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



Ahhh... so it's about the size of the remaining column above each point of the base, which is dependent on the volume of the box. That makes the removed downward force related to the volume removed, which resolves my question. Thanks!

jg
_____

From: William Robertson [mailto:wrobert9@ix.netcom.com]
To: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu]
Sent: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 22:44:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] buoyancy on a submerged pole

I'm not saying the two POV are equal. The fact that the force you
remove from the downward force is equal to the weight of the water
displaced is due to similarities in how the buoyant force and this
force are computed. I'd have to think about it more, but I'm pretty
sure the force you remove will be equal to the weight of water
displaced no matter what the shape of the box, provided there isn't
any surface area on the bottom of the box that is not in contact with
the bottom of the aquarium. For example, if the box is a pyramid, then
the volume displaced is less than a cubic box of the same height, but
you also are reducing the weight of the water above less than with a
cubic box all the way down the sides of the pyramid--more water above
the farther you go down the sides.

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.
Bill Robertson Science, Inc.
Stop Faking It! Finally Understanding Science So You Can Teach It.
wrobert9@ix.netcom.com
1340 Telemark Drive
Woodland Park, CO 80863
719-686-1609

On Nov 3, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Josh Gates wrote:

> Wait - I have a question:
> _____
>
>
>> At 7:24 PM -0600 11/3/10, William Robertson wrote:
>>> I agree that the bottom will flex up under the box, but for reasons
>>> outlined by others. The pressure exerted on the bottom of the
>>> aquarium
>>> just below the box is less than the pressure exerted on the aquarium
>>> bottom all around it. OK - that's fine by me. This force is
>>> dependent upon the surface area of the bottom of the box. Bigger
>>> box -> less downward force on the bottom. Except for the edges of
>>> the box, right? Those push down the same as the water above
>>> would've (less the pressure differential (times A) from the height
>>> of the box, I think).
> Not because of a buoyant force on the box,
>>> because you have removed the mechanism for that force, but because
>>> there is "less water" above that part of the bottom of the aquarium.
>>> And yes, it will be equal to the weight of the water displaced, but
>>> that doesn't mean it's a buoyant force pushing up on the box.Now
>>> this "force" - which I think you're arguing is equal to the force
>>> discussed above (the microscopic view, I guess) - is dependent on
>>> the volume of the box, which doesn't necessarily have any
>>> relationship to its bottom surface area. Is there a reason to
>>> think that these two POV really are equal?
>
> Thanks,
> Josh
>
>
>>>
>>> Bill
>> _______________________________________________
>> Forum for Physics Educators
>> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
>> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l