[Phys-L] Re: Buoyancy question

[herbgottlieb at JUNO.COM (Herbert H Gottlieb)]

It is obvious that Michael has redefined the word "floating"
in this particular instance.

In the conventional sense, for an object to be "floating" in
water, the top of the object would have to remain  at least
one "rch" above the water surface and any additional
external downward force applied to the object would cause the
object to experience negative weight.

In addition, the average density of the 15.6g object would have to be
less than that of the water.

Herb Gottlieb from York City
(Where 15.6g objects of uniform density do not float in our bathtubs)

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 19:30:50 -0500 Michael Edmiston
<edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU> writes:
> Hey folks... in my last post I stated that today I successfully
> floated  a 15.6-gram object in 10 grams of water.  Doesn't that bother
> anyone?
> It sure bothered all the scientsts here at Bluffton.  They didn't
> believe it until I showed them.
>
> This means the dictionary definition of Archimedes Principle cannot
> be
> the correct explanation of bouyancy.  The standard statement of
> Archimedes Principle is...  "When a body is wholly or partly
> immersed in > a fluid, it experiences an upthrust or buoyant force
equal to the
> weight  of fluid it displaces."
>
> Excuse the fact I am using mass in grams instead of force in
> newtons.
> My 15.6-gram object was floating, but could not possibly have
> displaced
> 15.6 grams of water because only 10 grams of water were present.
>
>
> Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
> Professor of Physics and Chemistry
> Bluffton University
> Bluffton, OH 45817
> (419)-358-3270
> edmiston@bluffton.edu


Herb Gottlieb from New York City
A friendly  place to live and visit