[Bored chemist]

I think it involves chemical energy, in the form of chemical bonds.

No.Lithium batteries can develop an internal short circuit. Used to cause the occasional laptop computer to burst into flames so laptop use was were banned from passenger aircraft for a while, then a few early Dreamliners caught fire thanks to the aircraft's own hi-tech lightweight starter batteries!

What makes you think that the energy is not stored in the form of chemical bonds?

Energy can be stored in chemical bonds, and it is absorbed or released when chemical reactions take place.
But in the case of ice and water, there are no reactions, so there is no change in energy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's how they did it a few hundred years ago.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ice-calorimeter-developed-by-lavoisier-and-laplace-14898943/

It doesn't show that the ice and water are at exactly the same temperature at every point.

It does; it's just that you don't understand it.
If you have ice and water at equilibrium, in a closed vessel surrounded by ice and water, what other temperature can it be apart from 0C?
Consider the following before you answer.
(1) That if you add heat to the system, you won't change the temperature, you will just met some ice.
(2) That if you remove heat from the system, you won't reduce the temperature, you will just freeze some water
(3) Since the ice and water inside the container is at the same temperature as the ice and water outside it, there is no temperature gradient across the container wall, and therefore no heat transfer.

So, if there was a transfer of heat, the temperature wouldn't change, and there's no mechanism for a transfer of heat anyway.

Those were not what I've observed in my experiment. The ice-water mixture in the large container couldn't prevent the ice-water mixture in smaller container from changing its ratio. Melting or freezing still happened depending on the ambient temperature.

[Bored chemist]

Those were not I've observed in my experiment.

There are two possible reasons for that.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Maybe you can understand if you've read the post as a whole, including which statement I was responding to. Otherwise, you'll keep wondering.

No that doesn't help because you have been told multiple time that the temperature would be 0C.  For some bizarre reason no matter how many times you are given the correct answer you continue to ask the question.

You haven't even tried.

[Bored chemist]

Maybe you can understand if you've read the post as a whole, including which statement I was responding to. Otherwise, you'll keep wondering.

No that doesn't help because you have been told multiple time that the temperature would be 0C.  For some bizarre reason no matter how many times you are given the correct answer you continue to ask the question.

You haven't even tried.

Tried what?
Tried doing an experiment badly?

Do you remember posting about this?

It's not a fallacy if they are an authority.

It seems like you haven't learned about Galileo.

Galileo did a thought experiment and overturned the views of Aristotle.
And then, because he was trying to explain it to people who were unaccustomed to actually thinking, he did the practical experiment.
So what?

Where I pointed out that Galileo already knew (from a  thought experiment) what the outcome of the real experiment would be. He only had to do the practical experiment because the people he was talking to didn't understand what he was telling them.

[Origin]

You haven't even tried.

When I was at university I did labs that proved to me that heat transfer is driven by the delta T. 

[alancalverd]

Melting or freezing still happened depending on the ambient temperature.

Wonders will never cease.

[alancalverd]

Try looking at it a different way. A sort of Galilean thought experiment.

Between 0 and 100°C, H₂O is a liquid
Below 0°C it is a solid
So what happens at 0°C?
Either the solid and liquid phases coexist in equilibrium, or they spontaneously vanish.
What do we observe?
They don't vanish.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Try looking at it a different way. A sort of Galilean thought experiment.

Between 0 and 100°C, H₂O is a liquid
Below 0°C it is a solid
So what happens at 0°C?
Either the solid and liquid phases coexist in equilibrium, or they spontaneously vanish.
What do we observe?
They don't vanish.

If ambient temperature is slightly above 0 degrees C, then water in contact with the container increases its temperature, increases its density, and sinks to the bottom.
On the other hand, If ambient temperature is slightly below 0 degrees C, then water in contact with the container decreases its temperature, decreases its density, and floats to the top before it freezes. The temperature gradient will form naturally through buoyancy.

[alancalverd]

Why do you keep repeating the bloody obvious? Or are you not aware that ">" is not the same as "="?

[Bored chemist]

The temperature gradient will form naturally through buoyancy.

No it will not.
Because, if all the water is at 0 C then it all has the same density and there can not be a gradient.

Why don't you understand that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The temperature gradient will form naturally through buoyancy.

No it will not.
Because, if all the water is at 0 C then it all has the same density and there can not be a gradient.

Why don't you understand that?

In my experiment, outside of the large plastic container was either -4°C or 4°C. The inner side of the container will be somewhere between 0°C and -4°C or 4°C.

[Origin]

In my experiment, outside of the large plastic container was either -4°C or 4°C. The inner side of the container will be somewhere between 0°C and -4°C or 4°C.

Then there is a delta T, so there will be heat transfer.  So your experiment will not address the question posed in the OP.  So you get to go in circles and never accept an answer to the OP.  Is this how you have fun, confusing yourself?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my experiment, outside of the large plastic container was either -4°C or 4°C. The inner side of the container will be somewhere between 0°C and -4°C or 4°C.

Then there is a delta T, so there will be heat transfer.  So your experiment will not address the question posed in the OP.  So you get to go in circles and never accept an answer to the OP.  Is this how you have fun, confusing yourself?

It shows the difference between theory and practice. What you think as obviously simple  might be hard to demonstrate in real life.  You can simply have faith to your theory without bothering to check with reality. Or you can try to improve the experiment to improve signal over noise ratio.

[Origin]

You can simply have faith to your theory without bothering to check with reality.

Absolutely wrong.  We are smart enough to understand the underlying principals and can apply them to different situations without having to run an experiment.
If I hit my thumb with a hammer it will hurt like hell.  I do not have to run an experiment to see if hitting my thumb with a crescent wrench will also hurt.  I can use my physic knowledge to realize it would also hurt.  You on the other hand would have the whole contents of the toolbox lined up and just keep selecting each different tool and smashing your thumbs just to make sure, I guess.

[Bored chemist]

In my experiment, outside of the large plastic container was either -4°C or 4°C.

Then you did a poor experiment.

[alancalverd]

What you think as obviously simple  might be hard to demonstrate in real life. 

I repeat, yet again, the wisdom of Sir Lawrence Bragg and the experience of one who spent many years measuring small temperature rises: if you get better than 20% accuracy in a heat experiment, you are doing very well. And believe me, getting from 20% to 0.1% requires a lot of engineering.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In my experiment, outside of the large plastic container was either -4°C or 4°C.

Then you did a poor experiment.

The main experiment is in the small containers. The larger container was meant to provide 0°C environment, which was shown to be inadequate.
It's possible to provide multiple layers of containers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We are smart enough to understand the underlying principals and can apply them to different situations without having to run an experiment.

Let's wait and see if  your confidence is supported by experimental results. This kind of confidence reminds me of ancient natural philosophers and classical scientist in the end of 19th century.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here are my main points in this thread :
1. Heat flows from higher temperature object to lower temperature object.
2. Ice and water at melting point has the same average temperature, 0C.
3. At melting point, water has higher internal energy compared to ice.
4. Local temperature can be different from average temperature.

Is there any point you don't agree with?

In my other thread, I concluded that temperature of an object represents its internal kinetic energy, although some refinements may be done to the definitions of internal and kinetic, in contrast to external and potential energies, respectively. The water and ice at 0°C have the same internal kinetic energy. Hence the water must have higher potential energy, assuming that no external energy is observed.
My hypothesis which I want to test using the experiment is that the water-ice mixture has dynamic equilibrium, which means that ,conversions occur in both direction at the same rate, instead of static equilibrium, which means that no conversion occurs at all.