[removed]

Not a physicist, but here's a real-life example:

If you have two ice buckets at a party where bucket one has a raised bottom (so the water doesn't touch the ice) and the other one doesn't, the ice in the one with the raised bottom will last longer.

Ergo: Letting your cube stand in water will make it melt faster.

I'd definitely be interested in the link because I'd imagine it wholly depends on the container, in which you keep the ice-water mixture. A well insulating container, with a small surface area for the water would probably be worse than having the ice in a sieve over the sink. Where as a wide metal bowl should be better. What matters is how much energy from the surrounding air can be transferred into the ice. Water is a great thermal conductor, so I don't see how it could insulate the ice. If you add energy to a mixture of water and ice it will always melt ice. That's why a mixture of water and ice is always at the melting point (given the energy transfer isn't too fast and there is some agitation).

Anyways that's what I'd expect from the experiments I remember from my physics classes.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I found from my time in Norway that there are many distinct dialect differences that seem to be oriented around the landscape. I'd imagine that the mountainous terrain contributed to some amount of local isolation that fostered these changes in dialect.

[removed]

[removed]

Think about it this way...

Scenario #1: You jump into water that is 33 degrees

Scenario #2: You walk around outside when it's 33 degrees.

You're wearing nothing but a bathing suit in both scenarios. In which environment are you going to induce hypothermia faster?

[removed]

[removed]

Thermal conductivity of water is 0.598 W/m·K

Thermal conductivity of air is ~ 4.5 × 10^−2 W m^−1 K^−1

The disparity here is like... not even a contest.

Air and water of equal temp in the described scenario with controlled conditions leaves essentially no room whatsoever for the draining ice-cube to melt faster than the non-draining one.

> Empirically, not draining melts faster.

For that container material and geometry and those environmental conditions, etc. Dropping these qualifies gives an unequivocal statement that's not convincing, considering the various factors discussed in this thread.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Yeah there would have to be a range of tests with different container shapes and materials, ice cube size and shape, ice composition and density, ambient temperature and humidity, air flow, water flow, a bunch of stuff would have impacts

[removed]

I know this! This was an elementary school science fair project of a good friend of mine - four equally measured bowls of ice, two in strainers, half with salt. The strainers lasted far longer than the bowls, the salt didn't have much effect. Empirically, not draining melts faster.

As for the why, there's plenty of pontificating here. My own thought is that heat transfer from ice to water is much faster than ice to air (see liquid-cooling), and the hemisphere of water had a larger surface of contact with the bowl below and the air above to absorb warmth from.

[removed]

[removed]