
#1
Sep1606, 09:00 PM

P: 3

Whar happens to the level of water when ice melts in a beaker




#2
Sep1606, 09:15 PM

HW Helper
P: 2,688

since liquid water is more dense than ice, the water level would go down because more water would be able to fit in less space.



#3
Sep1706, 04:29 AM

P: n/a

There is no change in the level. The ice floats because it displaces a volume of water which weights as much as the ice.
When the ice melts, it turns into water, that will occupy the same volume. (I am assuming that prior to melting the water in contact with the ice will be at 0 degrees C). 



#6
Sep1706, 01:50 PM

HW Helper
P: 6,931





#7
Sep1706, 03:05 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,789

Or the ice could be physically held underneath the water.




#9
Sep1706, 05:16 PM

P: 4,780

Ok, I will take a crack at it. Correct me if I am wrong Folks.
Let's take a differential element of water, where the top cube of the water lies at the free surface of the water. (i.e. the cube is just under the water). This cube has dimensions, dx, dy, dz. The volume of this cube is: [tex] dV = dx dy dz [/tex] the associated mass is: [tex] m = \rho_w dx dy dz [/tex] when water expands to ice, it increases by volume at about 9%, but the mass remains constant, therefore: [tex] m = \rho_w dx dy dz = \rho_{ice}( 1.09 dx dy dz )[/tex] So that means: [tex] \rho_w = 1.09 \rho_{ice} [/tex] We can now do a simple force balance to see our result: (weight of ice must balance buoyancy force) [tex] dF_b = \rho_w g dV' = \frac {\rho_w}{1.09} g (1.09 dx dy dz) [/tex] **Edit: Forgot the (1.09) infront of the dxdydz, thanks Gokul! Now we simplify and get: [tex] dV' = dxdydz[/tex] Where dV' is the volume of displaced water by the ice. Because dV' is equal to dV=dxdydz, (which was the original volume of differential water), the water level will stay the same when the ice melts. I just wrote this proof down myself, so if its got a mistake point it out! 



#10
Sep1706, 05:56 PM

Mentor
P: 40,905

On the other hand, if the ice is not floating but resting on the bottom of the beaker (exerting a nonzero force on the bottom of the beaker), then the water level will rise when the ice melts. In such a case the ice obviously weighs more than the displaced water, otherwise it would be floating. 



#11
Sep1706, 05:59 PM

P: 4,780

Not quite. I never assumed that. Take a second glance.
I started with a differential element of water just under the surface to see the volume it would occupy. Then I compared that volume to the displaced volume of the ice (that had the same mass as the water). I assumed the ice was some fractional distance from the surface, kdz, where k turns out to be 1/(1.09)^2. 



#12
Sep1706, 06:03 PM

P: 15,325

Simply put, the ice will float at a height where it displaces an amount of water exactly equal to its mass. If the volume of that block of ice happened to increase (for whatever reason), or even decrease (for whatever reason), without changing it mass, it is the volume above the waterline that will grow or shrink. The volume below the water line will not change, and thus the displaced amount of beaker water will not change. (It couldn't change! The volume displaced in the beaker water is directly created by the displacement from the mass of the block of ice, which hasn't changed in mass!) Since the amount of wtaer displaced in the beaker does not change, it has no effect on the water level.




#13
Sep1706, 06:06 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 11,154

[tex]dF_{weight} = \frac {\rho_w}{1.09} g dV_{ice} = \frac {\rho_w}{1.09} g dV_{water} \cdot 1.09 =\rho_w g dx dy dz [/tex] 



#14
Sep1706, 06:08 PM

P: 4,780

Thanks Gokul, you got it!
Dang, stupid last line threw me off.....grrrr! How did I do that! ...oops 



#15
Sep1706, 06:27 PM

P: 4,780

The way in which the differential element grows or shrinks is not needed in this analysis. All you need to worry about is how much volume the ice displaces, and compare that to how much volume that same element of ice would occupy as a liquid. The transient is not of concern. 



#16
Sep1706, 06:46 PM

P: 15,325

See attached pic. It's so simple that it should be intuitively obvious that the water level doesn't change.
(If anyone thinks my diagram can be improved let me know. But I can't see anything else it needs.) 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Formula: final temperature when mixing water with water  Introductory Physics Homework  5  
Tap water flow and water diameter at end of it (Bernoulli eqzn...)  Introductory Physics Homework  4  
energy loss converting water to hydrogen then back to water  General Physics  2  
HELP! relationship between rate of flow of water and height of water column  Introductory Physics Homework  1  
Basic question regarding triple point of water and physical properties of water  Introductory Physics Homework  9 