitz wrote:

OK, I'm not Gordon Beaman, but I doubt that he will mind. Here's a "quick and
dirty" experiment.

I added 1.0 ml of distilled water to each of four 1.5 ml open topped
polypropylene tubes. The starting water temperature varied as follows:

tube 1: 60°C (140° F)
tube 2: 42°C (107° F)
tube 3: 21°C (70° F)
tube 4: 5°C (41° F)

At time zero, the four tubes were placed in a -80°C freezer (I didn't have the
patience to use the -20°C) and I monitored the phase transition at various
times.

The results:

At t = 6 min the 5°C sample (#4) was frozen solid. The 21°C sample (#3) was
almost frozen. The others were still ~1/2 liquid, with tube #1 having the
larger volume of liquid.

At t = 8 min both the 5°C and 21°C samples were frozen solid. The 42° (#2)
and 60°C (#1) tubes still contained some liquid water with tube 1 containing
the larger amount.

At t = 10 min all four samples appeared to be frozen solid.

The experimental method--ya gotta love it!

Jim Erickson


Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:

>In <36bdd5e1...@news1.sympatico.ca> Gord Beaman wrote:
>> I started out arguing your post point by point but I think I can sum
>> it up much easier by wiping all that out and saying 'hot water will
>> not freeze quicker than cold water unless you start manipulating
>> conditions to make it happen'.
>
> Manipulating the conditions? Put two ice cube trays in your freezer, one
>with warm water, one cold. Try it for yourself Gord.
>

I don't think so Maury, if my wife saw it she'd ask and I'd feel just
too silly telling her why. She, being a sensible sort, would look
askance at me and say, 'Oh really?...I see...hummm'. Then for some
time after I'd catch her looking at me with a quizzical expression on
her face. It's likely that for months after that she'd check me over
before I went downtown for unlaced shoes, unraised zippers and other
signs of mental wear.

>> I prefer the reasonable mature adult method of reasoning problems out.
>
> I prefer experimentation, human reasoning is fallible.
>
>Maury
>

Doesn't make for good old horse sense Maury, you're really taking a
chance when you rely on the results of expermentation without running
those results through the good old 'is this answer reasonable' common
sense filter. But, hey, whatever turns your crank...speaking of which,
are you 'still' of the opinion that the pistons are arranged around
the propshaft vice the crankshaft?...gee...

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Erickson Lab <jimr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
--cut--

>
>OK, I'm not Gordon Beaman, but I doubt that he will mind. Here's a "quick and
>dirty" experiment.
>
>I added 1.0 ml of distilled water to each of four 1.5 ml open topped
>polypropylene tubes. The starting water temperature varied as follows:
>
>tube 1: 60°C (140° F)
>tube 2: 42°C (107° F)
>tube 3: 21°C (70° F)
>tube 4: 5°C (41° F)
>
>At time zero, the four tubes were placed in a -80°C freezer (I didn't have the
>patience to use the -20°C) and I monitored the phase transition at various
>times.
>
>The results:
>
>At t = 6 min the 5°C sample (#4) was frozen solid. The 21°C sample (#3) was
>almost frozen. The others were still ~1/2 liquid, with tube #1 having the
>larger volume of liquid.
>
>At t = 8 min both the 5°C and 21°C samples were frozen solid. The 42° (#2)
>and 60°C (#1) tubes still contained some liquid water with tube 1 containing
>the larger amount.
>
>At t = 10 min all four samples appeared to be frozen solid.
>
>The experimental method--ya gotta love it!
>
>Jim Erickson
>
Thank you Jim, I would have expected nothing less than your results.
If I ever need lab work done I'll surely remember your facility.

SL Nyveen

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

> I added 1.0 ml of distilled water to each of four 1.5 ml open topped
> polypropylene tubes. The starting water temperature varied as follows:
>
> tube 1: 60°C (140° F)
> tube 2: 42°C (107° F)
> tube 3: 21°C (70° F)
> tube 4: 5°C (41° F)
>
> At time zero, the four tubes were placed in a -80°C freezer (I didn't have the
> patience to use the -20°C) and I monitored the phase transition at various
> times.
>
> The results:
>
> At t = 6 min the 5°C sample (#4) was frozen solid. The 21°C sample (#3) was
> almost frozen. The others were still ~1/2 liquid, with tube #1 having the
> larger volume of liquid.
>
> At t = 8 min both the 5°C and 21°C samples were frozen solid. The 42° (#2)
> and 60°C (#1) tubes still contained some liquid water with tube 1 containing
> the larger amount.
>
> At t = 10 min all four samples appeared to be frozen solid.
>
> The experimental method--ya gotta love it!

Cool!

Try any or all of these now, if you don't mind:

1) stick the tubes in a styrofoam block to limit heat loss through the plastic.

2) use the -20 C freezer. The rate of cooling probably affects the amount
of evaporative cooling that can occur in a given time.

3) use boiling water vs. water at room temperature.

4) use containers that allow greater surface area.

Ogden Johnson III

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Bubba (Bu...@Arkand.Saw) wrote:

: I've got a bride in Brooklyn for sale.

The bloom is off the romance this early?

OJ III

Jim Erickson

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
>Try any or all of these now, if you don't mind:

>1) stick the tubes in a styrofoam block to limit heat loss through the plastic.

>2) use the -20 C freezer. The rate of cooling probably affects the amount
>of evaporative cooling that can occur in a given time.

>3) use boiling water vs. water at room temperature.

>4) use containers that allow greater surface area.

>Laurie Nyveen


Sorry Laurie, I don't have the time to check a whole range of variable
just to test a crazy hypothesis. I'm not convinced that hot water will
freeze faster than cold under any conditions, let alone common ones.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that if it can occur, it likely
requires a very special set of conditions. Which was Gord Beaman's
point IIRC.

BTW, I did the old ice cube tray in the freezer trick at home last
night. One tray with 6 slots filled with hot tap water, 2 empty slots
in the middle, and 6 slots filled with cold tap water. The answer: the
cold water cubes froze first. Of course you could argue that I was a
biased experimentor since I knew that was going to be the result, but
hey, what can you do?

Jim Erickson

Jim Erickson

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
>> Manipulating the conditions? Put two ice cube trays in your freezer, one
>>with warm water, one cold. Try it for yourself Gord.

>I don't think so Maury, if my wife saw it she'd ask and I'd feel just
>too silly telling her why. She, being a sensible sort, would look
>askance at me and say, 'Oh really?...I see...hummm'. Then for some
>time after I'd catch her looking at me with a quizzical expression on
>her face. It's likely that for months after that she'd check me over
>before I went downtown for unlaced shoes, unraised zippers and other
>signs of mental wear.

>>> I prefer the reasonable mature adult method of reasoning problems out.
>
>> I prefer experimentation, human reasoning is fallible.
>
>>Maury
>
>Doesn't make for good old horse sense Maury, you're really taking a
>chance when you rely on the results of expermentation without running
>those results through the good old 'is this answer reasonable' common
>sense filter. But, hey, whatever turns your crank...

>Gord Beaman

Maury, if you're going to toss aside reason for experimental results,
you really ought to do the experiment first. I risked embarrassment and
scorn and did the experiment at home last night. The cold water cubes
froze first.

Jim Erickson

Maury Markowitz

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In <36BF2934...@columbia.edu> Erickson Lab wrote:
> The experimental method--ya gotta love it!

Indeed, now try it with ice cube trays, as I noted.

Maury


Maury Markowitz

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In <36bfb28b...@news1.sympatico.ca> Gord Beaman wrote:
> Thank you Jim, I would have expected nothing less than your results.
> If I ever need lab work done I'll surely remember your facility.

Har!

Lemme ask Gord, have YOU tried the experiment that I outlined? No?
Let's see your next message...

> I don't think so Maury, if my wife saw it she'd ask and I'd feel just
> too silly telling her why.

You're scared to experiment because of your wife? Sorry Gord, that's a
pretty lame excuse IMHO.

> Doesn't make for good old horse sense Maury

I must only assume that you haven't done much modern physics. "good old
horse sense" is wrong almost 100% of the time. "good old horse sense" is
great for things weighing between 1 and 1000 pounds, travelling at speeds
between 1cm/s and about 50km/h. Beyond that it tends to fail more and more
rapidly until it becomes quite the opposite of reality.

"good old horse sense" says that you can brace yourself against your
steering wheel in case of an accident. It makes lots of sense until I ask
you to hold out your arms and run as fast as you can into a brick wall.
"good old horse sense" says that sound travels faster in denser mediums.
"good old horse sense" says that particles are little balls spinning like
tops flying through space.

> chance when you rely on the results of expermentation without running
> those results through the good old 'is this answer reasonable' common
> sense filter

In a single sentance you've just rejected the last three centuries of
scientific progress. As a (failed) physicist let me assure you that the
rest of the world labours under no such illusions about the worthyness of
the human brain in terms of the "reasonableness" of the way the universe
"should" work. All of the great experiments in science are those that
result in the opposite of what "common sense" would tell you - the
photoelectic effect. blackbody radiation, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the
Aspect/Bell Inequallity measurement, the quantum boiling pot etc etc etc.
The fact the the real world works nothing like what "common sense" suggests
is a property some philosophers of science have used to suggest that
science is an infinite enterprise.

Do the experiment Gord. I have. It froze quicker. You can "reason" all
you want, you'll still be wrong. If you're worried about your wife looking
at you funny, show her this message and tell her I'm crazy.

Maury


Maury Markowitz

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In <36bfb30e...@news1.sympatico.ca> Gord Beaman wrote:
> sense filter. But, hey, whatever turns your crank...speaking of which,
> are you 'still' of the opinion that the pistons are arranged around
> the propshaft vice the crankshaft?...gee...

I just noticed this.

I don't remember this topic at all, although I've seen you speaking about
it in the past. Please provide pointers to the thread in question.

Maury


Jim Erickson

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
>> Doesn't make for good old horse sense Maury

> I must only assume that you haven't done much modern physics. "good old
>horse sense" is wrong almost 100% of the time. "good old horse sense" is
>great for things weighing between 1 and 1000 pounds, travelling at speeds
>between 1cm/s and about 50km/h. Beyond that it tends to fail more and more
>rapidly until it becomes quite the opposite of reality.

Maury, Are the ice cubes in your freezer part of the old fashioned
Newtonian world of physics or of the small-scale relativistic world of
modern physics that you're hinting at here? At the macroscopic level of
MY freezer, things are modeled quite well by the old fashioned physics.

>> chance when you rely on the results of expermentation without running
>> those results through the good old 'is this answer reasonable' common
>> sense filter

> In a single sentance you've just rejected the last three centuries of
>scientific progress. As a (failed) physicist let me assure you that the
>rest of the world labours under no such illusions about the worthyness of
>the human brain in terms of the "reasonableness" of the way the universe
>"should" work. All of the great experiments in science are those that
>result in the opposite of what "common sense" would tell you - the
>photoelectic effect. blackbody radiation, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, the
>Aspect/Bell Inequallity measurement, the quantum boiling pot etc etc etc.
>The fact the the real world works nothing like what "common sense" suggests
>is a property some philosophers of science have used to suggest that
>science is an infinite enterprise.

Actually Gord has stated one of the most useful rules in scientific
research. It's always a good idea to ask, does this make sense?
Sometimes, as in relativistic physics or quantum mechanics, we know
enough to say that the common sense answers are likely wrong, but when
you deal with macroscopic "real world" items, common sense is a good,
but not infallible, guide. Certainly in biology, molecular biology, and
biological chemistry most things obey common sense rules.

I also take issue with the claim that all great scientific discoveries
came about in the face of common sense. Mendel's genetic experiments,
Darwin's evolutionary theory, the germ-theory of disease, the
chromosomal basis of heredity, the demonstration of DNA as the
hereditary molecule, the structure of DNA etc etc etc. violate no common
sense principles, and I've found that the layman can rather easily
comprehend these concepts if they are explained clearly and simply in
common sense terms.

> Do the experiment Gord. I have. It froze quicker. You can "reason" all
>you want, you'll still be wrong. If you're worried about your wife looking
>at you funny, show her this message and tell her I'm crazy.
>Maury

Now we know why you're a "failed" (experimental) physicist! (grin)

Jim Erickson

Steve Pickering

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
In article <36bc06a...@news.btinternet.com>, Tex Bennett
<T...@btinternet.com> writes
>On Fri, 05 Feb 1999 02:03:53 GMT, mik...@dircon.co.uk (Mike Tighe)
>wrote:
>
>>Well, the mention on another thread on the relaxing effect versus the
>>possible dangers of smoking in a fast jet jogged my memory to an old
>>tale, and I want to know if it is true...
>>
>>The story goes back to the days when some RAF fast jet aircrew still
>>sported extravagant handlebar moustaches. On a long flight, a pilot
>>or nav ate his packed lunch, which happened to be a round of cheese
>>sandwiches. Then, when he put his oxygen mask back on, he selected
>>100% and accidentally started a small grease fire in his facial
>>hair...
>
>I read this story several years ago in the RAF in house Flight Saftey
>magazine "Air Clues" - so if Wg Cmdr Spry says it's true that's good
>enough for me. However, I'm sure it was a Shacklebomber back seater.

I seem to remember many moons ago a flying clothing worker at Coningsby
getting a 'good show' because he spotted that a future F-4 driver had
put Vaseline on his face which had smeared all over his oxy mask and
"COULD" have caused an explosion.
--
Steve P. St Andrews, Fife. Scotland (56.20.35 N 002 46.90 W)

Ex RAF Survival Equipment Fitter

Check 6 - Phantoms Phorever



S. Evans

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Jim Erickson wrote:
>
> >> Manipulating the conditions? Put two ice cube trays in your freezer, one
> >>with warm water, one cold. Try it for yourself Gord.
>
> >I don't think so Maury, if my wife saw it she'd ask and I'd feel just
> >too silly telling her why. She, being a sensible sort, would look
> >askance at me and say, 'Oh really?...I see...hummm'. Then for some
> >time after I'd catch her looking at me with a quizzical expression on
> >her face. It's likely that for months after that she'd check me over
> >before I went downtown for unlaced shoes, unraised zippers and other
> >signs of mental wear.
>
> >>> I prefer the reasonable mature adult method of reasoning problems out.
> >
> >> I prefer experimentation, human reasoning is fallible.
> >
> >>Maury
> >
> >Doesn't make for good old horse sense Maury, you're really taking a
> >chance when you rely on the results of expermentation without running
> >those results through the good old 'is this answer reasonable' common
> >sense filter. But, hey, whatever turns your crank...
>
> >Gord Beaman
>
> Maury, if you're going to toss aside reason for experimental results,
> you really ought to do the experiment first. I risked embarrassment and
> scorn and did the experiment at home last night. The cold water cubes
> froze first.
>
> Jim Erickson

Jim,
The error that Maury made was that this experiment is really a trick.
First you measure equal amounts of water. This is the important part.
The amount of water to compare must be equal before the heating. Next
pour one of the measures into a container that will go into the
freezer. With the other measure, heat it to a boil, then pour that
water into another container (ice cube tray, whatever) and place the two
into the freezer. The water that was boiling will often freeze first.
Why? Because there is less water. Some of it boiled off. I think The
Science Guy did this on Public Television (PBS) not too long ago.
Steve Evans

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:

Ok Maury...here's the pertinent post...

=======================================
> Gord Beaman claimed:
>> Also I don't agree that there's very little
>> difference between the prop shaft and the crankshaft,
>> no self respecting pilot/engineer/mechanic would
>> confuse the two or use one in place of the
>> other...sorry...

> Yes, but that's Erik's point - that he feels Ford is
> NOT a "pilot/engineer/mechanic". And other
> non-"pilot/engineer/mechanic"'s that I know refer to
> spinners as nose cones, and prop shafts as crank shafts.
> Specifically the later one, where indeed the two
> _are_ many times the same thing.
>
> Maury

Jeff Crowell

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

Maury Markowitz wrote:
> Manipulating the conditions? Put two ice cube trays in your freezer, one
>with warm water, one cold. Try it for yourself Gord.

But the "why" is important, Maury.

All this "convective currents" bullhooey is just that. Eventually the warm
water
cools down (at a faster rate due to greater delta T) to match the temp of
the
water that started out cooler. Same-same all from there. The reason the
water that started out warm (or hot) freezes faster is that there is now
less
'hot' water than 'cold' water due to evaporation.

It's just another way of cheating, or stating the conditions deceptively.


Jeff

Jeff Crowell

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

Paul J. Adam wrote:
>Of course, he was wearing several thick layers of clothing, which were
>saturated with oxygen, and he burned like a torch. His shocked comrades
>tried to smother the flames, but his sweater and fleece jacket and all
>the rest of his clothing contained suxh a high level of oxygen that
>smothering it did no good at all.

Absotively! Then there's the mining stories, in a similar vein. (sorry)

It is not unheard of for miners (or others, for that matter) to work
in an atmosphere which is explosive without coming to harm, then
coming out into clean normal air for a break. They "light up"
(literally) and their chests explode because their lungs are filled with
the explosive mixture still.

Yick!

Jeff

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:

>In <36bfb28b...@news1.sympatico.ca> Gord Beaman wrote:
>> Thank you Jim, I would have expected nothing less than your results.
>> If I ever need lab work done I'll surely remember your facility.
>
> Har!
>
> Lemme ask Gord, have YOU tried the experiment that I outlined? No?
>Let's see your next message...
>

>> I don't think so Maury, if my wife saw it she'd ask and I'd feel just
>> too silly telling her why.
>

> You're scared to experiment because of your wife? Sorry Gord, that's a
>pretty lame excuse IMHO.
>

Well, old chap, your using this remark against me this way is the only
lame item here, you don't really suppose I was being serious when I
said it do you now?...talk about opportunism!...guess in future I
won't use anything but very short plain sentences with little words
when I'm speaking to you.

>> Doesn't make for good old horse sense Maury
>
> I must only assume that you haven't done much modern physics. "good old
>horse sense" is wrong almost 100% of the time. "good old horse sense" is
>great for things weighing between 1 and 1000 pounds, travelling at speeds
>between 1cm/s and about 50km/h. Beyond that it tends to fail more and more
>rapidly until it becomes quite the opposite of reality.
>

If you say so ace...

> "good old horse sense" says that you can brace yourself against your
>steering wheel in case of an accident.

Might to a kid who has no life experiences perhaps...how old did you
say you were?...

<some drivel deleted here>


>
>
> All of the great experiments in science are those that
>result in the opposite of what "common sense" would tell you

If you say so ace...

> Do the experiment Gord. I have. It froze quicker. You can "reason" all
>you want, you'll still be wrong.
>

>Maury
>
Bullshit...it couldn't possibly freeze quicker...look Maury, if you
take two EQUAL amounts of water (at the same temp), heat one sample to
say 50C, cool the other to 2C, put them both in the cooler. Now you
claim that the warmer one will freeze first?...as Bernie says
"Bwhaaaaaahhaaaa"...

Hell, even though the hot one loses it's temp at a higher RATE (while
its hotter), eventually they'll get to the same temp (maybe before the
cool one freezes (which I doubt)) how do you explain one losing temp
faster than the other NOW?...they're at the same temp, they have the
same amount of water...tell me bright boy?...do some magical higher
physics machinations which have nothing to do with common sense and
tell me how this could happen...while you're at it tell me how one
sample will lose FIFTY degrees while another exactly the same size is
losing TWO degrees...I say again (loudly) bullshit sir...

Jeff Crowell

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Maury Markowitz wrote:
>> Manipulating the conditions? Put two ice cube trays in your freezer,
one
>> with warm water, one cold. Try it for yourself Gord.

But the 'why' is important, Maury.

All this 'convective currents" bullhooey is just exactly that. When the
hot and cold samples are placed in the freezer, the hot water cools off
faster than the cold--a simple convection problem so far. More delta T,
faster flow of heat (Q). But after a while, the 'hot' water catches up to
(cools down to the same temperature as) the cold. And it is
samee-samee-all from here.

The hot water really will freeze faster, by the way.

The hot water freezes faster because there is less water to freeze.
A meaningful fraction of it evaporated during the cooling-off period
(for small sample sizes).

But you may not be able to measure the differences in your
freezer.


Jeff


Jim Erickson

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Steve Evans wrote:
>Jim,
>The error that Maury made was that this experiment is really a trick.
>First you measure equal amounts of water. This is the important part.
>The amount of water to compare must be equal before the heating. Next
>pour one of the measures into a container that will go into the
>freezer. With the other measure, heat it to a boil, then pour that
>water into another container (ice cube tray, whatever) and place the two
>into the freezer. The water that was boiling will often freeze first.
>Why? Because there is less water. Some of it boiled off. I think The
>Science Guy did this on Public Television (PBS) not too long ago.
>Steve Evans

Thanks for pointing this out Steve. What is different here from what
Laurie Nyveen stated earlier, is that the evaporation occurs before the
water ever enters the freezer. Thus the hot sample contains much less
water than the cold sample when they enter the freezer, so the hot
sample has the chance of freezing faster. It's really no different from
putting a thimble full of boiling water and a bucket of cold into the
freezer and asking; which freezes first?

The common-sense, and physically correct, bottom line is that if you
want to make ice cubes, start with cold water. It's also a lot easier
on any frozen meats or vegetables you've got in the freezer.

Jim Erickson

SL Nyveen

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to

> Hell, even though the hot one loses it's temp at a higher RATE (while
> its hotter), eventually they'll get to the same temp (maybe before the
> cool one freezes (which I doubt)) how do you explain one losing temp
> faster than the other NOW?...they're at the same temp, they have the
> same amount of water...tell me bright boy?

They don't have the same amount of water when they reach the same temp.
The hotter one has less, because more has evaporated. That was my
original point.

> ...do some magical higher
> physics machinations which have nothing to do with common sense and
> tell me how this could happen...while you're at it tell me how one
> sample will lose FIFTY degrees while another exactly the same size is
> losing TWO degrees...I say again (loudly) bullshit sir...

Here you seem to be confusing temperature with heat - although it can be a
semantic error, I'll grant you.

Imagine each molecule has heat content that can be defined as a number.
The temperature of a liquid is the average number among all molecules.
The heat is the sum of all molecules. (And with evaporation, the
molecules with higher numbers leave - leaving behind a lower average and a
lower sum.)

I performed the experiment myself this afternoon. I used 1/3 cup of water
near boiling and water at room temperature. I poured the water into two
Fireking measuring cups and stuck them in my freezer on top of towels (to
remove the cooling effect of the shelf). I checked the water at 7 min, 20
min, 40 min, 60 min, and every 5 min thereafter.

I had an odd, but telling, result. The room temperature water displayed
ice crystals first, but the hot water froze solid first. Why? Probably
because there was less hot water left, and thus less latent heat to lose
in freezing. (No, I did not mix up the containers...).

There appear to be as many results here as there are experimenters. I
think this is because the variables can effect the outcome drastically.

Variable include:
- Temperature difference between samples
- absolute starting temperatures
- surface area
- conductive cooling (container material and insulative properties)
- temperature of cooling medium (freezer air)
and more...

I don't call these variables "tricks", however, since that's not what they
are. There's definitely a curve waiting to be drawn here among the
variables - on one side the hotter water freezes first; on the other, the
cooler water does. My experiment, with the cooler water reaching 0
degrees first, but the lesser volume of the hot water, with less latent
heat, catching up to and passing the former in the race to lose latent
heat, seems to have cut very finely near that imaginary curve.

My conclusion? Hot temperature water _can_ freeze faster than cooler
water given the right starting conditions, but won't always. I suspect
you need to start with truly hot water and compare it to tepid water. I
mean, no one's arguing with Gord that 52-degree water will freeze before
2-degree water, right?

Mary Shafer

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Much as I have to provice references, John McGee details the entire
story of "hot water freezing before cold" in "On Food And Cooking".
He refers to the SciAm article that confirmed the empirical
observations of the schoolboy who first noticed the phenomenon. He
also presents the data he himself collected in the process of doing
these experiments.

In brief, if you put two open trays of equal amounts of water, one hot
and one cold, in the freezer, on a clean shelf, at the same time, the
hot water will sometimes freeze faster. However, if you then let the
ice thaw and remeasure the water, you will find that you have less
water from the hot water tray. The hot water has evaporated. This is
why it froze sooner--there's measurably less of it. Sometimes not
enough evaporated and the cold water froze at the same time or sooner
than the hot water.

If you cover the trays, or use covered containers, the cold water will
_always_ freeze first.

--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com

Mary Shafer

unread,
Feb 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/9/99
to
Mary Shafer <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Much as I have to provice references....

This should be "Much as I hate to provide references....

I just got back from the other building and it's cold and rainy and
windy and my fingers weren't working very well. It's really miserable
living somewhere that doesn't have much weather, only climate, because
one isn't nearly so prepared for the bad stuff as those who get it all
the time. My usually adequate demin jacket is soaked to the lining
and I'm still looking for my umbrella because I've got to go to my car
and leave (I refuse to be trapped here, waiting for the rain to stop).

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
Mary Shafer <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

--cut--


>
>In brief, if you put two open trays of equal amounts of water, one hot
>and one cold, in the freezer, on a clean shelf, at the same time, the
>hot water will sometimes freeze faster. However, if you then let the
>ice thaw and remeasure the water, you will find that you have less
>water from the hot water tray. The hot water has evaporated. This is
>why it froze sooner--there's measurably less of it. Sometimes not
>enough evaporated and the cold water froze at the same time or sooner
>than the hot water.
>
>If you cover the trays, or use covered containers, the cold water will
>_always_ freeze first.
>
>--
>Mary Shafer

Thank you Mary...what I find difficult to believe is that a litre of
water will lose so much water due to evaporation (unless you boiled
the hell out of it) that you could even notice the difference in the
freezing point between the 'lesser' amount and the 'larger' amount.

Let's say you put a litre of water at 75 deg C in one pan and a litre
of water say 5C in another...ok now, how much 'less' water is there in
the hot pan?...damned little less I'd say, are you telling me that
'that' much less water will make the ~litre reach 0C 'before' the
litre of 5C water?...of course the 'hot' pan will lose a little more
due to evaporation as it cools down, but will it lose enough to wipe
out that huge difference in temperature?...my common horse sense says
nah!, not a snowball's chance...and besides all that it's no fair to
start out with a different amount of water...we need to start out with
a fixed amount of water at the same temp...however, I think the cold
water will win anyway.

Squeaks

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Bubba wrote in message <79o47d$ldc$1...@server2.wans.net>...

snip

>the inside out' or hot water will freeze quicker than cold water (and
>Hot water actually freezes quicker. The latent heat of vaporization
>coupled with the convection currents of the steam help to remove more
>heat faster.


IIRC, the misconception on this thread revolves around the fact that the
rate of _evaporation_ is greater for hot water than for cold. This
initially gives a greater _rate_ of cooling for hot water, but the rate
slows down as the water cools, so by the time it gets to the original
temperature of the "cold" water sample, the cold water is approaching
freezing.

QED, the cold water freezes first, but the hot water had a greater initial
rate of cooling. My grammar school physics lessons were too long ago to
remember precisely, but it may be Boyle's Law that holds the key?

Cheers,

John Eacott
The Helicopter Service Australia

Andrew Yeung

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:27:33 GMT, gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord
Beaman) wrote:

>Bullshit...it couldn't possibly freeze quicker...look Maury, if you
>take two EQUAL amounts of water (at the same temp), heat one sample to
>say 50C, cool the other to 2C, put them both in the cooler. Now you
>claim that the warmer one will freeze first?...as Bernie says

Try the experiment, 1 at BP, one at room temp.

Andrew Yeung

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:31:01 GMT, gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord
Beaman) wrote:

>Let's say you put a litre of water at 75 deg C in one pan and a litre
>of water say 5C in another...ok now, how much 'less' water is there in
>the hot pan?...damned little less I'd say, are you telling me that
>'that' much less water will make the ~litre reach 0C 'before' the
>litre of 5C water?...of course the 'hot' pan will lose a little more
>due to evaporation as it cools down, but will it lose enough to wipe
>out that huge difference in temperature?...my common horse sense says
>nah!, not a snowball's chance...and besides all that it's no fair to
>start out with a different amount of water...we need to start out with
>a fixed amount of water at the same temp...however, I think the cold
>water will win anyway.

Try BOILING water, RPT try BOILING water. And appreciate the
difference.

Andrew Yeung

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:38:02 +1100, "Squeaks"
<eac...@helicopterservice.com.au> wrote:

>QED, the cold water freezes first, but the hot water had a greater initial
>rate of cooling. My grammar school physics lessons were too long ago to
>remember precisely, but it may be Boyle's Law that holds the key?

Isn't Boyle's law one of the gas laws?

Tarver Engineering

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Jim Erickson wrote in message <36C04E...@columbia.edu>...

>>Try any or all of these now, if you don't mind:
>
>>1) stick the tubes in a styrofoam block to limit heat loss through the
plastic.
>
>>2) use the -20 C freezer. The rate of cooling probably affects the amount
>>of evaporative cooling that can occur in a given time.
>
>>3) use boiling water vs. water at room temperature.
>
>>4) use containers that allow greater surface area.
>
>>Laurie Nyveen
>
>
>Sorry Laurie, I don't have the time to check a whole range of variable
>just to test a crazy hypothesis. I'm not convinced that hot water will
>freeze faster than cold under any conditions, let alone common ones.
>I'm not saying it's impossible, just that if it can occur, it likely
>requires a very special set of conditions. Which was Gord Beaman's
>point IIRC.

If you use an upright freezer and the system cycles hard you can get hot
water to freeze faster, but all things are not equal then.

John


Tarver Engineering

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Mary Shafer wrote in message ...

>Mary Shafer <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>> Much as I have to provice references....
>
>This should be "Much as I hate to provide references....


Sorry, spelling flames are not allowed.

John


keeg...@perkin-elmer.com

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In article <36c08e8e...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
gbe...@bigfoot.com wrote:

> Bullshit...it couldn't possibly freeze quicker...look Maury, if you
> take two EQUAL amounts of water (at the same temp), heat one sample to
> say 50C, cool the other to 2C, put them both in the cooler. Now you
> claim that the warmer one will freeze first?...as Bernie says

> "Bwhaaaaaahhaaaa"...


>
> Hell, even though the hot one loses it's temp at a higher RATE (while
> its hotter), eventually they'll get to the same temp (maybe before the
> cool one freezes (which I doubt)) how do you explain one losing temp
> faster than the other NOW?...they're at the same temp, they have the

> same amount of water...tell me bright boy?...do some magical higher


> physics machinations which have nothing to do with common sense and
> tell me how this could happen...while you're at it tell me how one
> sample will lose FIFTY degrees while another exactly the same size is
> losing TWO degrees...I say again (loudly) bullshit sir...

Not completely bullshit, but somewhat of a trick. Never tried this myself,
but the hot water will freeze quicker because the hot water evaporates more
as it is cooling and so at the end the amount of water is not equal. I am not
sure what the starting conditions have to be before this will work. It is
supposed to work better if the water is put into an insulated container.
Wooden water bucket instead of a metal one.

Stephen Keegan

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Maury Markowitz

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In <79q516$5d...@hpbs1500.boi.hp.com> "Jeff Crowell" wrote:
> But the 'why' is important, Maury.

Yes thank you, I didn't realize after five years of honors physics that
the reasons things happened weren't important! :-)

Maury


Jim Erickson

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
Mary Shafer <sha...@reseng2.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>Much as I haTe to proviDe references, John McGee details the entire


>story of "hot water freezing before cold" in "On Food And Cooking".
>He refers to the SciAm article that confirmed the empirical
>observations of the schoolboy who first noticed the phenomenon. He
>also presents the data he himself collected in the process of doing
>these experiments.

Mary,

I found "On Food and Cooking: the science and lore of the kitchen" by
Harold McGee (1984) in the library but could find no mention of the hot
v. cold water issue. I also checked Scientific American without
success. Our library had a very good index for Sci Am from 1946 to 1978
and I couldn't find any listings under water, ice, or freezing that fit
the bill. We have no good index for the more recent volumes but my
cursory glances through the later Amateur Scientist section indices
didn't help either. Of course, the stuff could well be there and I may
just have missed it (I spent half an hour trying to find the keys that
were right on top of my desk a couple of days ago). On the other hand,
perhaps you were thinking of another book. Any further help you could
offer would be appreciated.

Jim Erickson

Maury Markowitz

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
In <36C0A4...@columbia.edu> Jim Erickson wrote:
> Steve Evans wrote:

I didn't get his post - my server loses a full 1/3rd of the messages on
the net. UUNet really is a terrible hack.

> >Jim,
> >The error that Maury made was that this experiment is really a trick.

Oh come on! I am not in "error", the experiment works, I've don't it
myself. Nor is it a "trick", if you put the ice cube trays in the freezer,
this is likely to happen. I'm tried of people effectively implying that
I'm being intellectually dishonest.

Maury


Tarver Engineering

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to

Maury Markowitz wrote in message ...


Gat a refund, you were cheated.

John


Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
maury@remove_this.istar.ca (Maury Markowitz) wrote:
--cut--

>> >Jim,
>> >The error that Maury made was that this experiment is really a trick.
>
> Oh come on! I am not in "error", the experiment works, I've don't it
>myself. Nor is it a "trick", if you put the ice cube trays in the freezer,
>this is likely to happen. I'm tried of people effectively implying that
>I'm being intellectually dishonest.
>
>Maury
>

I can only assume that you meant 'done' and 'tired'...now then, I can
suggest a sure fire way to prevent people from implying that
Maury...take a guess?...and btw what's your answer re the
crankshaft/propshaft?...and have you yet given up calling a spinner a
nosecone?...<hoowee>!...hate to kick a guy when he's down but you're
such an easy target!...

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99
to
"Squeaks" <eac...@helicopterservice.com.au> wrote:
-cut--

>
>IIRC, the misconception on this thread revolves around the fact that the
>rate of _evaporation_ is greater for hot water than for cold. This
>initially gives a greater _rate_ of cooling for hot water, but the rate
>slows down as the water cools, so by the time it gets to the original
>temperature of the "cold" water sample, the cold water is approaching
>freezing.
>
>QED, the cold water freezes first, but the hot water had a greater initial
>rate of cooling. My grammar school physics lessons were too long ago to
>remember precisely, but it may be Boyle's Law that holds the key?
>
Of course, this is exactly right...gee...

Gord Beaman

unread,
Feb 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/10/99