Why Does Hot Water Freeze Faster?

1

PROFESSOR: Hello class! Welcome to “Advanced Application of Math and Logic in Natural Philosophy” class. Look to your left and look to your right. One out of five in this room will not pass the class.

2

STUDENT A: Sir, but there are only four of us.3

PROFESSOR: (ignoring the student) Ahem. During our first lecture, we will exercise the use of logic and thought experiments to unveil one of the greatest mysteries in the history of science. Even Aristitotle struggled solving this mystery. For centuries many scientists attempted to solve but failed. (drum roll) Why does hot water freeze faster than cold water?

STUDENTS B & C: (smile nervously not knowing whether he is joking or not)

STUDENT A: But sir, hot water needs to be cooled down before it can freeze. So shouldn’t cold water freeze faster?

PROFESSOR: Good point. However, that is not always true. It’s called the (writing on the board) Mpemba effect. Can anyone guess why? It’s okay even if you are wrong. Don’t be shy – that is why I am here.

STUDENTS A, B, C, & D: (silence)

(Satisfied with his authority and the full attention of his students, the professor continues)

PROFESSOR: Actually, experiments showed that hot water will cool faster than water at 60°C. But this is not the case with water below 60°C. Mpemba effect is a combination of multiple factors. Now let’s figure out each of them together. First, tell me what are the characteristics of hot water?

STUDENT B: It has higher average kinetic energy.

The water molecules move faster, which means that they occupy greater volume, similar to how an air balloon expands at higher temperature.

4

56

STUDENT C: Wait, that means that if cold water and hot water have the same volume, the mass of hot water will be less. This is because the evaporation is taking place and dissolved gases in hot water escape at a higher rate.

7

PROFESSOR: Great answers. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius and its density changes according to its temperature. Yes, so 1L of water does not always hold the same amount of mass. 1L of hot water will weigh less compared 1L of water near 4°C. However, the mass difference is slim even when we considering the evaporation of water molecule. So there has to be another factor that contributes to Mpemba effect.

STUDENT: But sir? What about supercooling of water and nucleation? Doesn’t lack of impurities and gases in water lead to supercooling, in which water forms crystal ice at temperatures below 0°C? It has been observed that water can remain liquid at -40°C. If hot water doesn’t have dissolved gas, shouldn’t it be hard to make it freeze?

8

PROFESSOR: (as if expected) Good point. Except Mpemba effect has been observed in both hot water and cold water removed of dissolved gases. Dissolved gas does not seem to contribute to the process of freezing. You could, however, make beautiful and clear crystal ice by removing dissolved gas before freezing. So what else? What else does hot water do?

STUDENT C: It evaporates faster than cold water..?

PROFESSOR: Yes, the water evaporates faster. But why? And so what?

STUDENT B: Well umm… the temperature of water is the average kinetic energy. At any time, liquid water has molecules with a range of energies. Although most of them have the average kinetic energy of the system, very few have enough energy to escape intermolecular forces such as hydrogen bonds and dipole-dipole attractions. If we were to look at a graph of number of molecules versus energy, it would look similar to a current IQ graph, in which the majority of the population has an IQ of 100 and few have over 140 and under 40.

9

STUDENT A: (towards student B) Hydrogen bond and dipole-dipole forces are too weak to contain water molecules in liquid form. It’s actually the atmospheric pressure doing all the work.

PROFESSOR: Please let him continue.

STUDENT B: So molecules with higher energy escape, lowering the average energy within the system, and this is evaporative cooling.

STUDENT C: Oh! So the hot water is not only being cooled through evaporative cooling but also from heat conduction and convection inside the freezer.

PROFESSOR: Good answers class. But that is not enough.  According to Dr. Takamasa Tkahashi at St. Norbert College, it takes 540 calories to vaporize one gram of water. At above 80°C, the rate of cooling by evaporization is high as vapor draws massive energy from water left behind. To give you an idea how much 540 calories worth, it takes 100 calories to heat up 1 gram of water to 100°C from 0°C.

STUDENT A: (excited) 1 Calorie is the energy required to raise 1 gram of water 1°C! In fact, scientists measured food calories by burning them and heating up water back in old days.

STUDENT D: Wow…is that why greasy foods have high calories?10

PROFESSOR: If we neglect heat transfer through radiation or conduction, water will freeze on a desert purely from evaporation. Interesting, isn’t it? We can use zeolites which facilitate evaporation through adsorption to make ice as well. A team of engineers at Rice University built a prototype of ice machine that uses nothing but zeolites and vacuum pump.

STUDENT D: (perplexed) But professor, when hot water reaches the temperature of the cold water, don’t both of them have the same evaporation rate?

PROFESSOR: (impressed and amused) Very good point. I might actually consider allowing one A+ in this class. To answer your question, let’s first consider extreme cases to facilitate our thought experiments. Imagine placing an ice cube onto a very hot plate. What happens?

STUDENT A: (desperate to not embarrass himself) Uh…The ice melts immediately? And while some water molecules evaporate, others boil around the remaining ice cube, making noise from gases and vapor escaping. Noise is also another form of energy transfer.

PROFESSOR: Yes but melting the process does not happen instantly. While the ice is melting, what is the average kinetic energy? It is somewhere in between that of boiling water and ice.

Now, we learned that the energy of liquid water is not perfectly uniform. The faster the change of temperature is applied the greater inconsistency of the energy. Hence, hot water being cooled down to cold temperature has a higher evaporation rate than cold water that remained cold for a prolonged period of time. I think you’ll need to elaborate on this one…

STUDENT A: Also, Newton’s law of cooling dictates that hot water will cool down faster regardless of the evaporation.

PROFESSOR: Yes, of course, faster moving molecules will bounce off of each other more frequently, giving and losing energy through these interactions.

STUDENT D: So that means… initially, cold water has a more uniform temperature. But when hot water is cooled, although the average temperature is cold, there are greater discrepancies of temperature among molecules?

STUDENT A: (being impatient) Yes, and that is why the hot water will be more likely to have molecules with higher energy, which escapes and cools the liquid faster.

PROFESSOR: Like washing a car with hot water during winter, evaporative cooling is more evident with larger surface area. So what else? Does anyone else have any more idea?

STUDENT C: Well… this may seem stupid, but what if Mpemba effect is caused by other effects such as the environment?

PROFESSOR: (intrigued) What do you mean?

11

STUDENT C: The freezer keeps the temperature below zero all the time. But when the temperature increases, cold air is introduced in order to keep the temperature constant. So if we place hot water inside the freezer, and due to heat conduction, radiation, and evaporation, the internal temperature increases, it will trigger the freezer to blow cold air. You need to elaborate on this… And thus, hot water will freeze faster.

PROFESSOR: Hmm…I like your creative way of thinking.

12

STUDENT B: Also, freezers have ice dusts inside. And hot water may melt these ice particles within the compartment at contact points of the bowl and the surface. Since water is dense and thus conducts heat faster, hot water will cool down at higher rate. The effect is similar to how ice water cools beer bottles faster than ice cubes.

PROFESSOR: Excellent point! Water is 829 times denser and transfers heat 25 times faster than air. Hot bowl of water sitting on slightly melted ice will definitely cool faster than cold bowl of water sitting on ice dust. Water covers more surface area as well. But aren’t you slightly underage to know how to cool beer bottles?

STUDENT A: (hungry for attention) Sir, what about infrared radiation? We know hot objects emit electromagnetic radiation and thus release energy at a faster pace. A combination of this and everything we discussed today will make hot water cool faster.

PROFESSOR: Now, do you guys remember how water changes its density? Due to heat conduction at contact points, a bowl of water will be colder at the bottom. Let’s consider a cold bowl of water. Cold water near freezing point at the bottom of the bowl will have lower density than water at near 4°C on top. Low density water will rise up switching position with water near 4°C. Neither upper nor lower part of water will freeze until that 4°C temperature is brought to 0°C.13

Now what about hot bowl of water? Hot water at the top has lower density than cold water at the bottom. Thus, cold water near freezing point won’t rise up. This means the water at the bottom can freeze before hot water is cooled to 4°C. This effect will freeze hot water faster.

STUDENT C: Whoa… there seem to be a lot of factors that play in Mpemba effect. We discussed mass difference, evaporation rate, freezer compartment effects such as more frequent cold air and melting ice at contact points, and how density can slow or speed up the freezing rate. I don’t think we can come up with anymore explanations.

PROFESSOR: Aha but we are not done! There are more. What are we forgetting class?

STUDENT D: (as if he had more than enough to learn) Not a clue sir…

PROFESSOR: (excited) The internal air pressure of the freezer compartment~!

STUDENT D: But how..?

PROFESSOR: (showing a video clip on a TV) Do you guys watch a BBC TV series called “Bang Goes the Theory”?

STUDENT C: Oh my gosh! I absolutely love that show!!

PROFESSOR: Let’s look at season 2 episode 4. In this episode Dr. Yan shows that when you quickly open a bottle there’s a cloud of white air at the opening. This effect is the opposite of how diesel engine ignites a spark by compressing air. (Professor demonstrates by opening a beer bottle). The air between the liquid and the cap is quickly expanded and loses energy. At this very instant, the temperature drops to around -30°C and this white gas you see is the condensed water molecules in the air.

14

1516

STUDENT A, B, C&D: (intrigued) wow…

PROFESSOR: As the ideal gas law states, hot air has lower density than cold air under equal pressure and volume. If hot water and cold water were placed in a separate freezer compartments, the one with hot water will have less air molecules inside.

STUDENT D: But professor, why?17

PROFESSOR: Because hot water will heat up the air inside the compartment. Of course, the longer you wait before closing the door, the more evident the effect would be. You all saw how quickly air cooled down when I opened the beer bottle. (Takes couple of sips of beer). You can create the same effect by opening the freezer compartment. Now when you open both hot and cold water compartments, the one with hot water will experience greater decrease in temperature; air with lower density will lose more energy when expanded at the same volume as air with higher density. This gives the last minute boost of freezing air to hot water compartment.18

But even if you don’t open the freezer, lower pressure will facilitate freezing. Can anyone guess why?

 

STUDENT A: As we can see on the phase diagram, the freezing point of water is higher at lower pressure. Hence, by lowering the pressure, hot water will freeze at higher temperature than cold water.19

PROFESSOR: Excellent! Although the boiling point is lower at low pressure, freezing point is higher. Since ice occupies greater volume than liquid water, applying pressure to ice cubes will turn solid into liquid. Not only does lowering pressure increase evaporation rate, it helps to crystalize ice!

STUDENT C: I see… Mpemba effect isn’t magic. It’s science.!

STUDENT D: (frustrated) But professor, none of these answers answer any questions at all! Why must water evaporate? How come its temperature is not uniform? How come its density changes with the temperature? Why all this?

20

PROFESSOR: This class is a natural philosophy class for a reason. Science is a study and observation of the universe, finding pattern in its chaotic behavior and thereby hypothesizing the answer with logic. And we test our hypotheses to come up with a prediction. We, scientists, ask the question ‘why?’ and dwell on solving the mystery. But the answer we find is the answer to the question ‘how?’  We observe the mechanism and apply it, but we still don’t know why the universe behaves in the way it does. For example, why does Earth create gravitational attraction? Einstein explained that it is because mass curves the space. But why does mass create a distortion of space and why does the distortion cause attractive forces? We don’t know. All we know is how mass creates gravity

Class, I encourage all of you to pursue knowledge with an inquisitive mind. Scientific knowledge is what shapes our future.

Class dismissed. Write me 50 pages on Mpemba effect by tomorrow.   It should be easy now that we discussed it in class.

21

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.