Hydrostatic Pressure: Radial Inwards vs Outwards

AI Thread Summary
Hydrostatic pressure acts in all directions, but its effect can vary based on the surrounding environment. For divers, the pressure from water is balanced, preventing a crushing sensation, while a balloon filled with water experiences outward pressure due to higher internal pressure. When submerged, objects feel radially inwards pressure, influenced by the surrounding fluid and container walls. The discussion highlights the difference between snorkeling and scuba diving, noting that snorkeling limits depth due to the inability to expand the diaphragm against increasing pressure. Understanding these principles is essential for safe diving practices.
Freddy86
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hydrostatic pressure is exerted in all directions but what determines whether it acts radially inwards or radially outwards. For example, if you are a diver you feel pressure from the water acting inwards, giving you a crushing sensation. However, if you fill a balloon full of water and poke holes in it, the pressure acts radially outwards?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Divers do not get a crushing sensation. That would be awful and no one would want to do it!

The pressure pushes a balloon out because there is a higher pressure inside than outside.
 
If the pressure is larger inside, the net force will be outwards. If the pressure is larger outside, the net force will be inwards. In the case of a diver the forces are equal (just about) with no net force.
 
russ_watters said:
Divers do not get a crushing sensation. That would be awful and no one would want to do it!

The pressure pushes a balloon out because there is a higher pressure inside than outside.


Thanks for the replies. So if you submerge an object in a jug of water then the pressure will be radially inwards on this object right? Is this because the walls of the jug are considered to be at greater pressure than the fluid then?

No I meant that if a diver went down too deep they get a sense of being squeezed (maybe crush is too drastic). I thought this was why the depth of snorkeling is limited as the deeper you go the more your chest gets squeezed so at a particular depth you cannot expand your diaphragm anymore and are thus are unable to breath.
 
You cannot snorkel very deep because you breath out of the air above which is indeed at a lower pressure, but you can scuba because then you breath out of a pressurized container. You didn't specify which one you're talking about.
 
Freddy86 said:
Thanks for the replies. So if you submerge an object in a jug of water then the pressure will be radially inwards on this object right? Is this because the walls of the jug are considered to be at greater pressure than the fluid then?
The walls will constrain the liquid, yes - otherwise it would break and all the water would pour out.
No I meant that if a diver went down too deep they get a sense of being squeezed (maybe crush is too drastic). I thought this was why the depth of snorkeling is limited as the deeper you go the more your chest gets squeezed so at a particular depth you cannot expand your diaphragm anymore and are thus are unable to breath.
"Diving" typically means scuba diving. It isn't the same as snorkeling. dauto is right; for snorkeling, you have to fight the water pressure to breathe (as does your snorkel - if it isn't rigid it will collapse). But for scuba diving, you don't.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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