Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] buoyancy on a submerged pole



I propose an experiment to help me organize my thoughts.

An aquarium, filled to it's rim, has an empty box glued to it's bottom.
Enough SuperGlue to prevent any water from seeping under the box.

I would (naively) construct a Free Body Diagram for the box as having two opposing forces. One (upward) labeled Buoyant Force and the other (downward) labeled Contact Force or Glue Force.

The bottom surface of the aquarium is experiencing an upward 'Normal Force' that is N3 paired with the Glue Force of the boxes FBD. From equilibrium we can say that the upward force on the bottom of the aquarium is equal to the Buoyant Force acting on the box.

I'll wager that a careful measurement of the flexion of the glass will verify that the upward force on the glass is dang close to the weight of water displaced by the box.

What is wrong with this simplistic analysis of an everyday phenomena.

I readily admit that we're sweeping a LOT of complications under the rug of simplicity.

What complications need to be retained for intro students.

At 3:36 PM -0400 11/3/10, bennett bennett wrote:

> On 11/3/2010 9:33 AM, Chuck Britton wrote:
> (an off-list exchange - posted without permission - hope it's ok)
>
> At 10:14 AM -0400 11/3/10, bennett bennett wrote:
>> The way I see it, the force of fluid pressure on solid is normal to
>> the surface at all points, so the anchored pole, (with no water
>> pushing on the bottom surface), is not lifted by the water on its
>> side, unless the water is viscous and moving upward.
>>
>> If there is a notch, the pressure on the non-vertical surfaces of
>> the notch will stretch only the thin part of the pole, but the up
>> and down forces will be equal, since the vertical components of the
>> forces on the surfaces of the notch are equal.
>>
> And the way _*I*_ see it is that the top of the (totally) submerged
> pole doesn't give a flying-flip what's going on at the bottom of the
> pole.
> The top of the pole 'wants' to float, and it WILL if given a chance.
>
> How does the complicated contact force at the bottom change what's
> going on with the rest of the object??
> > (Still scratching my head vigorously)
>

By preventing the water from contacting the bottom surface.

--
Clarence Bennett
Oakland University
Dept. of Physics, (retired)
111 Hannah
Rochester MI 48309
248 370 3418
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l