Aluminium covered with gold submerged into water

In summary: It wouldn't be the first time that I was wrong. I'm having someone check my work before I guide you both down the wrong path.
  • #36
BvU said:
You still have to get rid of WA .

That's just W - WG right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Of course it is.
 
  • #38
Artj0m said:
VA+B = mA / ρA + mB / ρB = (mAB + mBA) / (ρA + ρB)
Before you go too far and get stuck anyway, I think there is something to be improved here. A sure sign of that is that the dimensions don't fit -- always a good check !
 
  • #39
BvU said:
Before you go too far and get stuck anyway, I think there is something to be improved here. A sure sign of that is that the dimensions don't fit -- always a good check !

I'm stuck haha
What do you mean? I'm not sure I understand you correctly.

( I've changed the M into W, so it fits the equation ρ = ρw * W/(W-T))
 
  • #40
What you found has a dimension mass. Should have been Volume
 
  • #41
So the equation we made is not useful? Or did the equation had to be something like this?

mA+B = ρA*VA + ρB*VB
 
  • #42
Artj0m said:
VA+B = mA / ρA + mB / ρB = (mAB + mBA) / (ρA + ρB)
Last + should have been a *
 
  • #43
Here is how I would physically solve the problem.
1. Find the volume of the object.
2. Find the weight of the object.
3. Determine the density of the object.
4. Look up the density of that volume of AL and calculate the theoretical weight.
5. Subtract the theoretical weight from the true weight.
6. The difference is the weight of the gold.

Here is how I would do that.

1. Suspend the water tank from the spring scale.
2. Using a string of negligible volume and weight , suspend the object in the water without letting it touch the container. The change of weight in grams equals the volume of the object in CCs.
3. Let the object rest on the bottom of the container and measure the change in weight from reading in step one. This is the true weight of the object.

BTW buoyancy has nothing to do with the solution.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
And with that we get the book answer ! Happily ever after (Have to admit it cost me a bit of effort too :) ) !
 
  • #45
Thanks you guys! :)
 
  • #46
mr166 said:
Here is how I would physically solve the problem.
1. Find the volume of the object.
2. Find the weight of the object.
3. Determine the density of the object.
4. Look up the density of that volume of AL and calculate the theoretical weight.
5. Subtract the theoretical weight from the true weight.
6. The difference is the weight of the gold.

Here is how I would do that.

1. Suspend the water tank from the spring scale.
2. Using a string of negligible volume and weight , suspend the object in the water without letting it touch the container. The change of weight in grams equals the volume of the object in CCs.
3. Let the object rest on the bottom of the container and measure the change in weight. This is the true weight of the object.

BTW buoyancy has nothing to do with the solution.
Hello mr, welcome to PF :)

Nice to have you join in. So far I've been proceeeding on the hypothesis that post #1 is a homework exercise, not a lab practice (after all, gold is rather pricey :) !). And there isn't much physics in there, but a lot of juggling equations, something that can be pretty awkward (we needed over 40 posts already!).

I don't agree that buoyancy isn't involved. As far as I know buoyancy is our W-T !

But I do like your practical recipe. Do you agree that your 3. result minus your 1. result gives W, your 2. result minus your 1. result gives W-T. And with that we are back to the original exercise !
 
  • #47
BvU said:
Hello mr, welcome to PF :)

Nice to have you join in. So far I've been proceeeding on the hypothesis that post #1 is a homework exercise, not a lab practice (after all, gold is rather pricey :) !). And there isn't much physics in there, but a lot of juggling equations, something that can be pretty awkward (we needed over 40 posts already!).

I don't agree that buoyancy isn't involved. As far as I know buoyancy is our W-T !

But I do like your practical recipe. Do you agree that your 3. result minus your 1. result gives W, your 2. result minus your 1. result gives W-T. And with that we are back to the original exercise !
After reviewing my reply, the the density of the object is not really relevant.

Only 1,2,4,5 and 6 are needed. Buoyancy is not a factor. Just the difference in weight between the empty, water filled, container and the container with the object resting on the bottom counts.
 
  • #48
This has been a great help! Thanks! :)
 
  • #49
mr166 said:
After reviewing my reply, the the density of the object is not really relevant.

Only 1,2,4,5 and 6 are needed. Buoyancy is not a factor. Just the difference in weight between the empty, water filled, container and the container with the object resting on the bottom counts.
I really don't understand how you can say that. Buoyancy is W-T and it definitely is an actual factor in the answer. And of course the density of the object is relevant. We worked out this whole thing by equating the ##\rho## of the object as expressed in terms of W, WAu, ##\rho_{Al}## and ##\rho_{Au}## on one hand and in terms of ##\rho_{H_2 O}##, W, and W-T on the other.
 
  • #50
Artj0m said:
This has been a great help! Thanks! :)
You're welcome. That's what PF is for.
 
  • #51
BvU said:
I really don't understand how you can say that. Buoyancy is W-T and it definitely is an actual factor in the answer. And of course the density of the object is relevant. We worked out this whole thing by equating the ##\rho## of the object as expressed in terms of W, WAu, ##\rho_{Al}## and ##\rho_{Au}## on one hand and in terms of ##\rho_{H_2 O}##, W, and W-T on the other.
Yes you are right since Buoyancy = weight of displaced fluid and I was using the amount of displaced fluid to measure the volume of the object.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Back
Top