Interview with Michael Troxel on
the Discovery of the Anarchic Nature of
the Freezing Point of Water.

The following is a transcript of an interview provided by Michael Troxel, a founding member of SAAP and leading anarchic physicist, in which he discusses his new discovery of the true nature of the freezing point of water.

Anonymous Reporter: Tell us, Mr. Troxel, how did you stumble across this amazing breakthrough?

M. Troxel: Well, it is quite a funny story. I had stayed up all night writing a research paper and wanted to be facetious with my physics professor in our lab reports, so I started thinking of ways our experimental data could be shown to be right using systematic errors. And, well, it kind of fell into place. My original idea was that there was not a linearly constant value for the freezing point of water at any given pressure, but that instead the values followed a somewhat sinusoidal pattern. Work is by no means done. I am currently doing final run-throughs with the data and I think we are seeing less of a sinusoidal curvature than originally though. It may turn out to be a bit messier than that.

Anonymous Reporter: So, it just came to you?

M. Troxel: Yep.

Anonymous Reporter: Your critics have been cited as saying that your data is, in short, “screwy.” How do you respond to that accusation and others leveled against you and your newly risen order?

M. Troxel: I have every patience with people who are still incapable of seeing the truth. It is a harsh truth. You think quantum physics was hard to accept? This is a thousand times worse. People still do not understand why quantum mechanics work, we just know they do. We are starting to get experimental data, beginning with my own, and it is supporting our theories. I can assure you, however, that as a reputable scientist my data is strong and accurate.

Anonymous Reporter: Why don’t you tell some of our readers about your unique philosophy? I am sure most of us still are not quite sure what it is yet.

M. Troxel: Oh, of course, I would be honored to. There are traditionally three camps of anarchic physics: traditional, complete, and intermediate. Traditional anarchical physicists believe about what is commonly accepted today. That is, they are the traditional scientists. Complete anarchical physicists are a bit too rash, for my taste. They are like the people who claim that the world does not really exist, and we are just living a programmable set of experiences. Kind of silly, don’t you think? The third, intermediate, is the camp that my organization falls into. We just believe that physics is not as idealized as people usually make it out to be. We say that you should grow up and stop hiding behind lies that everything works out…it does not. It is complex. It is nasty. And that is all.

Anonymous Reporter: That is very interesting. Thank you Mr. Troxel for coming in today to speak with us. It has been a very interesting session.

M. Troxel: No, thank you, I’ve had a wonderful time.
©Associated Press

[attached is copy of actual research and preliminary work done by Mr. Troxel on the actual nature of the freezing point of water]

Heat of Fusion of Ice
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment was to measure, by calorimetric methods, the heat of fusion of ice.

Theory and Procedure: Heat of fusion is similar to specific heat in that it measures the amount of heat needed to change a unit mass of a substance from the solid to the liquid state at a given temperature, instead of merely heating it one degree. Mathematically, this is represented by the equation Q=mHr, where Q is heat added and m is mass.

In this experiment, a known mass of ice was allowed to completely melt in a known mass of water at a known temperature to a measured temperature in a calorimeter. Because energy is conserved in a calorimeter, Heat lost by aluminum cup + heat lost by warm water = heat gained by ice + heat gained by melted ice, or

mal cal(Th-T) + mw cw(Th-T) = mice Hf + mice cw(T-0o),

where: mal = mass of inner aluminum calorimeter cup
cal = specific heat of aluminum = .22 cal/g(oC)
Th = warm temperature of water and aluminum cup before ice is added
0o = temperature the ice starts at
T = equilibrium temperature after the ice has melted
Mw = mass of warm water in cup
Cw – specific heat of water = 1 cal/g(oC)
Mice = mass of ice
Using the experimental quantities to calculate the equation above yields the heat of fusion of ice.

Data: mass of inner aluminum cup = 56.9g

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
mass of water and cup (g) 207.3 226.7 216.7
mass of water, ice, and cup(g) 221.3 247.7 233.7
mass of water (g) 150.4 169.8 159.8
mass of ice (g) 14 21 17
Th (C) 43.8 45.4 45.2
T (C) 32.76 32.2 33.4
Hf experimental (cal/g) 84 83 87
Hf accepted (cal/g) 80 80 80
% error 5 4 9
Conclusions: The expected heat of fusion seems to be approximately true. By examining the experimental yields of the heat of fusion there seems to be about a 4 cal/g difference from expected. This can be accounted for by systematic errors, however.

Error: Error in this experiment seems to stem from flexibility in the freezing point of water. Seen in the equation “malcal(Th-T) + mwcw(Th-T) = miceHf + micecw(T-0o),” changing the freezing point of 0o to a more realistic function, nearly all error disappears. I am forced to assume that humanity has simply been amazingly unlucky in measuring the value only at times when it is indeed 0. Due to errors in other equations and laws, no one has been able to calculate this trend before now, either.

Post-Actualis experimentation and review of extended data compilation:

“After much experimentation, I feel confident in saying that the results require that the freezing point of water fluctuates in an approximately oscillatory manner described by an approximate equation of freezing point as compared with time of [(sinx)(cox)]/[tan(x-1)]-(1/2).

Thank you, and good luck to all my fellow scientists in their further research in this new and exciting field.”
HOME