Buoyancy - block of concrete is being raised from a lake

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a buoyancy problem involving a 50kg block of concrete being raised from a lake. Participants explore the application of Archimedes' principle and the forces acting on the block when submerged versus in air.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss calculating the buoyancy force and the necessary lifting force, questioning how to relate these forces and the role of density in their calculations. There are attempts to clarify the relationship between forces acting on the block in different conditions and to derive expressions for these forces.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering guidance on how to approach the problem, including the need to differentiate between forces in air and water. There is a focus on ensuring correct notation and understanding the implications of buoyancy on the lifting force.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of using distinct symbols for different densities and forces, as well as the assumption of uniform lifting without acceleration. There is an emphasis on deriving expressions rather than reaching a final numerical answer.

  • #61
Ok I recalculated and got 0.39583Although if

F'/F is correct according to my expression I get a negative value asF' = mg - ρgV

And F = φgV
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Horror. Look at what you are doing a little longer. That way you can make do with one post instead of six, and we can handle the entire thread in three or four posts instead of over sixty! Slap, Slap, Slap :smile:

You are asked for F1 / F2. I don't know why you change notation so often, except perhaps you like to torture yourself.

On your sketch, F1 clearly points the same way as ##\rho_w\, gV##. If you want to write a balance, write F1 + ##\rho_w\, gV## = mg . Is that clear enough ? Read it over if it is not, don't quick reply.

In the next step, you can write F2 = mg = ##\rho_c\, gV##. Perhaps it is wise to use the same expression for the same thing. Why not change mg in the first to ##\rho_c\, gV## as well ? Less confusing, for you too.

In the ratio, you happily divide the numerator by V, but only the first term of the denominator. Aaaargh!

Then you swap to numbers, the last resort. A bit too early. To make up, you slap a dimension of Newtons on the quotient. No good. A ratio is a ratio and a force is a force. A ratio of forces is only a ratio and not a force.

Now, please please, write F1 / F2. Divide out properly and get something extremely simple.
 
  • #63
No you don't get something negative. But I'll wait a few posts until you see the light...
 
  • #64
Oh ok soF1 + ρgV = mgAnd this is the force in water? I'm just trying to get this as clear as I can sorry F2= mg = ρgV And this is the force in air and I want the ratio of

F1/F2

However in my first expression I can write mg as ρgV but that would be the density of concrete the same as the density in the second expression

So I would have

ρ(concrete)gV- ρ(water)gV = F1And F2= ρ(concrete)gVSo my expression becomes

ρ(concrete)-ρ(water) divided by ρ(concrete)

Sorry for the shoddy notation here
 
  • #65
And when I plug my numbers in I get

7/12Or0.583
 
  • #66
No need to apologize, and yes: you make me feel really happy by picking up the right thing!

In the end all you have is $$\rho_{\rm concrete} - \rho_{\rm water} \over \rho_{\rm concrete}$$ or indeed 14/24

Well done !
 
  • #67
I really don't see what was confusing me there! It was that pesky mg term I didn't think to change that as well! Thanks I won't forget this kind of problem! All part of learning I suppose! A lot more trivial than I though! Thanks so much for your help and for sticking with my irritating disregard for thought!

Cheers
 
  • #68
Being stubborn can be a good quality too, especially if you are right and the others are not.
 
  • #69
Shame in this case I was horribly wrong!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
13K
Replies
6
Views
15K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K