[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My plan to improve the signal over noise ratio of the experiment is by improving heat insulation between the system and its surrounding. I'll build a multilayer styrofoam box, closed in all six sides. The box will be divided into 3 compartments.

Between first and second compartment is a thermal conductor, such as aluminum plate. While second compartment is separated from third compartment by thermal insulator, such as styrofoam plate.

Second compartment will be filled by 90% ice & 10% water, while first and third compartment will be filled by 10% ice & 90% water. Heat transfer with the environment should be equal between first and third compartment. If there are different result, it must come from heat transfer with second compartment.

Is there any objection to this plan?

[Bored chemist]

That's what I did,

I thought you said you did it at the wrong temperature

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

[alancalverd]

What if the particles have different masses?

The average remains the average. If all the members were known to be identical there would be no point in calculating the average since every member is completely representative of the population.

[alancalverd]

Is there any objection to this plan?

Only that it would be a pointless waste of the promising life of an enthusiastic experimental physicist.
If you get no difference, what would you deduce?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's what I did,

I thought you said you did it at the wrong temperature

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

Water-ice mixture in the larger container, which is outside smaller containers, is supposed to keep its temperature at 0°C.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is there any objection to this plan?

Only that it would be a pointless waste of the promising life of an enthusiastic experimental physicist.
If you get no difference, what would you deduce?

This experiment only needs to be done once. I can share it to Youtube for free so everyone can save their resources for something else deemed more important.

If the first and third compartments have the same ice-water ratio at the end of the experiment, it means that microscopic fluctuation and local temperature variation doesn't affect overall macroscopic heat flow.
Otherwise, microscopic fluctuation and local temperature variation does affect overall macroscopic heat flow.

[Bored chemist]

Water-ice mixture in the larger container, which is outside smaller containers, is supposed to keep its temperature at 0°C.

And, if it had, the inner container would not have been able to lose or gain heat.

So, the million dollar question is "did you use enough ice and water?"

[Bored chemist]

This experiment only needs to be done once.

No
It does not need to be done at all.
Did you see what I wrote here?

It's not how well tested the laws of thermodynamics are that matters here.
Again, it's Galileo dropping things off a tower.
He did not need to do the experiment.
He knew that the light thing and the heavy thing had to fall at the same speed- because he had considered what would happen if you tied a heavy ball to a light ball and dropped both.
The combined "thing" consisting of the two balls would obviously weigh more than the constituents.
So, if Aristotle had been right, the combination would fall faster than the heavy ball.
And the light ball would fall more slowly.
But how could the combined thing fall faster then the heavy ball when the light ball was trying to fall slower?

It's impossible.
Galileo knew that.

He only did the experiment for the benefit of the local dignitaries who were not clever enough to understand the logic.

Now we are looking at the laws of thermodynamics, rather than falling objects.
But, like Galileo, we have the advantage of a deep understanding.
We have known for a hundred years or so that momentum, angular momentum and energy are conserved.
We don't rely on experiments to know this.
We have a mathematical proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

And yet, we still have hamdani yusuf saying that, because he can't do a proper experiment, he doesn't believe it.
He refuses to learn, or even accept the science.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

He is even less well informed that those local busybodies for whom Galilei had to climb the tower and drop stuff.

and did you understand it?
Since the answer is known, what is the point of the experiment?

[alancalverd]

This experiment only needs to be done once.

I repeat: if you detect no difference, what would you deduce?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Understanding Conduction and the Heat Equation

I found this video quite informative and related to this thread.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Water-ice mixture in the larger container, which is outside smaller containers, is supposed to keep its temperature at 0°C.

And, if it had, the inner container would not have been able to lose or gain heat.

So, the million dollar question is "did you use enough ice and water?"

How much is enough?
I used water-ice mixture in the larger container more than ten times the volume of the smaller containers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This experiment only needs to be done once.

I repeat: if you detect no difference, what would you deduce?

If the first and third compartments have the same ice-water ratio at the end of the experiment, it means that microscopic fluctuation and local temperature variation doesn't affect overall macroscopic heat flow.
Otherwise, microscopic fluctuation and local temperature variation does affect overall macroscopic heat flow.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This experiment only needs to be done once.

No
It does not need to be done at all.
Did you see what I wrote here?

It's not how well tested the laws of thermodynamics are that matters here.
Again, it's Galileo dropping things off a tower.
He did not need to do the experiment.
He knew that the light thing and the heavy thing had to fall at the same speed- because he had considered what would happen if you tied a heavy ball to a light ball and dropped both.
The combined "thing" consisting of the two balls would obviously weigh more than the constituents.
So, if Aristotle had been right, the combination would fall faster than the heavy ball.
And the light ball would fall more slowly.
But how could the combined thing fall faster then the heavy ball when the light ball was trying to fall slower?

It's impossible.
Galileo knew that.

He only did the experiment for the benefit of the local dignitaries who were not clever enough to understand the logic.

Now we are looking at the laws of thermodynamics, rather than falling objects.
But, like Galileo, we have the advantage of a deep understanding.
We have known for a hundred years or so that momentum, angular momentum and energy are conserved.
We don't rely on experiments to know this.
We have a mathematical proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

And yet, we still have hamdani yusuf saying that, because he can't do a proper experiment, he doesn't believe it.
He refuses to learn, or even accept the science.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

He is even less well informed that those local busybodies for whom Galilei had to climb the tower and drop stuff.

and did you understand it?
Since the answer is known, what is the point of the experiment?

The point is, to identify internal or external factors which can affect the experimental result. In free falling case, people may observe that heavy rain falls faster than drizzle. Stone falls faster than sand or dust. Hammer falls faster than feather. In those cases, the influential factor is air friction. Your idealized thought experiment says nothing about it.

My experiment will determine if microscopic fluctuation and local temperature variation are significant. The follow up question would be are there other influential factors? Such as surface color of the separator, its roughness, thickness, heat conductance, enlarged contact area by pleats, etc.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's a thought experiment which inspired me to start the real experiment.

Let's say that at the beginning of the experiment, the system is in equilibrium, where average temperature is 0°C.

Temperature of the metal surface in contact with water is also 0°C. Microscopic fluctuation causes a spot to be slightly hotter, say 0.002°C, while another spot is slightly colder, say -0.002°C, but the average temperature is still 0°C.

The hotter spot will give some of its thermal energy to the water, increasing the water temperature at that spot from 0°C to 0.001°C while reducing its own temperature from 0.002°C to 0.001°C.
The colder spot will receive some of thermal energy from the water, freezing the water while increasing the temperature at that spot from -0.002°C to 0°C.
Those pair of interactions will increase the average temperature of the metal surface in water side to slightly above 0°C.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the metal plate, temperature of the metal surface in contact with ice is also 0°C. Microscopic fluctuation causes a spot to be slightly hotter, say 0.002°C, while another spot is slightly colder, say -0.002°C, but the average temperature is still 0°C.

The hotter spot will give some of its thermal energy to the ice, melting the ice while decreasing the temperature at that spot from 0.002°C to 0°C.
The colder spot will receive some of thermal energy from the ice, decreasing the ice temperature at that spot from 0°C to -0.001°C while increasing its own temperature from -0.002°C to -0.001°C.
Those pair of interactions will decrease the average temperature of the metal surface in ice side to slightly below 0°C.

After the reaction, the average temperature at water side of the metal will be different than the ice side. This temperature difference may cause heat flow from water side to ice side of the metal plate.

Of course, there is a possibility that the water and ice in each sides react faster to the temperature difference caused by that fluctuation, hence maintaining the average temperature of each sides and preventing heat flow. But I couldn't find any reference about this. That's why I thought some experiments were needed to answer it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And yet, we still have hamdani yusuf saying that, because he can't do a proper experiment, he doesn't believe it.
He refuses to learn, or even accept the science.

Let me share what I learned about science in a fun way.

[alancalverd]

The hotter spot will give some of its thermal energy to the water, increasing the water temperature at that spot from 0°C to 0.001°C while reducing its own temperature from 0.002°C to 0.001°C.
The colder spot will receive some of thermal energy from the water, freezing the water while increasing the temperature at that spot from -0.002°C to 0°C.

Only if 1 = 2.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The hotter spot will give some of its thermal energy to the water, increasing the water temperature at that spot from 0°C to 0.001°C while reducing its own temperature from 0.002°C to 0.001°C.
The colder spot will receive some of thermal energy from the water, freezing the water while increasing the temperature at that spot from -0.002°C to 0°C.

Only if 1 = 2.

You can simply say that thermal fluctuation doesn't exist.

[alancalverd]

Why would I say that? The kinetic energy of the constituent atoms and molecules of any body can be assumed to be something like a boltzmann distribution, so at any instant some will have more and some less than the mean. But temperature is a statement of the mean, so if two bodies are at the same temperature there can be no net heat exchange between them.

Your post #273 simply does not make sense.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why would I say that? The kinetic energy of the constituent atoms and molecules of any body can be assumed to be something like a boltzmann distribution, so at any instant some will have more and some less than the mean. But temperature is a statement of the mean, so if two bodies are at the same temperature there can be no net heat exchange between them.

Your post #273 simply does not make sense.

So when a metal particle is about to interact with a water molecule next to it,  it must know the average energy of its neighbors before giving or receiving thermal energy.

[alancalverd]

Beware of anthropic models. People obey the laws of physics, not the other way around. 

And there is no reason why a single molecular interaction should depend (at least to the first order) on the kinetic energy of any other molecules.