Archimedes principle vs Atwood's principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the comparison of Archimedes' principle and Atwood's principle in the context of buoyancy forces acting on an upward moving sphere in a fluid, specifically water. Participants explore the implications of these principles, their definitions, and the discrepancies in calculated buoyancy forces.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates a buoyancy force of 4000 N using Archimedes' principle and 1600 N using Atwood's principle, questioning the significant difference.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the buoyancy force derived from Atwood's principle, suggesting potential misinterpretation.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of a Wikipedia article discussing buoyancy, with some participants labeling parts of it as "nonsense" and suggesting it should be removed.
  • A distinction is made between "buoyancy force" and "dynamic buoyancy force," with one participant noting the confusion arising from these definitions.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the validity of the Atwood principle in this context, with one asserting that it does not pertain to buoyancy.
  • There are discussions about the challenges of verifying information on Wikipedia, including the importance of checking references and version histories.
  • One participant mentions the need for fluid mechanics to fully understand the dynamics involved in buoyancy and drag.
  • Another participant highlights the complexity of fluid flow and criticizes the simplistic assumptions made in the Atwood principle's application to buoyancy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation and application of Atwood's principle in relation to buoyancy. There is no consensus on the validity of the claims made in the Wikipedia article or the relevance of Atwood's principle to buoyancy calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the ongoing edit war on the Wikipedia article, indicating that the information may be subject to change and may not be reliable. The discussion also highlights the potential for confusion due to overlapping definitions in buoyancy concepts.

  • #31
cjl said:
I'm not even convinced that that result is correct.
I didn't say so. I said that you cannot justify an equation even if it has some correct partial result.
So, I agree with your withholding of judgment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
abdo799 said:
I read the talk page about the atwood's machine , he is saying that this concept puts in consideration the inertia of the moving fluid that replaces the volume of the object .
That is just the standard drag in a medium. It will not correspond to anything you can calculate with that Atwood approach.
The acceleration of objects in water can exceed g.
 
  • #33
mfb said:
That is just the standard drag in a medium. It will not correspond to anything you can calculate with that Atwood approach.
The acceleration of objects in water can exceed g.

I know, i searched about this atwood thing in a textbook, found nothing
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
714
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
18K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K