Vacuum, atmospheric pressure and constant gravitational acceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores how vacuum pressure in inches of Hg affects gravitational acceleration on objects with known mass, specifically focusing on low-density particles like coal ash. It references David Scott's hammer and feather experiment to illustrate the impact of air drag on falling objects. The goal is to approximate the percentage of acceleration gain per inch of Hg vacuum pressure. The conversation emphasizes the importance of considering air drag as a significant factor in these calculations. A clear understanding of these principles can help in analyzing the effects of vacuum on gravitational acceleration.
Introyble
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
This isn't home work, just a curiosity question and I'm obviously under qualified to find the answer.

Looking to approximate how the amount of of vacuum in inches of Hg negate the affects of atmospheric pressure in regards to acceleration.

We all remember when David Scott let loose the hammer and feather.

Let's say we have a quantitive amount of vacuum pressure, how may we approximate the rate of gravitational acceleration on objects with known mass?

For example: Given a particle with a mass of 35 lbs/ft3 (or 721 kg/m3). Happens to be coal ash. What is the given approach to gravity (acceleration) at 10(-1) in/hg of vacuum. 10(-2)...10(-3).

My goal is to approximate the percentage of gain per inch of Hg on particles of low density.

Please, the more rudimentary your answer the better lol.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The reason for the difference in the experiments is air drag. So that is the key factor that has been omitted from your assessment. Go back and analyze it properly including air drag.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top